There’s no perfect solution, but one simple one comes to mind: keep it short.

In that light, ISO could run a simple, one-question survey right now that would help give it focus on what the hell is actually wrong with ISO 9001, and why so many companies — the overwhelming, massive majority — have rejected their flagship product.

Now I could be a real pain and offer only to reveal my super-secret, super-simple method for $99.99 to anyone suckery enough to buy it, but in keeping with this horrendously unprofitable habit of mine of giving stuff away for free, here it is. The simple, one-question survey that ISO needs to be running right now, to ensure it’s own survival.

ISO’s MOST IMPORTANT SURVEY EVER.

Anticipated completion time: 10 seconds.

QUESTION: What do you think of ISO 9001?

ANSWERS (pick one):

• It’s good, we are certified to it.
• It’s good, we are compliant (but not certified).
• Never heard of it.
• It’s bad because it offers no tangible benefits.
• It’s bad because it’s expensive.
• It’s bad because it’s a scam.
• It’s bad because I don’t want anyone telling me how to run my business.
• It’s bad because of some other reason I can’t think of right now, but am nevertheless pretty confident about.

If the “it’s bad” options appear more numerous, that’s by design. We need to figure out why companies are avoiding ISO 9001, or dropping it. And in order to get those who either hate or have never heard of your product, you have to keep the survey short.

The keys to gaining any meaningful data from such surveys are sample size and response rate. ISO should push for near-universal sampling and send it to every company on the planet (well… try to) by using its clout with member nations, and then let the short survey length ensure the high response rate.

No charge for this one, ISO. It’s on the house.

“A Question of Competence: A Paper to the 2012 SAATCA Conference” was given by Iain Muir of Management System Facilitators, and discusses problems in determining the competency of conformity assessment auditors, including those for ISO 9001. The presentation discusses the key elements of competency, including knowledge, understanding, behavior, and skills.

A slide discussing “attestation of competence” includes two graphics: the first of a humorous “employee of the century” certificate, and the second of a fake US driver’s license issued from the state of “Mexifornia.” The latter features a photo of a stereotyped Mexican movie character with bad teeth, bandolier and sombrero, under the name “Jose Gomez Jr.”

The fake license indicates a date of birth as “not known” and the class as “illegal alien.” Under the designation for sex, the graphic reads “mucho”, and for weight “too much.” The license entitlements include “drive, attend college, purchase guns, and vote.” As if to show the character is illiterate, the signature is marked with an “X.”

The graphic apparently originates from www.mexifornialicenses.com, a site offering joke fake ID’s, including one which portrays US President Barack Obama as an illegal alien. The graphic was apparently created by a non-Spanish speaker, as the word “camino” is spelled incorrectly.

“Shockingly tone deaf,” is how Oxebridge VP Operations Christopher Paris describes the find. “That a professional discussing auditor behavior would not only resort to this kind of racist garbage is ironic beyond the pale. That apparently no one in SAATCA thought fit to admonish the author, and instead published the presentation on their website, worsens the problem a thousandfold.”

Iain Muir

Mr. Muir, who is white, is now the Executive Director of the Southern African Association of Certification Bodies (SAACB), an industry trade group consisting of South African registrars. His role with Management Systems Facilitators could not be independently verified, and the organization has no website or contact information. Mr. Muir is a current Director at the South African Quality Institute.

SAATCA first came to Oxebridge’s attention as the original source of the leaked ISO 9001:2015 Working Draft, and the organization still hosts the document on its servers. ISO is reportedly considering legal action against Oxebridge for publishing the draft.

]]> http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/?feed=rss2&p=1656 0 http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/?p=1653 http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/?p=1653#comments Sun, 05 May 2013 19:17:27 +0000 Christopher Paris http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/?p=1653 Read more → ]]> Yes, I am as surprised as you are by that headline.

While certainly less radical than some of Oxebridge’s previous attempts to improve the ISO 9001 certification scheme, I have no illusions that calling on ISO — a ship that does not right itself easily — to pause in its quest to produce a standard by 2015 is a done deal. It’s important, and probably near-mandatory for the survival of ISO 9001, as well as for the ongoing global legitimacy of ISO itself, but that doesn’t mean it will happen.

Also, the formal proposal has only recently been released, and only to a tiny fraction of the final recipient pool. Hardly “viral” yet, it has nevertheless leaked into unexpected areas. We’re already getting some great feedback and support.

I’ll post more as I get formal permission to drop names, but as of now here are signs of support:

• A former Chairman of a top ISO Technical Committee has written with support, and hopes ISO will listen
• The current Chairman of TC 176, Dr. Gary Cort, has asked to distribute this himself, to those he feels might be interested in reading it. (That shouldn’t be read as an endorsement by Dr. Cort just yet… his opinions are not yet known.)
• Messages of support have been received from Canada, Chile, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Belgium, India and Singapore… countries to which the document has not even formally been released yet.

