Modern Quality Systems are useless.

Bureaucracy and paperwork have replaced what QA systems were designed to do.

Namely, ensure the product being produced meet the manufacturers’ specifications, and the end users expectations.

If the prospective purchaser does not like those specifications then they have 2 options.

1. Don’t make the purchase
   2. Suck it up.

Now though, all published Quality standards (ISO, BRC, etc) require that the supplier meets the Customers requirements.

That in my view is the tail wagging the dog.

Also QA departments of the purchaser add extra requirements, such as;

1. Having the supplier add the purchaser to their liability insurance
2. Having personal guarantees from the suppliers directors (especially if they are small operations),
3. Requiring all testing that THEY require be carried out, guaranteed and paid for by the supplier even if those required tests are outside the scope of the suppliers specification.
4. Demanding copious quantities of paperwork that does not have anything to do with the products being produced or purchased,

Companies are now more concerned about getting the paperwork right, than worrying about what they actually receive.

When I first started as a QA consultant and registered auditor back in the 1980’s there were 3 ISO Quality Standards;

ISO 9001 covered design and research, testing and the initial work done for the production of a new product.

ISO9002 covered the process to produce the final product of the item produced to the manufacturers specification; and

ISO 9003 which covered the final tests and checks to show the product met the manufacturers specification.

The producer could select what standard they wanted to use, and a number of manufacturers used ISO9003 where the final test results were checked against the manufacturers’ specifications only.

Over the years all these standards have been rolled into ISO9001 which to my mind makes for a bloated set of requirements that are completely over the top and not necessary for at least 90% of all current companies and businesses.

Why has this happened?

I think it comes down to the normal explanation of bureaucracy making things complicated so that people are forced to employ expensive “consultants” to help them make sense of the paperwork.

What do the consultants produce?

1. A number of manuals that get nicely bound and shoved in a bookcase that are very rarely looked at until an audit is required, and then only by the auditor (maybe).
2. An invoice from the consultant that has provided the boilerplate paperwork for the bookcase. When you read the number of QA manual I have, you see that the majority are all the same with minor changes namely with the company name. The SOP’s (Standard Operating Procedures) are supposed to be unique to the company, but that isn’t always the case either.
3. An ongoing bill from the consultant for updates, visits, audits and anything else they can add to the bill, including excessive travel charges.
4. An introduction to a Certification Organisation that has paid their fees to the national ISO accreditation organisation which gives them the ability to give you another larger invoice for checking the paperwork. Most times this is done using the “desk audit” method which means nobody does a physical audit, and so long as the supplied paperwork meets their interpretation of the standard then you receive a certification certificate.

What do you end up with?

Well, first of all you receive a certificate that says that you meet the requirements of the appropriate standard. Most times this happens even though no one from the Certifier Agency has ever set foot on your premises.

So now you have a piece of paper which says you meet the requirements of the standard, but no one has determined if the final product is actually suitable for the purpose it was produced for.

Let us look at an example for a product produced by a company that claims ISO9001:2008 certification from an internationally recognised Certification Organisation.

The company in question makes plastic clothes pegs. Not very high tech but it demonstrates the inadequacy of the various modern certification systems.

The initial ISO9001 back in 1980’s said that the product being designed and produced should be fit for purpose.

The current ISO9001 says that the product must be produced to the customers’ requirements.

Now this does not seem to be a change at all until you look at the underlying reason for the change.

Originally it was aimed at making sure that the end user received a product that did the job it was designed for in a reliable and consistent manner. Namely that the housewife had pegs she could use to use to hang up her washing on the wash line in the sun, with the expectation that the pegs would last a long time (like they used to with wooden pegs).

Now, the customer is the person, organisation or business that is buying the pegs to on-sell to the housewife. This removes the ultimate end use from consideration because the end user is not the customer. Most businesses want pegs that enable clothing to be attached to the wash line at the best possible price. The fact that the manufacturer is forced by the Customer (company who placed the order) to use plastic that degrades very fast in sunlight instead of the fibre reinforced nylon plastic that is UV tolerant is irrelevant to the standard.

So the housewife gets an inferior product that is not fit for purpose (in her mind), but does meet the requirements of the standard.

By changing the wording from end use to customer requirements it has allowed most standard certifications to not be worth the paper they are written on.

There is nothing stopping the customer requiring that the product breaks or destroys itself after one use, when the end user expects it to last a lot longer than one use. Under the new standards, failure for the manufacturer to meet these requirements set by the business purchasing their product means that they cannot claim that they are ISO 9001:2008 certified. They are therefore forced to supply an inferior product in order to get the business, and retain their certification.

In my view, this is not an ethical or acceptable business practice, and yet it is the current methodology of nearly every business I have worked with since the 1980’s.

Who is at fault?

All parties to this charade are at fault.

The QA Managers at the manufacturer and purchaser who are more concerned with getting the paperwork right and filed correctly so that their backside is covered.

The sales and purchasing people who are more concerned about saving a few pennies, with absolutely no care or interest about the ultimate end user of the product.

The engineering group who do not point out that the inferior product will eventually back fire on the producer and the buyer.

The consultants who are full of BS who do not understand the industry or processes they are supposed to certify or audit.

The Certification companies who take money under false pretenses.

The customer whose only method of making a difference is voting with their money, but as everyone is on this roundabout they are forced to choose between many bad choices.

Is it any better with Food Product and Safety Certification?

The short answer to that is a resounding NO!

My experience is that calling something Organic, Natural or using similar words does not make the food true to label, or any better for you than the similar product next door.

When certification started becoming fashionable (1980’s) then the people who were involved then were committed to the cause. Much the same as everything else, shysters and others who were only interested in making money moved in.

Why did growers want certification?

Because such a certification enabled the seller to get 50 – 100% price premium over similar products without the certification sticker.

Is that the day today?

Sadly no. The price premiums are still there, but lower than previous. What has happened is that the certification sticker is so widespread that it has become meaningless. In theory all “Organic” farms and processing premises are supposed to be inspected on a yearly basis. This used to be done by dedicated inspectors who physically went and got dirty. They moved stuff to see what was underneath, and rummaged through rubbish, took soil and air samples and spoke to the works in the field or processing plant. They did this to make sure that banned substances were not on site, and had not been used on site and hidden away from prying eyes.

Do the inspectors still do that?

The answer to that important question is a resounding NO in most cases!

Most “inspectors” these days do a desk audit only, never going outside the office and certainly not going somewhere where they might get their polished shoes and expensive suits dirty.

You see, what has happened is that consulting companies and other large organisations have taken over. They are only concerned about making money, and have no real passion for what they are doing. So long as the paperwork says that no banned substances or methods were used then the approval is given and a certificate is issued.

In some cases, too many to be comfortable with, a little koha (gift) will make the paper pusher inspector forgetful about something not quite right in the paperwork.

Current situation

The current situation is that any certification for any product, not just food, can be purchased for cash after a few days asking around.

This is a shameful situation that I can only see getting worse in the coming years.

Trust a food Quality Certification at your own peril. Do your own tests to make sure the product you are using meets YOUR requirements.

Kosher, Organic, Vegan, Halal, Gluten Free, etc, etc, certificates are all available no questions asked for the right amount of money.

Should it be like this? No.

This is just how life is these days. Sadly!

Your comments are welcome below.