In my company, a common complaint is that ISO 9001 takes up too much time. It takes away time that should be spend on job functions.

We have been registered for 4 years and management feels that if ISO was effectively implemented then it should "run itself".

Does anyone else hear these types of complaints? Are we doing something wrong? Do you think that maintaining an ISO 9001 QMS is time consuming and always will be?

I think that mostly the complaints are related to document control, documenting corrective/preventive actions, and making suggestions for continual improvement.

Just curious to how ISO is perceived in other organizations.

In my company, a common complaint is that ISO 9001 takes up too much time. It takes away time that should be spend on job functions.

This might mean that management hasn't done a very good job of resource planning, or it could be that they're correct, and too much time is being spent on ISO things. Hard to tell from this vantage point.

We have been registered for 4 years and management feels that if ISO was effectively implemented then it should "run itself".

To some extent it should, but there has to be a rudder, at least. Once a system is up and running and has been properly integrated into the day-to-day functioning of the business, it becomes a matter of periodic maintenance (audits, e.g.) rather than a full-time task. It sounds like your company's implementation went awry somewhere.

Does anyone else hear these types of complaints? Are we doing something wrong? Do you think that maintaining an ISO 9001 QMS is time consuming and always will be?

It's a common refrain in companies where the original goal was ISO registration rather than implementation of an efficacious quality (or business) system. Sometimes companies achieve the goal and then don't know what to do once they get there, not realizing that it's not a trip with a final destination. Anything worth achieving will be time-consuming; how much time is a function of prudent implementation.

I think that mostly the complaints are related to document control, documenting corrective/preventive actions, and making suggestions for continual improvement.

Those are all things that should take very little time, unless there are so many document and quality problems that people are getting writer's cramp from documenting all of them. My guess, given the small amount of evidence available, is that your management doesn't understand the point of having a coherent system, and that your system is unnecessarily complicated.

Just curious to how ISO is perceived in other organizations.

In some companies it's perceived as a burdensome PITA, and in others it's almost transparent, or taken for granted, like the roof. The difference between the two is almost always a combination of management commitment and competent implementation.

In my company, a common complaint is that ISO 9001 takes up too much time. It takes away time that should be spend on job functions.

We have been registered for 4 years and management feels that if ISO was effectively implemented then it should "run itself".

Does anyone else hear these types of complaints? Are we doing something wrong? Do you think that maintaining an ISO 9001 QMS is time consuming and always will be?

I think that mostly the complaints are related to document control, documenting corrective/preventive actions, and making suggestions for continual improvement.

Just curious to how ISO is perceived in other organizations.

Ours runs itself for the most part - thank goodness for that. We do not have an ISO department or team. I'm it....for 750 people.:mg: I have a lot of work to do and it is burdensome for me at times. There are instance where the system is time consuming only because we couldn't find a route around the documentation of processes that take place. Other instances, we did find a way. You may need a new set of eyeballs (a trusted customer/supplier) who is also certified. Have them come in and audit your process for "opportunities for improvement" or go observe what they do. Now, I wonder why your registrar hasn't pointed out opportunities for improvement during your audits??

All good comments…

I wonder if we document too many of our processes and that is where the frustration is? We have close to 300 employees. This staff is broken down into 6 different groups all of which have there own ISO coordinator to monitor document updates. In addition we have shared documentation that each group uses that is monitored at a high level with representation from each group. Our master list of documents is in excess of 1000 documents. This does include forms, templates, and logs used to document project information. Everything is document controlled; including a log to sign in visitors.

Management also spends a lot of time reviewing continuous improvement suggestions. I do find we spend a lot of time on promoting staff to make suggestions, implementing ideas, and sharing implemented ideas with the other groups.

That does sound like a lot of documents.

I am also interested in your saying there are many ISO Coordinators. Monitoring document updates could be done at manager or department head level and verified with a checkoff-approval list.

I don't know the type of work your company does, but it's certainly valid to think of ways to appropriately shrink the system in order to reduce the ISO upkeep's resource cost. Seems to me that such efforts would qualify for continuous improvement because they are reviews for audit readiness while increasing your system's effectiveness.

In my company, a common complaint is that ISO 9001 takes up too much time. It takes away time that should be spend on job functions.

We have been registered for 4 years and management feels that if ISO was effectively implemented then it should "run itself".

