Hello, Im Mo

[PeterJames]

For a start up the silver has the appeal for subbing to a gold or passing yourself of as gold,

I'm of the opinion that Gold could well improve the quality of leads generated, however I'm certain no client would be willing for pay a premium on my current rates to reward my time & effort in achieving this.

Youre wrong, if everyone wanted the cheapest we would all be driving round in Skoda's and living in Council flats

[MrHappy]

Youre wrong, if everyone wanted the cheapest we would all be driving round in Skoda's and living in Council flats

You assume Gold equals a premium price, what if your competing against Ratner's ?

[PeterJames]

You assume Gold equals a premium price, what if your competing against Ratner's ?

I dont think it quite works the way you think Dave. My point is not everyone buys on price, if they did I would of gone bang by now.

[Cubit]

Fozzie i wont say i entirely disagree. I do however know that a lot of what we do is not based on "personnel choice" rather from informed decision makers. I have included a small section from a private report produced and circulated between consultants, insurers, facilities managers and other major decision makers, who are concerned about the diffrence:[/color][/size]

Gene rally speaking SSAIB and NSI Silver approved companies do not operate BS EN ISO 9001 certificated quality management systems. However, by way of illustration, if a company is Systems Silver approved, but has their BS EN ISO 9001 quality management system certified by another Certification Body they are NOT NACOSS Gold.

NSI is a specialist Certification Body and NACOSS Gold certification/approval against BS EN ISO 9001, NSI SSQS101 and all the relevant industry standards is a high quality, sector specific approval unique to NSI.

NACOSS Gold approval ensures that all such companies are thoroughly and regularly inspected to both ‘product’ and ‘quality management system’ standards.

Feedback from a recently conducted independent survey of industry stakeholders in 2011 indicated that NSI inspections are seen as being more thorough and robust than those offered by other certification bodies. This is important. It is not only the differences between various certifications/approvals that matter as the rigour with which Certification bodies carry out their audits/inspections matters as well.

The above illustrataes one of the reasons why major, important or prestigious contracts are awarded to NACOSS companies. Not everyone is as dumb as some would like to think.

With all due respect, that quote smacks of being a self service statement from parties with a vested interest whilst not looking at the wider picture re ISO.

For them to say their procedures/inspections/audits are more rigorous and possibly more trustworthy than those carried out by other bodies, is, frankly, laughable. It's also somewhat contradictory vis a vis ISO itself.

[alterEGO]

Im attending the NACOSS bi annual northwest regional meeting on friday. We will probably get time to discuss how were going to slice the cake up between ourselves and try to agree on what crumbs to leave the SSAIB guys

You should give some crumbs to the NSI Gold guys in Oldham that keep going tits up then, 2 went bust and the 3rd is like a cheap tart trying to sell their self to everyone.

I think the main reason Golds seem to look better from the outside is just age, you are all alot older and by default more established. I can't see a commercial gain in this day and age to bother with Gold, can you? I can only think of one gold firm on this board that started their own firm so its hard for most to pass an educated opinion on which would be the best choice in todays market.

I would think about gaining Gold (wouldn't be hard for us IMO) if it gave me a commercial gain, I may do it before I sell at some point.

PS: Say hello to Pier Alarms and EA Jeff hahahaha ********

[james.wilson]

It's also somewhat contradictory vis a vis ISO itself.

Andy this debate isnt iso based.

As a side note i can agree to point with aaron's point, re commercial gain. I dont see a commercial gain with being gold, i do however see a commercial disadvantage with my local non gold competition. Id say a lot on here talk the talk re quality and performance and from that i dont understand why you wouldnt choose to be gold. But i do agree that if all you want to do is get a urn then the choice of inspectorate is easy. As i have said before im done with the whole whole nacoss vs ssaib so we will be going for joint approval. I dont like being asked the difference between the 2 by clients. this way i dont have to.

Aaron let us know how your iso / gold quest goes.

James

[alterEGO]

Aaron let us know how your iso / gold quest goes.

James

No quest as such, as you say, If I wanted it I would have it. To me it is simple, I already pay for;

• SSAIB
  
• Constructionline
  
• Safecontractor
  
• a few other bits and bobs
  

Why go for ISO on top of that if I don't make any more ££££? All our install & maintenance work is carried out to a high standard, the office is ok, but IMO always a work in progress.

The engineer in me says 'Go for Gold', but my pocket says why?

[james.wilson]

as you say, If I wanted it I would have it

i didnt say that aaron

Why go for ISO on top of that if I don't make any more ££££?

many dont like iso, but i feel the procedures and practices have made us better as a company. i wouldnt change the processes that have been implimented even if we went ssaib only

[Cubit]

Andy this debate isnt iso based.

As a side note i can agree to point with aaron's point, re commercial gain. I dont see a commercial gain with being gold, i do however see a commercial disadvantage with my local non gold competition. Id say a lot on here talk the talk re quality and performance and from that i dont understand why you wouldnt choose to be gold. But i do agree that if all you want to do is get a urn then the choice of inspectorate is easy. As i have said before im done with the whole whole nacoss vs ssaib so we will be going for joint approval. I dont like being asked the difference between the 2 by clients. this way i dont have to.

Aaron let us know how your iso / gold quest goes.

James

No, but Jeff's quote was.

[jb-eye]

thats just mean

I know. Im sory but at thetime i thought it funny.

With all due respect, that quote smacks of being a self service statement from parties with a vested interest whilst not looking at the wider picture re ISO.

For them to say their procedures/inspections/audits are more rigorous and possibly more trustworthy than those carried out by other bodies, is, frankly, laughable. It's also somewhat contradictory vis a vis ISO itself.

This wasnt something for general release and perhaps i t shouldnt apear on the board "them" BTW arent NSI. My thought was that it is true.

AND i couldnt agree more with your ISO v ISO coment, I myself joined NACOSS with BS5750 multiple scope from NQA only to be told that it wasnt acceptable. says a lot for something that is suppossed to be a STANDARD.