ISO Certification

I've been involved with a number of quality systems over the years. Some good, some not so.

The "best" I have seen is one large multi-national engineering firm who's quality system is based entirely on "not getting sued". It had nothing to do with what I understand by "quality".

Many systems have the tendency to bog you down and tie you up with screeds and screeds of paperwork. Often they become unworkable and unused. They also need regular revision and updating to match business changes.

Unfortunately they discourage innovation and stifle flexibilty. You don't find many IT, Tech or creative firms with IS9000

The ISO 9000 stuff is designed primarily at producers of a physical product - say ball bearings - which need to be the same time and time again. They generally don't fit well with firms that are selling a service.

Its not that I think quality systems are a bad thing - quite the reverse - but they need to be carefully designed so they benefit the business and don't kill it with paperwork.

For small surveying firms a system that ensures you have a written contract with the client, a clear project scope with defined deliverables and schedules is a good thing. It could also cover good survey practice (closed traverses, level loops, checked backsights etc). It can be as simple as a check list of what needs to be in the truck each morning before heading out.

My definition of a good quality system is one that ensures the client gets what they need.

Just my $0.02

I used to work for the semiconductor arm of IBM, and they adopted ISO 9000. It was much like the other posters have described. It involved an in-person several-day visit by a team from various parts of the world, so imagine it was expensive, even not counting all the staff time that went into getting ready.

One element was showing there was a plan to react to bad products. Also, a plan was required to gather feedback from customers and act on that feedback. It makes sense for a huge company, where a design engineer in Vermont would never hear about a chip that went bad in Hong Kong unless there was a process in place to route the failure report to people who could prevent it from happening again. But in a small company where the owner is aware of all complaints, a formal plan is less useful.

At times I have searched the Internet for information about certification of tapes. I found many queries about how tapes of the kind you buy at Home Depot can be certified for ISO 9000 purposes, since all the tools used that affect the quality of the product are supposed to be calibrated on a stated schedule. The answer for inexpensive tapes used for non-precise work tended to be along the line of writing a document on how to visually inspect a tape for damage, and a requirement that the visual inspections be performed on an appropriate schedule.

I worked for a large Engineering/Surveying/Environmental firm in the late 1990's that elected to undergo the "ISO9001" Certification process. Teams within each department (Surveying, Engineering and Environmental) were formed, each product created or work process was initially identified, and the processes that went into creating each product were further identified. From there, each step in each process was identified and converted into flowcharts looking for any anomalies or potential for process error (i.e. a deviation from creating a consistent product). The teams would meet regularly and dissect each flowchart looking for problems in each process. Once none were found, those flowcharts would go into a master manual and become the "standard" by which each drawing was to be produced or each process was to be carried out.

The company spent an incredible amount of overhead dollars and time to make this happen. Unfortunately my career path led me to make a change just as that company was finishing up the Certification process so I do not know if the effort reaped any tangible rewards (i.e. additional projects and increased revenue) or what went into maintaining the Certification going forward, but I do know that it took 2 years to initially pull it all together and a lot of dollars and hours were spent to make it come to fruition.

Hope this helps~

Chuck

I run a small business and we first registered under the predecessor to ISO9000 about 25 year ago. At the time UK government organisations were starting to require certification from their suppliers, hence the need to take it on.

For a small business it wasn't too much of a hassle, since much of what was required was already documented "in kind". I suppose it took us about a year to put it together, mainly during spare hours.

Our final document consists of the "Manual", 18 pages which outlines the system and how it complies with each clause of ISO9000; the "Procedures", 55 pages which detail how we document and control each of the activities covered by the ISO headings; and the "Work Instructions", about 30 pages which cover the do's and do not's of day to day working.

Our experience is that it is a very good aid to consistency and it does largely catch errors and omissions. Equally importantly it helps to highlight patterns of small things which could develop into an expensive problem if not addressed.

