ISO 9001: To Henry and Elizabeth,
Henry, you are mostly right that ISO doesn't mean much toward company valuation. But, it is worth something. Companies that have certification are judged as more mature, under more control, more able to produce a consistent product. A necessary conditions for certification are that a quality policy and function exist within the company, and there is evidence that the policy is enforced and the function working.
For example, a company without certification may be asked to undergo a quality survey before their product will be accepted by a customer, whereas one that has certification will not, since the customer believes the certification process has already accomplished the same goal.
ISO indicates more that a company is striving toward a certain quality of doing business, of which product quality is just one element.
ISO is important in Europe, but it is not CE. This other barrier to trade in Europe will still be in force for each product JMAR tries to introduce there, and that is dealt with on a product by product basis. Martinez's remarks are a bit overblown: ISO is a (sometimes) necessary, but hardly sufficient, condition for doing business in Europe.
ISO is important, but it only indicates that the company has a quality policy and well documented procedures and evidence that it follows them. It is just a necessary step in any organization that is trying to achieve customer satisfaction and excellence, but it does not (and cannot) attempt to guarantee either of these. JMAR should be proud of this achievement, but Henry is right: it means very little with respect to actual quality as assessed by the customer, and it has little to do with company value.
Also Henry, I am baffled by your idea of company value. Certainly it is not the stock valuation, which is subject to capricious variation and manipulation. Certainly it should be based on something more ojective and measurable, like revenues, profitablity, growth, and growth potential, don't you think? |