Inside reports of ISO’s reactions have not been so glowing, and some staffers are reportedly livid.  The Geneva mothership is allegedly considering legal action against Oxebridge for leaking the already-leaked ISO 9001:2015 Working Draft, although I can save everyone a lot of money and simply point them to the Site Policies page with gives some pretty easy instructions on what to do if they really want to claim copyright (something that is not at all clear they can do in this case.)

Meanwhile, Oxebridge’s normal critics have gone full-dead radio-silent on the matter, which is tantamount to a full endorsement in such cases.

But being silent won’t help in the end, especially for those who receive the document. As we gear up for the next round of circulation (Western Europe and the Americas), recipients will be asked to formally support the initiative, even to co-sponsor it. This puts those who want this simply “to go away” in a box. If they do sign on, they will be asking ISO to do the unthinkable: break its own rules on standards development, and abandon the arbitrary 5-year rule in favor of putting out a superior product, albeit a late one. To remain silent, which appears to be the current preferred approach for Alka Jarvis and the US TAG, will almost certainly doom them to being held personally accountable when ISO 9001:2015 inevitably fails, and entire industry sectors abandon ISO altogether. It’s not science fiction to imagine that if ISO’s flagship product is destroyed by its own makers, the world may lose faith in all its standards, since legitimate questions will be raised about its development processes. Revenues will be lost, staffers sacked, and many people going home to polish up their failed resumes.

Is adherence to the wall clock really that important?

Clearly the first option is a better path. It’s always better to produce a much-loved product late, than a widely-reviled product on time.

If you can’t wait to receive your copy of the Public Call for Temporary Cessation of Development on ISO 9001:2015, just click here to get it. Spanish version coming shortly, and translators are being sought for other languages. (Contact us if you can help.)

Impatient to see what TC176 has in store for the world with ISO 9001:2015? Afraid another Mayan calendar glitch might end the world before they ever release the final thing? Can’t really understand why ISO is so weirdly secretive about a work that is supposed to benefit the public at large? Or maybe you simply want to supplement your income by giving paid speeches on the “Next Revision of ISO 9001″ like those US TAG folks.

Don’t fret, I’ve got you covered. But hurry and grab this now, it’s not likely to stay up for long.

CLICK HERE FOR ISO 9001:2015 WORKING DRAFT

Tips for Understanding the Draft

Now, various ISO management system standards, such as 14001 and 9001, will share common core language, as defined in the “Consolidated ISO Supplement – Procedures Specific to ISO,” and specifically the “High Level Structure” defined in Annex SL of that document. Get used to hearing that, because it’s going to become very popular, very quickly.

Annex SL defines a core structure and minimum clause requirements for the various ISO management system standards. The standards themselves will then expand on these core requirements, with specific requirements related to the concept at hand; for ISO 9001, that means quality management system requirements.

So this draft includes red text which represents the Annex SL common core requirements, along with black text that indicates the ISO 9001 specific language. Some sections are still to be completed, such as the annexes.

What do you think? My review will be posted shortly.

• Failure to fully develop the foundational Quality Management Principles prior to drafting of the Working Draft
• Growing negative feedback from stakeholders worldwide over the leaked Working Draft document (available here)
• Consideration by major industries, including automotive and aerospace, to “decouple” from ISO due to strong dissatisfaction with the development work to date
• Over two decades of ISO Survey data proving that global interest and acceptance of ISO 9001 is declining

Oxebridge asks that ISO consider taking additional time to ensure the resulting standard is accepted and bolsters ISO 9001′s status in the world, rather than rush a flawed document to print based on an arbitrary 2015 deadline. The paper is being distributed to leaders throughout the ISO development community, key sectors such as aerospace and automotive, and to every ISO Member Nation with a role on TC 176. The document is currently being translated into appropriate languages. The full English language document may be obtained here (PDF –  788 kb).

(A web-friendly version will be uploaded shortly.)

Normally I’d fire off a quick email about it, but the question presented such a perfect example of what is wrong with TC 176 and its ISO 9001 development process, I knew it needed a more considered response. Thus, this.

My friend’s specific concern was the impact on users of ISO 9001, a remarkable question in itself because it is almost never raised by anyone on any of the TC’s, WG’s, TG’s or other otherwise alphabetized committees within the 9001 development complex. It was heartening to see someone, after over a quarter of a century, asking what the impact would be on what must appear to be insignificant wordsmithing by the authors.

Here’s the short answer: it’s a huge problem.  A huge, expensive problem.

