Yes, the ISO certification 9000 will still be relevant for the company because it has been pertaining to and referring to the quality of the system.

Nowadays, it is not anymore a differential item, but a requirement to participate in the better markets.

In my opinion, in some years (not so long), the ISO 9001 certificate it will be an requirement for almost all markets, just like a sanitation certificate in supermarkets.   

The ISO 9000 *certification* does by itself not have anything to do with some generic quality or number of defects etc. What the standard means is that there is a quality assurance process in place which follows certain routines. A simple example would be that a company puts in place a quality control process which includes some statement of quality procedure and assumptions of defects - but the number of defects can be high. We could certify a manufacture of TV's where out of each 1000 TV's we would have a *quality* assurance process where we would *guarantee* that we would have 40 TV's working. So the ISO standard only means that we could in principle be certified to make many TV's with very poor reliability and many defects. So to say that someone is certified is rather meaningless unless you actually read the documents that were used for the specific implementation of the standard. Many companies are certified with the most obscure *quality* assumptions. As you will notice if you ask to see the documents - many companies are quick to state that they are *certified* but not so quick to show on what basis... So how does this answer the question - well the ISO certification is in itself only valuable as a political statement - if people really are interested in quality - they need to look at the actual quality assurance process which is implemented - and that requires people to look at more than a piece of certificate. IS it relevant - this depends more on politics in the business to business environment than on some real world quality or excellence. We could be really good at being lousy with the certification. But it might look good in a political socio-cultural environment - image making. PR and marketing.

Salam Mohd Norhasni, Silap tu...should be 'ISO9000 certification'.

A common misinterpretation of ISO certification is the assumption and expectation of perfection in the company's/organization's operation.

Basically the ISO certification awards is to verify or certify that there were 'some' element of compliance (audited on samples of activities) on  the specified quality standards. It proves that quality management system  as far as the documentation of practices (and vice versa)  are in place, and certainly not on every activities at all times. TQM itself is about vast of approaches, methods, tools and techniques involved.

I agree - on the surface level the ISO 9000 is not the same thing as the ISO 9001 (or any other incarnation in the series). I fully support the core of the answer given by Fausto Galetto.

And - Yes we could go into details of the ISO standard and the different subsets of ISO 9000. It would perhaps be appropriate, but perhaps we can also be generous in our interpretations? Let us just suggest that ISO 9000 is the headline - and there are quite a few *related* standards, which differ from each other. It is not unusual that people confuse the quality assurance of manufacturing processes with the generic idea of *ISO 9000*. While I agree this is often misguided it is not surprising considering the *abuse* of the ISO 9000 identifier in media headlines (including in companies marketing material). For those of us who have gone through the work with several of the ISO standards in the 9000 series - it is also a questionable to suggest that *they have very little to do with each other*. In my industrial experience I would disagree - as I am sure they have a lot to do with each other in the practice of quality assurance in a real world company - but indeed as administrative vehicles they can be disconnected. But I am an engineer originally so my interest is mainly focussed on the real industrial practice - not the administration of it.

the ISO 9000 is not the same thing as the ISO 9001

Yes.if we say  ISO 9000 series standards then the latter is a subset of former.

ISO 9000 essentially is a Quality Glossary,  for comprehending requirements  (Definition). The demanded requirements are spelled in the ISO 9001 

The other standard in this series is ISO 9004:2009. The version 2008 for 9001 is prevalent, while for 9000: 2005   is evidenced.  These are constantly updated, and newer version 2015 is in offing.

Dr P Thareja

Lead auditor and Lead Tutor QMS (ISO 9001:2008)

Right Priyavrat, people often confuse ISO 9000 with ISO 9001.

I also agree with Peter. ISO 9001 is a system, which is an instrument that allows to manage the quality. The success of this system depends on the wisdom of managers, mentality, approach to quality and so on. This is not a guarantee of product quality.

But remember that the quality management system means the continuous improvement, therefore the percentage of defective products should decrease.

Lets share some of the TQM philosophy;

'Do not assume Perfection, but we have to continue working towards Perfection.'

'Zero Defect is a living objective but not a destination.'

'The Hard aspect of TQM (QA tools) will only works unless the Soft aspects (quality HR) are able to handle them'

In my opinion, I think the certification will remain relevant for the company , as it is a useful tool to add credibility, demonstrate your product or service meets the expectations of its customers.

The ISO standards are very beneficial in the quality system for businesses, and provide the basis for achieving these goals. All ISO standards are reviewed every five years to establish if a revision is required to keep it current and relevant for the marketplace. The future ISO 9001:2015 will respond to the latest trends and be compatible with other management systems such as ISO 14001.

