Confusing ISO with Process

Confusing ISO with Process, can companies with inefficient, even “broken” process successfully go through ISO-certification? Over the years, I’ve encountered a number that have, which answers the question for me. ISO certifies that quality standards are in place, but it’s a poor indicator of how high the standards are and whether they’re the best the company can do. ISO certification also fails to gauge whether process has been designed to optimize customer experience, despite including numerous customer-related standards.

Nevertheless, organizations frequently confuse the two. Any thoughts on why?

After a decade of quality management system audit and consulting assignments internationally and in a variety of industries, I constantly encounter companies who prominently display their ISO certificate(s) even though they have "broken processes." The two primary contributing factors to this scenario are lack of top management commitment to the effective implementation of the ISO9001 or equivalent standard and incompetent ISO9001 certification bodies and/or auditors.

Dick, if top management of the companies you referred to were truly knowledgeable about the ISO9001 requirements & actively participated in the implementation, maintenance & continual improvement of their quality management system, they would know if their processes are broken, realize that their ISO certificate is meaningless and would question the value-add of their certification body/auditor(s) to their operation.

Lack of top management commitment to the ISO9001 standard has been and continues to be the number one barrier to effective implementation of the ISO9001 quality management system. Until this is resolved Dick, we will continue to encounter companies who display their ISO certificates while their processes remain broken.