Butterfly Effect

In Lawrence of Arabia, Claude Rains’ character Mr. Dryden says, famously, “Big things have small beginnings, sir.” These obsessions with fiddling with minutiae, while ignoring consequence, are like cutting a pie improperly from the center: by the time your knife reaches the edge, you realize the slice is far too big, or far too small.

For its 2008 revision, ISO elected that the 9001 standard would have no new requirements, and only wording changes performed for clarity.  Consider, as well, that it took them eight years to make those minor changes, three years over deadline. This is proof that the TC 176 tinsmiths love tinkering, and more so, talking about tinkering. One thing will always be true about standards authors: they love to hear themselves saying nothing.

So the first expense incurred is that of the development process itself. Development time costs ISO a bit, but costs member nations a lot more, as they have to foot the bill for meetings, transportation, etc. Volunteers from all of the world pay their own way to attend meetings, flying in airplanes and taking trains and driving rental cars and eating hotel food. Now, granted, a lot of these guys are independently wealthy or otherwise funded, but it’s nevertheless a huge waste of money if the sole purpose is to change the phrase “monitoring and measurement equipment” to “monitoring and measurement devices.” Eight years for that?

That brings us to the second point: outlandish costs which eventually punish the ISO 9001 user organizations. The change in clause 7.6 (“equipment” to “devices”) is a great case in point.  I cannot reliably tell you the number of times that my clients have had certification body (CB) auditors write findings because the company did not update that single word in their Quality Manual. This has led to often contentious debates during audits, between the CB auditor who insists there is a difference in the words (“devices include equipment, but not the other way around!“) and the clients who sit there, dumbfounded, trying to comprehend why their expensive audit time is being chewed up with such an absolutely nonsensical, wasteful debate.

Likewise the ages-old argument of “continuous” vs. “continual” improvement; hint: no one cares about plateaus, and it’s certainly not worth writing nonconformities over.

Auditors weren’t the only ones making things bad for users of the 2008 amendment. Consultants sold the public a bill of goods, saying that additional training could be needed to address “the new requirements” of ISO 9001:2008, even as ISO insisted there weren’t any.  US TAG leaders spoke at for-fee dinner events, to explain the new, non-required requirements (or something). Jack West, Charles Cianfrani and Joe Tsiakals wrote three editions of ISO 9001:2008 Explained, because it apparently took that many editions to tell the public there was no change in requirements since their last tome, ISO 9001:2000 Explained. CB’s insisted companies needed to “update” their documentation to comply with the new wording, even though there has never been a requirement to align a company’s QMS documentation with the standard, and in fact it says so right in clause 0.1. And the AB’s failed to properly police the whole thing, lest they upset their revenue stream.

No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition

So bad was the problem, at least one incident made its way through the complaint process all the way to ANAB … sort of. After SGS auditor Ernest Blanchard wrote a nonconformity that a client had “failed to implement ISO 9001:2008″ because the language of the QMS was not exact (“equipment” was still referenced, rather than “devices”), a complaint was filed with SGS to have the nonconformance dropped. SGS initially refused, so it was escalated to SGS senior management. That resulted in the now-infamous angry voice mail message by SGS certification manager Zachary Pivarnik, who classified the complaint as “an inquisition.” That resulted in Oxebridge filing a complaint against SGS with ANAB, citing 11 violations of ISO 17021, including accusations that Mr. Pivarnik grossly violated objectivity and the rules for processing complaints with his crazy, off-the-hook rant. (Seriously, how does this guy still have a job?)

Because Mr. Pivarnik had injected himself into the debate, the client and I made an attempt to move the discussion to SGS’ Impartiality Committee, but Mr. Pivarnik simply — and incredibly — refused. ANAB was called in to rule on that, and sided with SGS, saying a CB does not have to grant anybody access to its impartiality committee, making the whole thing sort of pointless. ANAB also refused to rule on the fact that Mr. Pivarnik was now part of the complaint, and therefore was not eligible to conduct the corrective action; they just ignored that point altogether.

Rather than process the complaint properly, ANAB’s Randy Dougherty took to resolving the matter through phone calls, a frustratingly common tactic, as it ensures no record of the issue, other than a quick entry on the ANAB website.  SGS issued a hastily written “Continual Improvement” report which did not address the original complaint at all, and still refused to admit that the Ernest Blanchard finding was unsubstantiated by requirements. ANAB accepted it within a shockingly fast 24 hours, in order to close the book on the complaint. The original issue — regarding issuance of ISO 9001:2008 nonconformities against requirements that didn’t exist — was never addressed. In SGS and ANAB’s minds, the issue would just go away when 9001:2008 became the default standard, and all transitions were completed. They never saw the big picture that every 5 – 8 years, we have to go through this all again, whenever TC 176 makes what appears to be a non-substantial change in synonyms.

