Snow Job: SN9001 “Standard” Furthers Industry Self-Cannibalization

by Christopher Paris

In case you hadn’t heard, there’s a new sector specific standard out called SN9001. It’s for the (guess) snow and ice management industry. Yep, those guys. Apparently snow management companies had to make their own standard, because ISO 9001 was so inflexible and/or generic (take your pick) it couldn’t be properly applied to plowing snow.

Emperor, Here Are Your New Clothes

The new standard is being pushed heavily by Smithers Quality Assessments, who has not even a shred of self-awareness when they boast that it was developed with the “assistance” of Smithers’ VP Jeanette Preston. Ms. Preston was the Director & Chair of the IAAR Membership and Bylaws Committee, and still a current “At Large Director.” According to a Nov. 30th Smithers email, Ms. Preston “helped steer the development process while implementing and improving the quality management system.”

(The IAAR is a closed-door “industry group” of some US registrars that has raised eyebrows as to why some US registrars need a closed-door industry group. They insist they’re not price fixing or colluding, so we can all breathe easily knowing that the curiously identical daily rates of US registrars is all coincidence or “market forces” at play. Seriously, read this and see if you have any idea what they do.)

Ms. Preston is also a member of ASCA, the snow management industry trade organization which, like so many industry trade organizations, was created by a publishing company, and which now sells certification to its members. You know, the ASQ model.

In a “Heads Up” announcement from August 2012 written by Director of Planning and Development Scott Richter, ANAB announced it had developed an accompanying accreditation scheme for Smithers SN9001, having worked with the Accredited Snow Contractors Association to develop the standard. ANAB is also a participant member of IAAR.

To date it doesn’t appear that ANAB’s SN9001 accreditation scheme is covered under any IAF recognition agreement, and ANAB still lists it as “in development,” so Smithers’ current activities in this area are apparently unaccredited. The lack of IAF recognition also means the resulting SN9001 certificates are not likely to be internationally acknowledged even if ANAB accredits them, although ANAB nevertheless ensures that “the program is not limited to North America.” Since ANAB runs the IAF, don’t expect any pushback, unless other AB’s or registrars wake up to this scam and complain.

ANAB claims the “snow and ice management industry consists of more than 10,500 businesses responsible for about $10 billion in annual revenue in North America.” Ignoring the obviously inflated figures (they are including both lone landscaping guys who shovel driveways, as well as municipal governments), and given that ISO 9001 has only penetrated 0.4% of the 6 million corporate entities in the US, this means ANAB and Smithers can, at best, expect about 4,000 new certificates. Sounds low, but given the state of things, they’ll take what they can get.

I suspect the real numbers will be in the dozens when the dust (snow?) settles; want to bet ASCA never releases actual certificate numbers?

Managing Risk by Adding, erm… Risk

So let’s recap.

A US registrar helps develop an ISO 9001 sector variant for a targeted industry of remarkably infinitesimal size, using the always-on-demand excuse of “managing risk” to justify it. ANAB joins in, creating from whole cloth an accompanying accreditation scheme, not (apparently) recognized by anyone else on the planet. Fees will be assessed between all parties, creating, from thin air, an entirely new revenue stream for something no one asked for. And they’re pushing it forward without any formal international recognition.

If you don’t believe me, take the word of an SN9001 supporter who, lacking any sense of irony, literally said, “[they] created a road that was not there before.” When you think about it, it makes sense; after all, what is snow plowing? Pushing stuff aside, leaving a big empty space, and charging people money for it. Now I get it!

All of this runs contrary to the ISO mandate that TC 176 “work towards minimizing the proliferation of standards in the field of quality management developed externally to TC 176 using a joint and cooperative approach with the ISO/IEC TCs and other bodies involved.” I suppose since the entire effort was done as an end-run around TC 176, that makes it okay, but all of these players are important figures in the same food chain, so they still have a responsibility not to dilute ISO 9001.

Smithers knows it; or should. On their own webpage they include this blurb about the ills of sector standard proliferation, to promote a white paper on Deriving Value from ISO 9001:

From the time the ISO 9000 series of quality management standards were released in 1987, there have been concerns that certification of a quality management system did not necessarily assure stakeholders that conforming product or service would be delivered to the customer on time.  To a large extent these concerns continue today.  In 1995 QS-9000 was introduced with the thought that things would get better.  This was followed by other sector-specific standards, TL 9000, AS9100, and ISO/TS 16949.

They’ll need to update that introduction with “other superfluous standards developed by Smithers.”

Tengo Hambre y No Hay Nada Para Comer

But like a lone survivor after an Andes plane crash, self-cannibalization is fair game to the starving; and that pretty much sums up the registrar/accreditation body culture. If they turn ISO 9001 into a joke by adding a variant for every possible niche, then so be it. They don’t care if they don’t leave a profession for their children to work in, they want that new boat now, dammit.

The irony is that this is a self-defeating endeavor. As Smithers works to undo the international validity of ISO 9001 through efforts like this SN9001 nonsense,  it will alienate its current clients, and shoo away potential ones. They send a loud and clear (if erroneous) message: ISO 9001 by itself is insufficient on its own. It doesn’t do what it purports to; it’s not for everyone. All of Smithers’ previous work in the field has been for naught, but trust us, this new standard will work, this time.

Companies aren’t that dumb. They know a craven land grab when they see it. To the tiny group of people responsible, this standard will be heralded as the next great thing. (Update: it’s started already.) To everyone else, it’s time to cue the laugh track.

Next: ISO 9001 for White Slavers

It’s fairly obvious what is at work here. ISO 9001 certifications are facing dramatic losses; since 2003, 40% of previously certified US companies have dropped their certification altogether. US registrars are either going out of business or merging. Less auditors are being hired. CMMI is on the rise, outside of the ISO sphere of control. Far less 9001 related accreditation fees are being assessed. Virtually all of the losses occurred after the “major rewrite” of ISO 9001 in 2000, and TC 176 is gearing up for another such reboot in 2015. The future is grim.

The only remaining way to survive is to create new revenue streams. In some cases these have been put forward by concerns where the distinction between the QMS requirements of 9001 and the particular industry are clear: ISO 27000 for information security management systems, for example. It deals with concepts outside of the scope of 9001.

Many registrars are moving to ISO 22000 for food safety, but that requires hefty fees and additional training, and everyone is doing it. The best bet is to make up your own standard. So the IAAR decided it could do just that by inventing a need where there previously wasn’t one, and they landed ASCA as their patsy.

But snow and ice management? This couldn’t be covered under the existing 9001 standard, and required an entirely separate (and more costly) industry-specific scheme? Who really believes this?

If this is the future Ms. Preston and the rest envision, I want in. I want a new boat.

Snow shoveling? Feh, I know how to take it further. It may come as a surprise that the vast US puppy mill industry, representing about 8,000 businesses, still does not have an ISO 9001 sector specific standard. Maybe “ED9001” for “Emaciated Dogs?” How about the rubber nipple industry? Patent trolls? Hypodermic needle recyclers? The monstrously huge spam industry?

I hear the US porn industry generates more revenue than snow and ice management and the IRS combined, and let’s face it, those audits would in interesting. I don’t think you’d be lacking for auditors like you are for AS9100.

Ms. Preston? Mr. Richter? Call me. Let’s get working on those. Since it’s abundantly clear no one in power cares about their reputations or the value of ISO 9001 anymore, what’s to lose?