Costs: obviously depend on the size of the business and by whom you are certified. We get one inspection a year, a full day, and the overall cost works out at around 1200UKP a year, plus the time we spend in running the system (which, of course, you should be spending anyway as good business practice). A suppose a couple of hours a month auditing bits of the system.

It's hard to give a figure for the time on individual jobs since that is mainly what you would do as part of the job anyway; check lists, recording sources of information, listing calculations and keeping the job file in order. Where it really pays off is when you go back to a job done 15 years ago by somebody who has long left the business and all the information is there in the file and easy to find.

I know a few firms who were certified but then have found that their present customers don;t require it so they have dropped the formal certification, but still run the system as it effectively pays for itself.

ISO9000 does work well for service industries: we do produce a product which has to be fit for purpose and most certainly has to demonstrate traceability.

First post, and reviving an old thread here. (Skip to bottom if this is too long of a read) I work for a larger engineering firm that is in the process of becoming ISO 9001:2008 certified. Element 7.3.20 of ISO 9001:2008 states:

"Processes are established to ensure that monitoring and measurement can be carried out and are carried out in a manner consistent with the monitoring and measuring requirements. Where necessary to ensure valid results, measuring equipment is:

• Calibrated or verified, or both at specified intervals, or prior to use, against measurement standards traceable to international or national measurement standards; where no such standards exist, the basis used for calibration is recorded;
• Adjusted or re-adjusted as necessary;
• Identified in order to enable the calibration status to be determined;
• Safeguarded from adjustments that would invalidate the measurement result; and,
• Protected from damage and deterioration during handling, maintenance, and storage.

The validity of the previous measuring results is assessed and recorded when the equipment is found not to confirm (conform?) to requirements. Appropriate action is taken on the equipment and any work product affected. Records of the results of calibration and verification are maintained.

When used in the monitoring and measurement of specified requirements, the ability of the computer software to satisfy the intended application is confirmed. This is undertaken prior to initial use and reconfirmed as necessary."

Yadda yadda yadda, right? Well... In order to "conform", we've gotta calibrate our equipment. Getting our total station (Trimble S5) calibrated to a "traceable ... international or national measurement standard" is proving to be easy. It came from Trimble (ISO certified) factory calibrated. We also have an R10 that is the same age of the S5 (neither of which are due for calibration, yet.)

The survey equipment affects deliverables. We need to be able to prove that all our measuring equipment has been calibrated to a national or international traceable standard. I've found a dealer to calibrate our S5 to such a degree. I'm having trouble finding a dealer to provide such documentation for our R10. And my largest concern, is our poles. A worn tip can affect elevations by as much as 0.03'. When working in industrial process plants, this can really add up. A slightly bent rod can only add to that. Yeah, I know, it's not THAT big of a deal... But I've been left in charge of keeping our equipment calibrated. I'm not a PLS, but I do lead survey parties under the direction of many PLS's.

Does anyone here know of any dealers, or have heard of anyone, ever calibrating prism and GPS poles to meet a national or international traceable standard? I've called in 6 states around Kentucky and have had no such luck. Thanks!

It goes back to the days that a person had to go to the county, state or what governing body was in control and payed a fee in order to be declared "Bonded".
ISO is a group that stands apart from corporate, personal and company control and acts on its own to create a standard in order to present what expectations should be and to compare everything else to.
To me is is another item on the already long list red tape that some entities want in place to weed out viable candidates and increase the need of more to pay in order to obtain contracts in certain circles.
Every other day this year one of my clients have upped their game and insists upon going paperless plus insisting upon asking all vendors to fill our and agree to a long list of requirements that include $1mil E&O insurance per contract and many other costly requirements to continue to do small surveys that are basically lots and small acreage with a residence for mortgage companies.
Told them last week that I am a Land Surveyor and when the conditions set forth by my State Board of Registration are met, I do not see the need for more regulations.
Today they sent me a project and bounced their requirement for me to sign something that does not fit our work relation.
😎