I think these two statements get to the crux of your problem. 1) Management is correct in believing that after 4 years the system should run itself. The question becomes, why is that not the case? 2) The answer is in your first statement. "it takes time away from the job functions".

This indicates to me that the system is not integrated into how you run your business, its a bolt on appendage designed maintain a nice plaque on the wall. (Which is not necessarily bad if you that is what you intended.) Also, the fact that you have outside ISO coordinators indicates that the customers of the system, your various departments, see the activity as entity unto itself, independent of them.

An approach you may take to resolve this perception, is to do a customer survey (internal customers) and ask them how does the quality management system help them to do their job better, and what could be improved. This will garner more buy in from the organization and ultimately integrate the quality management system into the rest of the organization.

I wonder if the complaints are based in the understanding and approach to managing systems. If it is managed like a seperate project, instead of the business system, then it would take a lot of effort to meet ISO 9001 requirements as a stand alone project. Managing a company (a system) does take effort for sure.

My first thought was, "Yes it does take a lot of resources to manage the business.What would anyone expect?"

Too bad you comapny can't figure out how to put a SYSTEM in place that runs itself. If they do figure it out, please let me know so I can learn how to design a business structue that runs itself and doesn't require management or leadership.

Regards,

Dirk

Not everyone is for ISO 9001. I for one am against the proliferation of the ISO's, and there is a widely known (and widely maligned) author by the name of John Seddon with several compelling books out there. I am very glad my employer does not do ISO 9001. I also have posted in other boards here my father's painful experience working for a ISO 9001 company.

I have learned a lot from Steve both here at the Cove and in the Deming Electronic Network. Steve is a very advanced thinker / do-er and I bow to his leadership.

However, I am really surpirsed at his posting. ISO 9001 as a document is a tool. I think most of the ineffciency and ineffectiveness around ISO 9001 is either due to implemenation or in conformity assessment. Yes, I beleive there are some poor clauses in the standard. It is not perfect. But I am not sure there is a theory of systems, systems thinking, improvement, leadership, and manangement that is perfect. ISO 9001 comes with 8 base principles which helps support an initial theory to attain the buisness system's aim.

Can we imagine a conformity assessment industry built around Deming's teachings? It would be a train wreck, in my opinion. Same for ISO 9001.

Now ISO 9001 will always be viewed as a conformity assessment / certification thing. It will never again be viewed as a method for improvement as first intended. ISO 9001 and "certification" are no longer seperable; they are one in the same. In my opinion, it is this scheme of ISO 9001 = a certification that has caused it to lose its value and for orgnaiztions to run away. Another possible factor is the managment of managment system standards from ISO and the IATF. They have a hand in ruining these standards / improvement tools.

Regards,

Dirk

In my company, a common complaint is that ISO 9001 takes up too much time. It takes away time that should be spend on job functions.

We have been registered for 4 years and management feels that if ISO was effectively implemented then it should "run itself".

Does anyone else hear these types of complaints? Are we doing something wrong? Do you think that maintaining an ISO 9001 QMS is time consuming and always will be?

I think that mostly the complaints are related to document control, documenting corrective/preventive actions, and making suggestions for continual improvement.

Just curious to how ISO is perceived in other organizations.

I'd bet a dollar against your nickel that ISO 9001 is still thought of and used as the "special" way to do things as opposed to being transparent and just "the way" we do things. If what you say is true then your management is incorrect in thier assumption that effectiveness has been acheived.

I would probably be more correct that not, that the ratio between corrective actions and preventive actions is fairly close to "0" with corrective actions being the norm.

And I'd venture even further into your unknown territory by guessing that your QMS, the implementation and "continued" maintenance was and is being looked upon as a cost and not as an investment (a capital investment at that).

If I'm wrong, so be it, if not, what will you plan to do about it?

I agree with triner, it doesn't sound like its integrated intoyour system, more like its being done separately for the cert instead of for the business. That being said, I don't think ISO9001 is really that hard to achieve, a lot of it is just pure common sense. I think the main issue is that all of these systems for quality, be it iso9001, lean, vanguard or whatever, they all make one fatal assumption...that the organization and its functional departments and people have the discpline to actually even follow their plans or processes. Heck most people, myself included, can't even follow a simple diet plan! :biglaugh:

Based on all these remarks I feel it's safe to urge you take a step backward as an organization and ask, "Why are we doing this?"