So… because a few people at TC 176 thought changing “equipment” to “devices” made sense, in just this one case, the following were incurred:

• CB expenses associated with the writing of a bogus finding, and the lecturing of the rationale
• Client expenses associated with time to respond to bogus SGS finding 
• Consultant expenses associated with time to file the complaint and assist the client
• CB expenses associated with defending the bogus finding
• AB expenses associated with moderating and closing the complaint
• CB expenses associated with conducting (however off-focus) the CI action and resolution
• Utter loss in faith by the client in all of the players: the CB, the AB and ISO 9001 itself.

But, Wait… There’s More!

A lone case? Not quite.

In another related incident, also (coincidentally) regarding SGS, auditor Bob Chickillo was discovered to have been giving a 90-minute “ISO 9001:2008 Training Module” to his certification audit clients, using audit time to do so. During the presentation, he would insist that clients needed to update their QMS to comply with 9001:2008, and would then train them on how, specifically, to do that. It was only after it was discovered that Mr. Chickillo had stolen a the presentation from rival registrar BVQi  and put his own name on it — in violation of intellectual property law — that he was shut down. SGS never admitted wrongdoing, no one ever stopped the auditor from using audit time to conduct training on nonexistent requirements, and clients were never reimbursed for the lost audit time.

ISO 9001 training provider Omnex sold a $149 “ISO 9001:2008 Auditor Transition” webinar, given by company founder Chad Kymal, claiming the course presented “the most comprehensive review of RABQSA, IRCA, key registrars, and ISO 9001 Technical Committee TC 176 requirements.” Bulk spam emails were sent to ISO 9001 end user organizations announcing the seminar series. I contacted Mr. Kymal multiple times, through emails and voice messages, asking him to give specific examples of the changed requirements, including those of “key registrars” and TC 176, and never heard back. Only Omnex knows how many companies paid for this, and so brazen are they, that even after alerting them that their marketing was bogus, if not criminally fraudulent, their advertising link for the webinar series remains in place even now. (Seriously, go see, in case you think I’m making this up.)

These are just examples I saw personally, and these don’t include the dozens of times I have had to edit client Quality Manuals to tweak the language to exactly align with whatever whimsical change TC 176 issues. Remember, I am just one guy with a small consulting firm. I can’t imagine the scale of the problem in the real world, multiplied over all those clients, over all those nations, across the entire planet.

Small beginnings, indeed, Mr. Dryden.

Purina 9000

Where ISO goes wrong is in its failure to consider the impact on users, and refusing to understand the certification process. The first of those failings can be remedied by ensuring greater participation by actual users of the 9001 standard, rather then relying on an aging population of retired execs and “high level thinkers” who have never worked a single hour under a system subject to their product. These men — and most of them are male — write books and give speeches and wear sashes, but have not a clue as to how their product is used. If any industry needed dogfooding, it’s this one.

By simply ensuring proper participation, this problem goes away. But ISO’s obsession with a flawed rule that every standard must be revised in 5 years, something they never actually achieve, ensures that the ultimate governor of standards development is the wall clock, not stakeholders or even common sense.

The second failure – to refuse to acknowledge certification – is more troublesome. ISO wants it’s cake while gorging on it. It wants to publish a standard targeted for certification, and will use certification numbers to spin its marketing in order to sell standards. But then it also wants to disassociate from certification, insisting that’s not the purpose of the standard and (especially when things don’t go well) reminding everyone it is not promoting certification, and has no role in it.

So the TC 176 authors never fully plug into the certification impacts of ISO 9001 revisions, such as the ridiculous SGS example above. Well, sorry, guys: your product is used for certification. Get over it. Embrace it. Understand your market, for God’s sake.

Once TC 176 gets this — and I mean truly and deeply “gets” it — then ridiculous tinsmith tinkering can be put aside so that those half-decades are used to glean better results. Let’s address the problems with the process approach. Let’s integrate some Lean, some advanced concepts. Let’s push the standard to result in improved product, not better adverbs. Let’s reach out and link to some truly useful related ISO standards, like those for risk management, configuration management and auditing, rather than attempt to go it alone. Let’s figure out how to involve the service sector without sacrificing the manufacturing sector, or vice versa. And for heaven’s sake, let’s bring document control rules into the post-mimeograph era, without stripping it so bare there are no requirements left.

Word-swapping will inevitably cost companies thousands of dollars in time spent updating documents and procedures, in auditors writing bogus findings when a client fails to do so, and in processing the inevitable complaints. Worse yet, it will further damn the legacy of TC 176 as an out-of-touch group that cares little for the considerations of their customers, the end users, and thus grossly contradicting the rules they are imposing on others.

We need for ISO 9001 to lead the advances in the quality sciences, not simply document them 20 years after the fact.

 I have checked our system and do not have any record of a Del Straight being or having been certified with us.

