Thanks to Mr. Allan Sayle for another wonderful paper!

Yeah,
Allan mailed me to forewarn me of this posting.
An excellent paper Allan. There's lots of food for though there; I'm going to have to consult "Deep Thought" on this one LOL.
I have personally endorsed and practiced Allan's approach to process auditing (Task element approach) for some years now.
For a deeper understanding of Allan's approach to Management and Process auditing, one should consider purchasing Allan. J. Sayle's publication Management Audits, Third Edition, ISBN 0-9511739-0-1
I remain to be one of Allan's more mature students.
Wallace.

From a cursory reading, the following seems apparent to me:

What ever else he is or does, Jim Wade still continues to make incisive comments. I truly regret his Puckish side often overcomes his scholarly side.
Allan J. Sayle appears to be in the running for my dubious title of "King of Obscure References" - (Although I had a vague idea that Joseph Schumpeter was an economist, I had to look up some of his work to understand Allan's eponymous reference to Schumpeterian gale of creative destruction. Even then, I'm not sure I really understand the thrust of the reference.)
Allan J. Sayle is really a premier gadfly and fellow curmudgeon. I'd buy him a drink anytime!

In another Forum, there is some discussion about my article. It seems to be degenerating into a discussion about the words of ISO9K and how might that standard be changed.

I do not regard tinkering with ISO 9K is the issue and I posted this response:

"There seems to be a fixation in the "quality world" that a solution to problems might be to "fix" or "change" the standard. I see no reason why "the standard" should be changed. My article deals with with the ramifications (as I speculate they might occur) of a registrar precedentially accepting PR as an acceptable surrogate for internal auditing for the purpose of compliance. But, more crucially if customers and suppliers wish to get more closely involved this may herald a return to the days of multiple assessment. This would have some dramatic consequences for the registration industry. Changing the standard would not achieve anything if we enter an era of customers NOT mandating registration as a condition of contract (which I hope is an incipient event).

I believe self certification to a guideline standard is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged.

I also believe there is now substantial evidence that when customers and suppliers work closely together both organizations benefit more than they would through worrying about registration/ ISO 9K et al. As a notable example:this morning, the latest car sales figures in USA for last month show Toyota increased its sales 36% in the last 12 months. A shining example of what true partnership and working together can do. Whereas, both GM and Ford lost further ground. QS and TS came from the old Big Three. The new Big Three (Toyota, Honda and Nissan) seem to prosper very nicely thank you adopting the more cooperative way with their suppliers. NKUK is also a Japanese firm, I understand.

I also think management is wearied of the tedious arguments and word-smithing that is rampant in "quality" these days. (Jack Welch certainly indicated as much in his memoirs). And my article muses on whether or not NKUK etc are heralds of change in our (that is "quality's) customers' policies/ practices.

If the old model of compelling registration and compliance with a quality standard is passing, why should the quality profession mourn?

If our market is signalling it wants a different "service" from the quality profession, we must heed what it is indicating and adjust accordingly. Perhaps we should reflect quality departments have been dramatically downsized over recent years. But, if our paymasters now want closer working with suppliers, maybe our numbers will increase again? Of course, the calibre of people will be crucial for the success and effectiveness of "post ISO9K" quality departments.

And there are quite a few good people working for registrars who could rejoin businesses and shine under those situations."

The is another thread about asking permission or asking forgiveness. I PDFed the article that was referenced in the beginning of this thread.

This is not a comment about anyone that uses .doc (Wordstar rules!!!)

If you use Adobe Reader 6.0 or newer on the menu bar access "View". It is between "File" and "Document". From the drop down menu that should have appeared, place your pointer over "Read Out Loud".
At that point you can choose between reading one page or the whole article.

Plus, if anyone knows where I can download another narrator beside "Microsoft SAm", please let me know. :thanx:

Wow! I didn't know such an option existed. Thanks for telling us.

I don’t usually spend time in the reading room, as I am so busy “complying with the standards" but I stumbled on this thread and felt compelled to use large words and ancient quotations as well.

Actually, the quality system that we have put in place bears a striking resemblance to the requirements espoused in John Seddon’s Vanguard 9000 standard (http://www.lean-service.com/3-1.asp) (I believe I was put on to this site but following Jim Wade’s trail some time ago). Having said that, there remains a certain amount of non-value-added (not really, I’ll explain in a minute) activity in creating objective evidence to prove to a 3rd (or 2nd party) that you are complying with their Terms and Conditions. Whether the Ts and Cs are 3rd party registration to a standard or the ability to perform Advanced Product Quality Planning and a Production Parts Approval Process to your customer’s requirements or pouring ale to the pint mark is irrelevant. Whether you are registered to a standard or simply being found acceptable by a customer, there are many things you know that cannot be explained to outside observers in short order. Therefore, things like Control Plans, Process Metrics, Audit Plans, and Audit results must be available to assure these observers of the efficacy of your Quality Management System, whatever it may be. If you are pouring, the customer can easily observe your efficiency at meeting his requirements by observing the amber liquid obscuring the pint mark on your glass.

Therein lies the value of these activities: if you are executing them properly, they gain you an amount of assurance that you are actually performing to your lofty goals. If you document them satisfactorily you can prove execution to other interested parties efficiently so that (hopefully) they buy product from you rather than your less organized, efficient, and reliable competitors.

What bothers me is folks, who are most definitely selling a service, making claims like: “Some companies in the UK (Yell is a prime example) have negotiated with their ISO 9001 certification bodies to remove internal auditing as a requirement because it had no business advantage.” In fact, upon further investigation, no such thing has happened. The company has really found a new and (for them) more efficient approach to satisfying the requirement for Internal Auditing. Good for them but it is not news. My company meets a number of the extra TS requirements in very interesting and unconventional ways. For example, see the attached “Process Wheel”. We added the term “Process” to each of the Teams shown for the purpose of proving compliance to a 3rd party. Nothing else changed. We laid a sequence and interaction of “elements” over the wheel to allow for quick and easy conveyance of this information to outside observers. Again, how we do our business did not change. Without this short course to our processes vs. the standard, I could very easily make the claim that “We registered to ISO9001:2000 and ISO/TS16949:2002 without using the Process Approach”. That doesn't make it true.

“"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other word would smell as sweet." --From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2), William Shakespeare
-------
-Icy