SN9001 Incest Continues Apace, as Training Programs Launch

The ANAB-Smithers-ASCA triumvirate pushes ahead on their “make a standard no one asked for” business model, as they launch the first of what will no doubt be an endless number of ISO 9001 / SN9001 training programs for gullible companies within the snow and ice management industry.

If you missed the earlier reporting (here), SN9001 is an ISO 9001 variant for snow removal companies, created by registrar Smithers alongside the Accredited Snow Contractors Association (ASCA) with the help of none other than accreditation body ANAB. It is largely a cut and paste from ANAB’s last attempt to pull a standard out of its ass, the body armor standard BA9001. To date, not a single company has ever been certified to BA9001, and only about two have pursued SN9001.

Solution Looking for a Problem

There have been lots of problems with SN9001, beyond the fact that no one in the industry asked for it, and that ISO 9001 could have served just fine as is (and far cheaper) for the snow management companies. Most egregious have been the utterly false claims made by all three of the organizations that SN9001 may reduce insurance premiums for those companies that adopt it. A similar claim was made in the late 80’s for ISO 9001, but quickly abandoned when insurance companies said, “no way.” Only one insurance company — Mills — has kinda-sorta agreed with this, and as a (convenient!) member of ASCA , they are routinely trotted out to offer lukewarm reassurances. But even they have shied away from directly claiming any SN9001 certification would result in immediate reductions in premiums.

Next is the fact that the standard was developed by organizations that are supposed to be independent of each other. ANAB accredits Smithers to allow them to conduct ISO 9001 / SN9001 audits. They are hardly likely to de-accredit Smithers if something goes wrong, despite their obligation to do so. Smithers is supposed to objectively assess clients, many of whom are ASCA members, of which Smithers is as well. Given that Smithers’ executives Jeannette Preston and Gretchen Merriman have put themselves front and center as members of ASCA and developers of the standard, they are hardly in a position to issue major nonconformities to any ASCA member who may try to achieve SN9001, because it will immediately send a shockwave of resentment through ASCA.

There’s also the issue of costs. ASCA members get the SN9001 and related industry standards (ANSI/ASCA A1000) for free, but non-members have to pay more than $400 for them. This favoritism tilts towards ASCA members, and should have triggered a red flag with ANAB, since it threatens objectivity. But it’s only a technical foul, not an actual nonconformity, so ANAB has presumably looked the other way. And, again, if they hadn’t, there would be no standard, and they would make no money from Smithers for their accreditation.

Looking the Other Way is Still, Technically, “Looking”

A few other things ANAB has seen fit to ignore: accreditation rules require that ANAB only accredit Smithers if it can prove that it has auditors with the appropriate industry experience (SIC codes, etc.) for the snow and ice industry. It does not appear that Smithers has anyone with this credential, and is sending out auditors with other experience and claiming it as relevant. They will contest this claim, of course, but it’s unlikely they hired anyone from the S&I industry.

ANAB is also ignoring the fact that there are no other registrars which offer SN9001 (although Orion and PJR are looking into it), and this creates a monopoly problem that dramatically harms the objective process. ANAB could never de-accredit Smithers no matter what level of misbehavior they get into, because they have no other registrar to transfer them to. Now, ANAB will say they will enforce the rules, but no one with a frontal cortex believes this.

Thus, the relationships create an environment where any of them can do anything they like, say anything they like, and ignore all the international rules they signed up for, since there is far too much invested by them all to risk enforcement.

The only other body that should provide oversight would be the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) which oversees the activities of ANAB, but they are notoriously impotent, and ANAB currently holds the Chairmanship seat anyway.

Cold Shoulder

It’s an incestuous mess that appears to have intentionally left out the participation of the industry’s other major trade organization, SIMA. A review of the “canvass list” that ASCA used to vote on their A1000 standards shows that not only was SIMA left out, so was Oxebridge, and the listing appears to intentionally misrepresent the industries of the participants, in order to make it appear that they had broad support.  Nevertheless, ANSI accredited ASCA, and it’s worth noting that ANAB is a daughter organization to ANSI.

So we have an entire standard and certification scheme dreamed up by a threesome of companies who all take money from end users, shuffle amongst themselves, and lie about the potential benefits.

The Fourth Stool Leg

The missing element had been training and consulting, something that any of the three would be prohibited from conducting due to their roles. One private consultant – Ed Nelson – had popped up, with dubious and unverifiable credentials, but he appears to have generated few if any actual clients. Of course, he’s a member of ASCA, and is listed on the Smithers website, completing the circle.

Now ASCA and Smithers have joined forces again to offer a totally wacky training presentation on preparation for ISO 9001 / SN9001. The Snowfighters Institute, founded by ASCA co-founder John Allin, is hosting $995-a-pop training programs given by none other than ASCA’s Kevin Gilbride, Smithers’ Gretchen Merriman, and Allin himself. Allin is reportedly the top architect, if not the sole author, of ASCA’s A1000 standards. The training materials include some conveniently placed misinformation that serves only to send money into the coffers of the three usual suspects.

First, it sells the idea that a “preassessment” by Smithers is necessary, and tells companies how to prepare for it. The truth, of course, is that preassessments are not required, and are just gravy for registrars like Smithers. The official ISO 9001 audit process does not mandate a preassessment, but this fact does not appear in the materials promoting the course, nor the event’s official agenda. Attendees will be robbed of this truth, no doubt.

Next, the event trots out the same falsehood that ISO 9001/Sn9001 may reduce insurance premiums. Clever enough not to commit himself to presenting this as fact, ASCA’s Gilbride instead poses the talking point as a question, presumably so he doesn’t get sued or investigated for conspiracy insurance fraud:

No doubt ASCA member and go-to insurance representative Mills Insurance will be there to nod approvingly, even if they aren’t about to reduce anyone by a penny.

Bliss is Ignorant

The Snowfighters’ marketing material appears to be written by someone with exactly thirty seconds of ISO 9001 experience. It falsely labels ISO 9001 as a “process certification” (it’s a system certification), implies that every company requires a “dedicated ISO manager” (not true), and comes perilously close to getting Smithers in extremely hot water (again) for linking its certification services with consulting, something prohibited under its accreditation rules. (But, again, ANAB is no doubt ignoring this.)

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that neither ASCA nor the Snowfighter’s Institute is ISO 9001 certified. So they bring exactly zero experience to the table on this. What’s stopping them from attaining the certification they are telling everyone else to get?

Lacking the objective oversight that is promised by international ISO accreditation rules, since ANAB is complicit in this mess, there’s no derailing this train from the outside. The good news is that it’s likely to derail itself. The companies that buy into the marketing of these self-feeding organizations will find out soon enough that their insurance premiums do not go down, their risk of lawsuits is exactly the same as it was before, and they just spent a lot of extra money for nothing.

ISO 9001 was developed as an international quality management standard applicable to any industry. It is more than sufficient for snow management companies, and far cheaper than what’s required for the additional SN9001 overhead. Furthermore, there are hundreds of potential registrars to choose from, as opposed to a single SN9001 registrar, so one can fire Smithers when they pull stupid stunts, and hire a more objective assessor. They can even find a registrar accredited by someone other than ANAB, such as Britain’s UKAS, if they don’t like the services.

So while it’s nice that some companies may be introduced to ISO 9001 that never would have been otherwise, doing so under false pretenses, by a group of companies with grossly irregular interrelationships, is not the way to win people over.

Let’s wait for the thaw and see what happens.

(Images: Disney, Rankin-Bass.)