The title of today's post is a prediction. That's also how Tom Anderson starts a post on his blog under the title, "CASRO ISO Certification Fails!" Here I pause, as the newsies do, to disclose that I am a member of the CIRQ Advisory Board—the nonprofit that CASRO set up to manage the ISO certification process in North America—and an occasional ANSI rep on the Technical Committee that developed and now maintains ISO 20252. But that probably makes me no more conflicted than Tom who in his post champions the FTO, a somewhat different certification program that he founded.
Tom says ISO certification is unnecessary. This strikes me as odd since the essence of the standard is to create transparency between research suppliers and their clients, the same goal Tom has for the FTO. The difference is that the FTO is concerned with just one part of the elephant, the part that goes offshore, while ISO creates transparency end-to-end, across the entire research process from proposal to final reporting and documentation. It offers the kind of transparency that lets clients know exactly how the research was done so that they can judge its quality and the weight they should give it in the business decisions they need to make. ISO makes FTO unnecessary. And, of course, FTO is self-certification while ISO relies on outside, trained auditors. "Trust but verify," to quote a now thankfully obscure American politician.
Tom also thinks ISO certification is wasteful by which I think he means lots of money poorly spent. And it's probably true that if your house is not in order and you don't have good procedures, standard ways of doing things, or effective and consistent training then it's going to cost you some money to shape up. But I expect that most of us will agree that having good processes and well-trained people working in them reduces rework and shortens cycle times, a good thing for our clients and our bottom lines. In other words, this is an investment worth making. But for those among us who have already made that investment, the cost of certification is not a major issue.
Tom deserves a lot of credit for launching FTO, but it's just one step in the right direction. There is a lot of research out there that when closely scrutinized is not what it claims to be, purports to do something that it does not do. Clients need a way to separate the wheat from the chaff and ISO will help them do that.
Comments
4 responses to “ISO Certified Companies Surge in Honimichl Top 50!”
I respectfully disagree. I believe ISO will create economic hardship for survey organizations, particularly for smaller companies. There are probably restraint of trade issues there.
Perhaps my biggest complaint is that it’s more about process than quality. Yes, process can support quality, but it does not create or even ensure quality. I think it also makes companies less nimble and responsive.
“Tom deserves a lot of credit for launching FTO, but it’s just one step in the right direction.”
Are you sure this effort is due praise? I think its xenophobic at best and bigoted at worst. I also do not think its necessary. If a buyer would like to better understand the supplier’s value chain, they simply need to ask.
“In other words, this is an investment worth making.” Yes, you’re right. After all, you wouldn’t really know the real score unless you try it out. As what they say, it’s better to have “oh wells” than “what ifs,” at least you’ll get to learn something out of the experience. And also, there should always be commitment and hard work to implement certain systems and changes.
“…the cost of certification is not a major issue.”— You wouldn’t mind how much cash you’ve spent on the certification process once you’ve achieved it. It’s worth it, really. It’s because you were able to prove how capable your company is when it comes to providing good quality services and products.