For years, Del Straight has advertised himself as a RABQSA Certified Lead Auditor, including using the RABQSA logo on unaccredited ISO certificates given to his customers. For months, he has refused to provide a copy of his certificate, or merely the RABQSA certificate number.

Now that he has been outed as intentionally misleading the public, likely in violation of Michigan consumer law, how long will it take before Mr. Straight corrects his website with a proper update?

It’s likely not to happen. When confronted with the usage of the RABQSA logo on a cert that appears on a former client’s website, Del appears to have merely accused — and then “punished” — his client of fraud. From LinkedIn:

The client in question – Parts Finishing Group – has been asked for a copy of the actual certificate handed to them by Del to see if it matches the scan included on their website. I’ll report back when we hear from them, but I suspect we already know the answer.

You have to love it when an unaccredited registrar just throws their client under the bus, and accuses them of fraud.

 UPDATE 4/23/2013: In response to our reporting, Del has updated his website to read, “Mr. Straight is a Trained Lead Auditor with a certificate from a training firm with RAB/QSA [sic] credentials.” I am still maintaining that it is deceptive, although less so, because the capitalization of the term implies that there is a “Trained Lead Auditor” certification offered by RABQSA, which there is not. He also indicated on LinkedIn that any certificates bearing other language alleging he is a RABQSA Lead Auditor are “expired.” RABQSA is still investigating his improper usage of their logo.

Injecting himself into a discussion about Guberman, Del Straight — he who runs unaccredited cert mill “QSRD” – first took a position against the certificate mills, and argued for a solution. From 4/12/2013, 10:40 AM:

Has anyone ever seen a NADCAP certification from an unaccredited registrar? If you haven’t there is a good reason, its illegal. Seems to me the problem could be fixed by following the NADCAP model. One registrar-no confusion. The US alone currently has 72 ANAB approved ISO 9001 registrars. Do we really need 72 registrars?… Under a NADCAP model, unaccredited registrars would cease to exist.

The very next day, 4/12/2013, I reminded the participants that Del Straight was, himself, an unaccredited certificate mill operator that had previously argued against what he perceived was an ANAB monopoly. I asked for evidence of his “Raytheon Presidential Letter of Commendation” and his alleged “RAB/QSA Lead Auditor Certification,” both of which he claims on his website. His tone changed, needless to say, and he actually threatened to sue:

When hiding in another country it is easy to fire off lies and half truths. Let me know when you get back. There are process servers waiting. If you would actually read the posts, you will find that I am posting in opposition to unaccredited registrations. I owe you no proofs. After all, who are you to me anyway? In fact, who are you? If anyone wants the real truth, feel free to email me personally.

Later, he also took time to explain how he perceives his role when issuing unaccredited certificates, like this one, complete with bogus RABQSA logo.

I am an internal auditor not a registrar. I comply with ISO 9001 because I am only auditing the clients compliance. I am not auditing my own work. Because I require strict adherence to ISO 9001 and I consider customer requirements and expectations, I write more nonconformances than most 3rd party auditors in less time.

Despite having said he was not auditing his own work, he contradicted himself in the very next sentence:

I have an advantage because when I find nonconformity, I can suggest solutions.

Every one of my customers is aware that I am a first party auditor. I make no claims otherwise and it states such on my website. I explain that thoroughly and they sign a document acknowledging that fact.

When fellow cert mill operator Zafar Chaudry came to Del’s defense, asking that the thread be closed, Del agreed:

@ Zafar Thank you! I am out!

The “Out!” is a Del Straight common exit phrase, one he used in a private email to me the last time he “quit” LinkedIn on 2/7/2013. This becomes important later, so stick with me.

Del only remained “outed” (so to speak) for an hour, when he returned to ask me what the definition of “first party auditing” was, something he just said he not only knew, but had his clients sign contracts regarding. (Needless to day, his actual auditing is 2nd party, not first.)

A half hour later, after confronted with the fake ISO 9001 certificate which used the RABQSA logo, Del offered up a curious denial:

Let me also go on the record as stating that I never put an RAB logo on any certification. Once a client placed an ANAB logo on one of my certs. When ANAB made me aware of it, I took legal action to have the cert removed from the internet and discontinued serving that client. The one cert with the RAB logo is probably the same. jpegs of logos are readily available on the internet. Anyone could cut and paste. If I were going to use a logo, wouldn’t I put it on all certs instead of just one?

Well, anyone could cut and paste, but it would take a lot of work to find out the exact Omnex training certificate number owned by Del Straight and enter it onto the image as well.

(The other logo is for bogus “accreditation body” US Accreditation Services.)

Del had forgotten that in a previous post during his Jan – Feb activity on LinkedIn, he had admitted that RABQSA had threatened him with legal action after discovering the use of their logo. (RABQSA has been contacted for comment, and their response will be added later.) But Del’s denial of actual, physical evidence was only beginning.