ISO is not supposed to be an exersize, though like exersizing it can help an organization gain health and stamina. It can also bring fatigue and breakdowns when overused.

The things being done to conform to the standard shouldn't be so cumbersome they exceed their value. It's okay to question if the activities are too much, add value or supply important structure to the system and the assurance it's supposed to contribute.

In fact, the system is supposed to be thus scrutinized. Documents should be reviewed for effectiveness, not just conformance, and to affirm they represent activities and vice versa. Processes should be evaluated for effectiveness, not just conformance. Asking "Why do we do this/say this?" is part of my regular work as an internal auditor. But you certainly don't need the auditor to do this! You and your coworkers drive this thing.

So, maybe it's time to ask the unhappy people what they believe they can pare down or jettison and still maintain an effective system that customers would want to buy from. It's still all about the customer (both internal and external, remember), after all.

I hope this helps!

Maybe a good tact is to go to your complainers and tell them that it is GREAT that they have found the problem. Now, how can they assit to find the solution.

I had the same issue and the solutions are:-
1. The system does not have to looks good, it has to works good. Window dressing and fancy bits and bobs consume time.
2. Integrate - integrate - integrate -- If it becomes part of the job it is not an extra.
3. Let operator operate, let supervisors supervise, this by default gives managers time to manage. I dont know about you, but I often see managers supervising and operating.
4. Do what the Standard tells you - REVIEW - and make bold changes without fear. If the system is killing you, change it. It is YOUR system, for YOUR profitability and YOUR customer satisfaction. REVIEW should be done by everyone - especially the whiners.

Put this to your people - the object of the QMS is to make money from happy customers rather than waste money due to poor quality. If the company makes money, the employee makes money. Now, the employee is a customer. Would he or she spend it on goods from a company that is only half hearted in terms of quality ?

All good comments…

I wonder if we document too many of our processes and that is where the frustration is? We have close to 300 employees. This staff is broken down into 6 different groups all of which have there own ISO coordinator to monitor document updates. In addition we have shared documentation that each group uses that is monitored at a high level with representation from each group. Our master list of documents is in excess of 1000 documents. This does include forms, templates, and logs used to document project information. Everything is document controlled; including a log to sign in visitors.

Management also spends a lot of time reviewing continuous improvement suggestions. I do find we spend a lot of time on promoting staff to make suggestions, implementing ideas, and sharing implemented ideas with the other groups.

In my (painful) experience it's easy for political managers to discredit a quality team that are producing embarrassing data on product performance with general arm-waving comments such as "it ought to run itself by now." What does that mean? Nothing runs itself. Every QMS needs maintenance, and in a good one that's continual investment in continual, competitive performance improvement. (And some infrastructural things like doc control and audits.)

Yet the sentiment is correct. Good film directors put most of the money on the screen where the audience can see it, and good product managers do the same, metaphorically. Good quality departments are lean and mean.

So, I'd ask what, specifically, takes too much time?

If it's doc control, well, can it be automated? Are petty bureaucrats getting in the way? Or, are they just complaining because people always complain about doc control--in which case, remind them of the "cost of confusion" that will result if docs are not controlled. (I define the "cost of confusion" as the cost of 300 people wandering around not knowing what to do. Documenting processes should reduce it by, oh, about half!)

300 people with 1000 docs ... 1000 divided by 300 ... um ... that's about 3 or 4 each. Not many, but probably too simplistic a view. Do they all have to read all of them? Perhaps more importantly, is there a hint that the docs were written, not for them, but for (shh) registrars? If yes, there's probably a lot of mileage in rewriting them (over a reasonable period of time) for the real audience: in my experience that usually makes them shorter, and certainly their perceived value goes up.

"Management also spends a lot of time reviewing continuous improvement suggestions." Hmm -- do any actions come out of these reviews? Any improvements? Can you measure the return on investment (of time, resources)? Also, is there an effect on morale? (That might go either way. If they ignore millions of well-intentioned suggestions, morale will plummet. If they act, it only gets better.)

Hope this helps,
Patrick

I wonder if we document too many of our processes and that is where the frustration is?... Our master list of documents is in excess of 1000 documents... Everything is document controlled; including a log to sign in visitors.
I am curious why your organization chose to make the visitors log a controlled document?

Jaime