Could the alphabet soup of third-party approvals have a deleterious effect?

I have a love-hate relationship with the myriad certifications and registrations in our industry, as well as industry in general, that we are expected to apply, achieve, renew and pay for.

They range from the now standard ISO family, which encompasses ISO 9001, as well as the closely related but slightly varied AS and QS designations. There is the MIL family of certifications, ranging from the once-dead (but refusing to go away) MIL-PRF-55110 through an alphabet soup of numeric certifications – all starting with MIL – that cover all aspects of fabrication and assembly. And we can’t forget the granddaddy of them all, UL, which for decades has been the gold standard for reviewing what you do – for a fee. All these certifications are intended to help ensure product quality – and in some cases, service quality – is consistent and topnotch. There are others, too, such as ISO 14000, intended to ensure consistent (and presumed good) environmental and waste system stewardship, and ITAR, really more of a registration, intended to ensure that critical product IP stays in America. The list can seem endless.

When the current wave of certifications started to hit our industry over 20 years ago, I viewed them as a great thing that would help individual companies tighten their often individualistic and entrepreneurially managed systems and processes, enabling improved quality and sophistication that customers would appreciate. Equally, I selfishly hoped that by achieving some recognized certification level, the number of annoying customer audits would decrease.

But over the past few years, I have started to question where the certification craze may be leading.

My questions started when ITAR registration surfaced. ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) is intended to ensure products, specifically weapon and support systems for national defense and homeland security that have sensitive IP, are produced in facilities that control access to those data and are staffed with US citizens or, for lack of a better term, “legal” workers. In my all-too-often simplistic mind, I thought, Wouldn’t it be easier to demand that such work be produced to MIL spec? But then someone pointed out that some MIL-certified companies may have workers who are not “legal” as defined by ITAR. Hmm, isn’t the implied, if not explicit, purpose of specifying product be built to MIL certification to make sure that critical product and IP are handled and produced to stringent quality and security levels?

My concern grew when I began to notice prints from customers with revision levels starting as a MIL-certified part, then revised to IPC-6012, and finally to standard commercial IPC-A-600. More curious and frustrating was hearing from prospective customers that they only would approve companies that were ISO/AS/MIL certified and ITAR registered. When asked what type of product they were buying, the response was “commercial built to IPC-A-600.” OK, so you want the certification in place, but don’t need or want product built to it.

My final concern came when a customer declined to tour our facility, saying “No thanks; no need to if you are certified to ….” That’s when it hit me that maybe the pendulum has swung too far, or we all have lost sight of what is truly important.

Having an independent set of eyes review your facility, processes and data organization is a great thing. You always learn how you might improve, get a different view as to how things might flow better, and (hopefully) receive confirmation that your process management efforts are paying off in consistent, auditable quality performance. Striving to reach the next level via a new certification can be a great motivator – a goal to which everyone can aspire. Reaching to attain AS 9100 on top of ISO 9001, or going for MIL-PRF-31032 rather than staying with the outdated MIL-PRF-55110, can result in further refining processes, tightening key manufacturing and inspection protocol, and offering everyone involved a sense of pride.

As good as it can be, however, often overlapping certifications and lack of customer commitment to supporting certifications by purchasing to them can be more than a little frustrating.

If government is concerned with IP security, it should add a clause to the various MIL certifications they profess to support and then demand their suppliers purchase to that certification level when the application demands that level of security and quality. Conversely, if ITAR appropriately handles the IP concerns, and ISO likewise does for product quality and conformity, then maybe it’s time to do away with the MIL certification process altogether.

Currently a number of well-intentioned efforts are underway to develop various protocols – certifications – that could impact our industry. Whether revolving around the current hot button of IP management or dealing with supply-chain materials management due to ever-tightening environmental concerns, such as RoHS, all need to be considered carefully, so we as an industry do not regulate ourselves to death.

Certifications that encourage process or continual improvements are good. But we need to demand that, wherever possible, such enhancements be incorporated into an existing certification hierarchy and not reason to create an entirely new and redundant certification. Time and treasure should be utilized in the most efficient way possible for each company and the industry, and not to fuel a regulatory agency and the consultants they breed. 

Peter Bigelow is president and CEO of IMI (imipcb.com); This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . His column appears monthly.