Again ignoring his own usage of a bogus “USAS” accreditation mark above his own signature, Del commented on Daryl Guberman’s equally bogus claim of accreditation:

As far as Mr. Guberman is concerned, I do not know him so I cannot judge him. For all I know he could be a competent auditor. He could also be a fraud. However, his claim to be accredited is unfounded and calls his integrity into question.

By 6:30 AM the next day, Del was again ready to quit, after being pummeled with questions from not only me, but others, accusing us of lying, and simultaneously arguing against the accredited certificates he had previously defended.

Your arguments would have weight, if they were not based on a lie. There are hundreds of businesses worldwide that make inferior products under the flag of an accredited registration. Anyone living in the real world knows this for a fact. Want to get concerned? How about companies with accredited registrations using counterfeit parts in aircraft, weapons and medical devices? When have you seen an accredited registration auditor actually get concerned with the clients product?

With regard to me, he went on to again throw hints of a pending lawsuit, and then quit for the second time in two days:

According to you it is OK to post lies, slander and things for which you could be sued, as long as you live outside the jurisdiction of the legal authorities.

I am done with this banter.

“Being done” only took a second, because he continued, now reversing his opinion of accreditation yet again:

If a NADCAP model were adapted, there would be no unaccredited registrations. If QMS audits were conducted in the same manner as a NADCAP audit of a processer [sic], a certificate would mean a quality product was made by the certified company. From this point forward, this is the only post subject, I will respond to.                    

That wasn’t the only post subject he would respond to.  Taking a few days off, he returned on 4/15/2013 to raise another question, taking a third position on accreditation:

Shouldn’t we be focused on the auditors Mr. Guberman uses not his certificates. Who are they? What experience do they have?

As food for thought, if you were looking to hire an auditor which would be the most important criteria? Accreditation or Experience? If you say both, is there a point where experience negates accreditation? Unless things have changed, to qualify for application as an ASQ certified Quality Engineer you needed an associate’s degree. However, the degree requirement could be negated by X number of years experience.

Alas, someone took him up on his earlier challenge, and emailed him personally regarding his alleged Raytheon Presidential Letter of Commendation. Del’s reply was then posted:

Straight forward answer. It was given to me and members of my team over 30 years ago. As a young Quality Engineer with Raytheon ESD in Goleta, California. I discovered a design flaw in circuit boards being used in Radar Jamming Devices for aircraft. It involved using solder as a mechanical bond (you should never do that in a vibratory environment.) I also proposed an economical solution and recommended recall and retrofit. I presented a lengthy report with diagrams, case studies, etc. Unfortunately, the chief design engineer refused to act on the suggestion. (A 25 year old kid wasn’t going to tell him how to design). Months later the field failures began. They implemented my solution. Gave me a letter and fired the engineer. The letter was signed by the President of Raytheon Corporate. The letter is both a commendation to me and an embarrassment to Raytheon. I was politely asked to remove the copy from my website and did so and I certainly wouldn’t give it to anyone in this forum.

When asked again to produce a copy, he refused. When asked if he could simply name the “President” that signed it, Del responded:

I can give you the why but not the who. The letter included dates. The date of my report and the dates the field failures began. One was a year after the other. That is as much as I can say.

He never gave any dates, but since Raytheon has not had a “president” since 1975, Del Straight would have been in his teens or, at most, 21 years old at the time this was allegedly issued.

Things got a little more bizarre — if you can imagine that — when Del not only claimed that “IOS” was a perfectly legitimate name for ISO, and that I should go after unaccredited certificate mills like 9000World.com . the only problem is that 9000World.com is a consulting website, not a registrar, and is already ISO 9001 certified themselves. In his defense, he merely blamed 9000World, saying  ”their website misled me.”

After reviewing Oxebridge’s new list of users of unaccredited certificates, he again hinted at legal action:

@ Chris Unless you want other process servers looking for you, you might want to revisit your list of companies that use unaccredited registration.

By this time Del had provided additional information to another poster, via private email, which they immediately shared:

What Chris does not tell anyone is that I give my audit clients those certs at no charge. Because that is what they are worth. It gives them an opportunity to quote on work that requires a cert to quote. The cert I give has a 1 year expiration date on it. Once my client gets work, I stay on as the internal auditor and direct them toward an accredited source. This gives them the opportunity to actually get work before they take on the major expense of an accredited source. 

If you feel as Chris does, that it makes me a villain or criminal so be it. Every client is aware of this going in both verbally and in writing and they sign the document. I am on site when they get their accredited audit and am available when they get a customer audit. I guarantee in writing that they will pass both. If they are given a nonconformance by any source, I help them make correction and answer the CAR at no charge. I stick with them thru final approval.”

