It looks like ISO certification finally is coming to US market research.
By way of background, in 2006 the International Organization for Standardization published a new standard, ISO 20252, for “Market, opinion, and social research.” The primary impetus behind the standard was to facilitate global market research by creating a consistent standard worldwide. Equally important, in my view, is the standard’s goal of “encouraging consistency and transparency in the way surveys are carried out, and confidence in their results and in their providers.” The standard includes a set of definitions for the key terms used in research, requires that every step in the research process be standardized and documented, and that these materials be shared with clients on request. A key motivating principle of the standard is that standardization of processes and consistent application of them in research projects will lead to improvements in research results. Equally key is a requirement that a firm submit to a certification and ongoing auditing process to ensure that it is operating consistently within its procedures.
The industry’s response worldwide has been mixed. Some countries—most notably the UK, Australia, and Mexico—have embraced it quickly and on a fairly broad scale. Other countries, like Canada, have used the standard as the basis for their own process requirements and created a sort of “ISO lite” outside of the ISO process. US companies generally have been cool to the standard, even though the Technical Committee that created the standard had US representatives who participated in its development. I confess that from time to time I was part of the process by reviewing some drafts and participating in committee meetings. Further, I admit to being an ardent ISO supporter.
Why the resistance in the US? I think there are three reasons.
First, some people are legitimately concerned about the cost. Not only do you have to pay someone to conduct the certification process, you also need to put a lot of time and effort into standardization, documentation, and ongoing monitoring. For smaller companies in particular, this could be a significant cost burden.
Second, many companies in the US were forced to do some sort of ISO 9000 certification in order to work with certain industries, most notably, the auto industry. The 9000 series is essentially a manufacturing standard that does not translate all that well to a service industry like MR. Companies forced to do 9000 often found it expensive and not especially useful.
Finally, I think there is significant misunderstanding of the 20252 standard. There are those who say that it sets the bar too low in what it requires and others who claim that it’s not specific enough to be useful in promoting quality research. There is some truth here. One major problem the Technical Committee that developed the standard had to overcome was the broad variation in practice across the roughly 20 countries involved in the discussion. But the real key here is to understand that ISO 20252 is not a quality standard per se. Rather, it’s a service standard that stresses the need for standardization and transparency, especially relative to clients. It may not be as precise as some people might like it terms of specifying exactly how research should be done. However, it requires that companies tell clients exactly how they are doing the work and leaves it to clients to judge whether the quality of the resulting research meets their need.
The big news in the US is that CASRO has formed a task force to study implementation. I think this is long overdue and I am excited to see it moving forward. Expect to hear more about ISO in the coming months, both here, in industry communications, and at conferences.