ISO 9000 is a starting point to understand the rules, as it defines the key terms used in the "family" ISO 9000, or group of standards for quality management.

Standards in the ISO 9000 family include:

• ISO 9001:2008 - sets out the requirements of a quality management system

• ISO 9000:2005 - covers the basic concepts and language

• ISO 9004:2009 - focuses on how to make a quality management system more efficient and effective

• ISO 19011:2011 - sets out guidance on internal and external audits of quality management systems.

Right: The ISO standards are very beneficial in the quality system for businesses, and provide the basis for achieving these goals. However, it depends upon the soft aspects as mentioned earlier.

If the ambition to improve is alive, sky is the limit.

yes, how the limit to sky be scaled,

may read how much the standard be nailed! 

Thareja, Priyavrat, The Survival - Path on a Spiral (December, 23 2011). eMag Chandigarh Management Association. Available at SSRN:   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1976198

We deviated from  the issue "In the future will ISO 9000 certification still be relevant for the company? [Nowadays many companies get certification but still face many product defects.].

Fausto Galetto  quotes/ reproduces the pertinent clauses of ISO 9000 standard. Gr8.

The clauses 8.2.3, and 8.2.4 are also applicable - monitoring Processes and Products respectively ( u/ theme of Measurement Analysis and Improvement).

Does it imply  the audit for certification of  monitoring Processes and Products  was not rigourous? Or it were a cultural non-conformity?

I agree that the problem is often ignorance - but the problem is also social and political. A rigorous quality assurance process (even if implemented correctly) does *only* assure the quality that has been specified and is measured. So the quality that has been specified might very well be different from the one that any audience (e.g. customer, government, industrial partners etc) perhaps have taken for granted. It is quite possible that many organizational players are quick to advertise that they have a quality assurance process - but (as I mentioned earlier) not very keen on presenting what exactly their quality assurance process is assuring! So when private sector companies - or governmental companies state that they are *certified* and that their business to business relationships are with *certified* partners - this is a way to exclude *non-certified* industry from participating - but has not necessarily anything to do with any specific quality. Because the certification is about the generic implementation of process - but the assurance is contextual and specific - any such assurance need to be looked upon in great detail anyway to be worthwhile - so indeed a certification itself is not actually evidence of any particular quality per se. This means that if we are dependent on specific qualities those qualities need to be checked in detail - and a statement about being certified does *not* do that. - But if we need to check the specific quality assurance in detail anyway - the certification might not be relevant for the client or customer organization. Obviously the process of certification - if done with quality development in mind - can be used to help the provider organization to have the relevant data and descriptions available for anyone to see. But this would have been expected from companies where high quality assurance was necessary already without any certification. As business to business goes - when quality of product or services is relevant - perhaps administrators and accountants are not the most suitable professionals to be the main decision makers.

ISO 9000 will be still relevant for the companies to have it due to the fact that some public tenders in Croatia ask from company which wants to apply to have it. Companies are being certified but it doesn't state that they are willing to work in accordance to certificate - they just want to have it. Some companies are certified because they want to improve their business and some are using ISO as marketing tool stating that it is showing quality of their products and/or services. So yes ISO 9000 will be relevant also in the future.

Other quality assurance tools and methods are good, but ISO 9001 certification is reputable as a benchmark of quality. From my experience, many companies/ organizations still face product defects/ non-conformances due to their inability to implement the ISO 9001 requirements all the way from the top management to the lowest level of staff. Often times, the decision to have their organization/ company certified is to increase profit or gain reputation and not to improve the quality of their products/ services. Thus, many hire consultants to carry out the works; setting up documentation and record systems, getting the SOPs or procedures with limited or no direct involvement with the activities covered under the certification scope. Once their jobs are completed they leave the employees/ management of the company/ organization to run the certification system that they don't know much about. In such cases, policies and procedures are not followed because the ISO 9001 awareness is very minimum. So ISO 9001 IS RELEVANT. Don't blame the certification system, blame the people 

Ion Ionita - ASE Bucuresti

I'd be interest if anyone knows a method for this purpose. We know that accounting firms are not distinguish between costs and outcomes (benefits) applying quality management systems .For example, as it cost me and what gain by implementing a quality system ISO 9001: 2008?

As fi interest daca cunoaste cineva o metoda in acest scop. Se stie ca In contabilitatea firmelor nu sunt evidentiate distinct costurile si rezultatele (beneficiile) aplicarii sistemelor de management al calitatii .De exemplu , cat ma costa si ce castig prin implementarea unui system de calitate ISO 9001:2008?