I do all of this for about $800 per year. (The cost of my annual audit).

That is what I do. It works for me. It works for my customers. It works for their customers (because even they now what is going on). Unlike the picture Chris paints and will continue to paint, no one is being deceived.”

When the point was made that it is the public that is deceived by the false QSRD certificates,  and that collusion between Del and his clients may amount to conspiracy under the US RICO act, Del… well… exploded. The following is a literal cut and paste from the post, unaltered and unedited in any way (from 4/18/2013):

You people have been quite entertaining. You banter with someone that you do not even know nor do you even know if the one doing the writing is who he says he is. You can use any name you want to open a gmail, yahoo or msn account that doesn’t even consider hijacked email accounts. Tie that account to a LinkedIn account and presto chango I am whomever I want to be. I did have Mr. Straight’s permission though.

You have made a cause out of something that is perfectly legal, something that is not even forbidden by the owners of the standard and used words like villain, criminal and snake oil salesman. Yet, you chat regularly with sex offenders, people with multiple DUI convictions even a member of a known domestic terrorist organization and think nothing of it.

You typify the internet “mob mentality” subculture. You have an alpha leader that no one dares contradict. Many try to become the leader’s clone in order to gain acceptance acting and speaking in a manner that they would never do publicly. For now, your alpha leader has made unaccredited registration the most important thing you can work on. Tomorrow?

You have shown what nonverbal communication can do to a society.

Watch for our articles this summer in the Detroit Free Press. We won’t use names but you will recognize each other.

What happened in the above post is remarkable. not only did Del seem to claim his identity was stolen, it was done so with his own permission. Then he called his critics “sex offenders, people with multiple DUI convictions even a member of a known domestic terrorist organization.”

By 4/20/2013, the posts disappeared, deleted by Del, but had been screencapped prior and retained as part of LinkedIn’s real-time email updates of post activity. Del now took to apologies, while nevertheless ramping up the attack on Guberman:

I offer my apologies to Chris, John, Larry and Mary in all seriousness. I felt at the time that you were being ridiculous and apologize for thinking so. The issuing of a certificate without a proper audit should be illegal. It is a swindle. The issuing of a certificate with fake accreditation, as is the case with Mr.Guberman should carry civil penalties.

I will keep future posts professional and not personal. I would hope that you accept my apologies and reciprocate.

Ignoring his own bogus usage of the USAS logo, and as if his meds had just kicked in, he then posted as if nothing had happened:

If a company is fully compliant with ISO 9001 and they receive a proper and independent audit:
Does it matter if the registrar was accredited or not?
How does the accredited registrar make them more compliant?

If a customer does not care about the source of the registration, how are they being cheated?

An additional point, if a company does require accredited registration (not all do) it is an insult to their intelligence to think they could not tell an accredited registration from an unaccredited one. If then they accept the unaccredited one, they are not being cheated. They made an informed choice.

However, when an attempt is made to fake the accreditation by using an ABAB logo (misspelling intentional) they are trying to swindle. If they issue a certification without a proper and independent audit, they are cheating.

Again, the USAS logo on the Del Straight certificate was not mentioned. As if trying to get his boat into the prevailing wind, he instead took to attacking Daryl Guberman  head on, again ignoring the fact that he is earning money for the exact same behavior.

If I may put our differences aside for one moment. On the topic of this discussion, Mr. Guberman does not represent me or my philosophies. He called me last week asking for assistance. I would not provide any because I do not share in his thinking. However, here are some of the Red Flags that I took away from the conversation:

One of his first questions to me was “Who the ____ is Chris Paris?” Followed closely by “What the _____ business does this Mary Winch ________ have calling my endorsements. His language throughout the entire call was crude and laced with expletives. Not only do I find this offensive and unprofessional in a business conversation, I find it odd for a man who claims to be so religious. I am sure there is “Thou Shalt Not” that covers that.

On a related point, mixing religion with business is also is very concerning. For example, he asked if I could provide him with information to “Strengthen the Sling of David”. Does he feel that he has divine backing? Last I looked ANAB was not located in the land of Canaan and Randy Dougherty isn’t that tall.

The call was more of a speech than a conversation. On several occasions he launched into a rant about how the entire ISO system is against him because of his religion and vows to continue the fight in the name of God. He covered everyone from ANAB to NADCAP all of which are plotting against him. By the way, Chris , it seems that you, Mary and I are also now on his list of anti-Semites.

I am not Jewish but I am sure he does not represent Judaism. With the type of twisted, demented religious zealously he displays in conversation, I am Glad he does not live in my neighborhood. Not because I am anti-Semitic. But because I am anti-Nutjob.

If he calls again, it is going to voicemail.

So there you have it. The guy who calls his critics a “mob” that includes “sex offenders” finds Daryl Guberman’s “offensive and unprofessional.”

