Quality Standards Update

by Paul Scicchitano



Alternative Registration


Some experts believe that very few companies
will be able to take advantage of alternative registration.

Some companies may be able to save on ISO 9000 registration costs in the near future. But the questions of how much and when are still shrouded in mystery.

Qualifying companies-those deemed to have effective quality systems-in theory would reclaim some of the responsibility now delegated to third-party auditors.

The idea amounts to an alternative to the present form of third-party registration. First proposed by computer printer giant Hewlett-Packard Co. in November 1994, the alternative registration concept has only recently received widespread attention in the United States and Europe.

Here's how it works: Typically, North American companies undergo a comprehensive ISO 9000 registration audit once every three years. This usually involves an off-site documentation review, followed by an on-site audit that lasts anywhere from a day up to several weeks, depending on the size and complexity of the operation being audited.

Third-party auditors collect objective evidence that the quality system is functioning as stated in the company's quality manual. Auditors also verify that procedures have been put in place to cover key aspects of the system where quality could be adversely affected.

Following registration, third-party auditors conduct less comprehensive follow-up audits, commonly referred to as surveillance visits. Typically, these visits occur every six months.

Under the alternative registration concept, companies deemed to have effective quality systems would take on more of their own surveillance responsibilities. In return, they could save on the number of third-party audit days and registar travel expenses. So far, though, no one has come up with the definitive definition of an effective quality system.

While the alternative registration proposal may sound promising, it will not be an option for every company. In fact, some experts believe that very few companies will be able to take advantage of alternative registration. They also question whether companies will save money as a result of the increased effort each company will have to expend conducting more intensive internal audits. Proponents, however, say there may be more to the proposal than financial savings. The key is how companies view third-party registration.

Some companies welcome third-party audit teams, while others may consider them an intrusion on their corporate culture. In the latter case, companies may find it desirable to minimize the presence of third parties.
It is unclear what effect, if any, alternative registration will have on the credibility of the third-party registration system. Moreover, small to medium-sized companies are not as likely to be in a position to take advantage of this concept as large companies are. In general, look for large multinational corporations with multiple sites to gain the most.
The idea initially sparked opposition from a number of ISO 9000 consultants, trainers and registrars who felt it was tantamount to self-certification. But proponents, led by Hewlett-Packard and Motorola, have successfully taken their case to accreditation bodies and standards writers worldwide. The proposal now appears to have taken a much more moderate turn than when first proposed. But will it be any more palatable to the ISO 9000 community and major purchasers?

The proposal has gained major allies in recent months. The International Accreditation Forum, comprised of representatives from about 20 of the most influential ISO 9000 accreditors, recently cleared the way for pilot testing of the alternative registration concept.

The first tests are being conducted at a few sites in Europe and the United States. But the results probably won't be released for about a year, during which time ISO 9000 registrars and accreditors will try to determine if the effectiveness of the quality system can be sustained without the same level of third-party scrutiny.

The strongest reaction from major purchasers appears to be from the Big Three automakers-Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. These car companies incorporated ISO 9001 in their QS-9000 requirement and are relying on third-party registration to ensure compliance for thousands of automotive suppliers.

In a communiqué, the Big Three task force charged with overseeing QS-9000 said that under no circumstances would alternative registration be accepted from any suppliers. But even the Big Three acknowledge they may be forced to deal with this concept at some point in the future.

So might your company.

About the author

Paul Scicchitano is managing editor of Quality Systems Update, a monthly newsletter and information service by Irwin Professional Publishing devoted to ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 issues. For more information, telephone (703) 591-9008, fax (703) 591-0971 or e-mail isoeditor@aol.com.