The last release of the annual ”ISO Survey” includes data as of 2011. The data showed continuing declines in ISO 9001 adoption in almost all geographic sectors, except Asia and, to a much lesser degree, Central/South America.

An impressive and imposing statistic, at least visually. This led ISO Secretary General Rob Steele to boast (emphasis added):

A number of markets where certification took off in the early 1990s are showing signs of having reached maturity. For example, overall, this is the case of ISO 9001 certification in Europe, but the effect is not evenly spread for Italy is the country that experienced the highest growth in certificates. The East Asia and Pacific region has almost overtaken Europe for the regional share of ISO 9001 certificates.

But, as is usual with ISO Survey spin, there are a lot of things wrong with this statement. Let’s look at the data.

Reviewing ISO Survey back as far as the early 2000′s, one finds that “Asia” has been a leader in ISO 9001 adoption all along, with China and Japan consistently in the top ten slot. That Asia has good ISO 9001 participation is nothing new; it is only because the rest of the world is dropping ISO 9001 that Asia appears to be growing.

But “Asia” itself is a misnomer. By examining the growth by nations in Asia, we can see that all but China and Japan (and, to a lesser extent, South Korea) have either flatlined or declined in recent years.

So claiming “East Asia and Pacific region has almost overtaken Europe” is misleading on two fronts, so far: Asia is not monolithic, and only 2 – 3 countries in that region are actually seeing growth, and the entire thing relies on the failures of ISO 9001 elsewhere in the world. Under this thinking, if every country in the world dropped ISO 9001 entirely, China would have 100% share, and ISO would brag about its exposure there.

But wait, it’s worse. When one isolates the China data, we find that even in that massive industrialized country, ISO 9001 interest fell, and then flatlined.

(Compare this with China’s industrial growth rate, and you see some interesting data.)

This is not the first time, nor likely the last, that ISO representatives have grossly misrepresented the data with soundbites designed to inflate the positive, and ignore the negative. I’ll have another piece shortly on some previous statements made by former ISO Secretary General Alan Bryden and ISO PR rep Roger Frost which are so contrary to the data, they can only be classified as intentional lies.

The problem this time is that while Mr. Steele and Mr. Frost continue to spin their story, they create a culture that ignores the world’s legitimate concerns with the post-2000 editions of ISO 9001, and thus doom the standard to further irrelevance.

We can fix this, but it requires honesty and courage, something currently lacking in Geneva.

1.) You have called ANAB a monopoly. You then entered into an exclusive accreditation arrangement with the Industrial Leaders Group. Whereas ANAB accredits multiple registrars, ILG has only agreed to accredit you. How do you justify those statements?

2.) If ILG is an accrediting body, why has it not signed on with the IAF multilateral agreement?

3.) You told Chris Paris of Oxebridge that the AS9100 scheme is “like the days when country clubs wouldn’t allow Blacks or Jews.” Please explain, especially in light of the exclusive arrangement you have with ILG.

4.) You also told Chris Paris that you defended university diploma mills, because the university accreditation system cannot be trusted. You pointed to the example of medical degrees from India, and said, “we don’t really know where those Indian doctors got their degrees from.” Do you see how this statement can be perceived as racist?

5.) You have said that Guberman PMC follows all the “standards and practices” of the IAF for accreditation. Can you name those standards and practices?

6.) Accreditation rules have strict limitations against conflicts of interest. But you list an accreditation from AMSN wich is owned by Donald Sadoski, who is also listed as the CEO for G-PMC. How do you justify this shared ownership, since it violates the standards and practices?

7.) You have released dozens of press releases using paid services, and later claimed these as having been written by others. For example, you said you were “covered by major national and international publications, newspapers and media outlets” and pointed to the Boston Globe. The Globe piece was actually submitted by you through Emailwire.com, a paid press release agency, and was not written by the Boston Globe at all. Please elaborate.

8.) You claimed to Chris Paris that you have “over 200 clients,” but we could only find about 15 unaccredited G-PMC certificates. In another press release, you claimed G-PMC is the “fastest growing certification body in the world” and that companies were “flocking in droves” to G-PMC. How many actual certificates has G-PMC issued?

9.) Your address is the same as that of The Plastics Factory. You also issued an ISO 9001 certificate to the Plastics Factory. Was this done in exchange for rent?

10.) You recently removed more than half of all the endorsements on your website. You claim that these were published with permission and “on letterhead” but ASQ and Oxebridge discovered that most of these were not published with permission, and in fact were photoshopped using corporate logos without permission. Please elaborate.

I’ve sent a copy of these questions to Daryl as well, in the hopes that if he doesn’t answer them at the ASQ meeting, he can provide an answer via email. Let’s see if he responds.