Implementing ISO 9001:2000 in a Restaurant [Elsmar Cove Index (Ar)]

apestate

28th June 2006, 12:12 AM

Patrick posts some excellent questions that must be considered and weighed carefully before implementation of a standardized management system in any organization.

Firstly, I wanted to mention that you will most certainly have a management system. It is intrinsic to organizations to have management, and it is intrinsic to management that it is systematic. What benefit would be gained by maintaining a formalized, documented management system that is process-based for continual improvement?

I'm not familiar with restaurants or service businesses, but the ISO 9001:2000 standard is certainly embraced by them. It is applicable, and proven effective across many strata of organizational types.

The requirements of the standard are generic and intended to be applied to all organizations, regardless of type, size, and product provided.

Do you have a need to demonstrate ability to consistently provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory requirements? Do you aim to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of a management system?

The adoption of a quality management system should be a strategic decision of an organization.

This is true, and key to this strategic decision is that top management makes it, and supports it.

I guess I object to dissuading anyone from the application of ISO 9001:2000 to business other than manufacturing. If it was my money on the table, I would want the operation to be organized, continually improved, and well managed, whether that operation was running 60 screw machines or 200 seats in a restaurant.

If I were responsible for an organization and wanted it to be organized, continually improved, and well managed, I would like to envisage a documented and formalized system that could be continually improved.

Why not base it on ISO 9001:2000? The experience of service oriented application of this standard provides plenty of real-world examples for ideas and benchmarking. The permissible exclusions and generic design of the standard allow proper management to be adapted to the way work is done in any organization, and if any implementation of ISO 9001:2000 were stifling the way work was done, the reason is because the implementation needs improvement.

It need not cost much, since your organization's management is already ISO 9001:2000 based, and the expertise required is probably already home-grown. The research required to meet applicable regulatory and statutory requirements is probably easily accomplished with a "So you've decided to start a restaurant" booklet from the government or some other author.

I continue to think this is a first-rate idea, and hope you will obtain the enthusiasm and support of the people who's money is on the table.

pldey42

28th June 2006, 02:48 AM

If there's a bar, I'll offer to get that organised. I'll work for beer!

Patrick

Gert Sorensen

28th June 2006, 02:50 AM

I'm spotting a trend here. QA staff offering to work for food or drink :confused: Seems that wages is not important to anybody else, ore that wages are depressing all over the world :notme:

apestate

28th June 2006, 02:55 AM

Gert Sorensen

28th June 2006, 02:59 AM

I make 14 million dollars a year that the government knows about as a CEO of a small-time venture capital startup without a single patent.

That's not true.

I'd offer administrative support for that implementation, Patrick.

Cheers

SOOOO, It was you who stole my life!! :mad:
I always felt that there was a mix up at the maternity ward. :lol:

pldey42

28th June 2006, 03:12 AM

Hmmm ... well, Atetsade, you'll be pleased to know you've prompted me to ask some more questions ;-) (BTW I don't think any of us who do not know the restaurant business are qualified to give an opinion on whether applying ISO 9001 to it is a good idea or not. Best we can do is share our experience and let Dawelah make his or her own decision.)

First, ISO 9001 is very doc-centric, it insists on writing everything down. All the decent restaurants I have visited have one thing in common: a manager (maitre'd) overseeing all the tables and waiting staff, being extremely friendly with all the customers and pouncing on the slightest transgressions of waiting staff. They communicate and micro-manage a repeatable process every minute of the working day. What would be the benefit of writing down the waiting-table process when it is communicated verbally, constantly? Please don't say you could make the maitre'd redundant, or give her other things to do--would you really bet a restaurant business on less hands-on control? And, bear in mind, in many countries the people doing the waiting are immigrants from all over the place: how many languages would you translate it into (assuming they can read)?

Now let's turn to the kitchen which, from what I've seen of restaurant kitchens on TV, is run -- micromanaged -- by the head Chef ... who carries a meat cleaver and a cook's knife ;-) Again, why would he document processes when he's accustomed to shouting? (And, did you ever try to read a documented process in a kitechen: recipe books get awful messy!)

How would you construct an internal audit process? Who would the auditors be, how often would they audit?

How would ISO 9001 help the restaurant avoid the common mistakes that restaurants make that drive them out of business? They go very fast, and I suspect the first few months are very vulnerable: everyone comes to try the new place out, it's on best behaviour for the first few months, then they drift off, the staff get discouraged, the owner saves money by buying cheaper ingredients ... would ISO 9001 help such issues?

On costs: we can't know if it's expensive or not until someone actually adds the costs up and compares them with the margins the catering industry normally expects.

On stifling change: ISO 9001 does often stifle change, not so much because of the implementation but because of the audit process. When you have a process that's certified, you resist changing it for fear the auditors won't accept the revised version. To encourage them to accept it you have to spend time explaining it to them and if time=money it's often apparently cheaper to just leave things be. That's nuts, I know, but I've seen it happen more often than not because organisations, generally, fear to manage their auditors robustly because they want the certificate to pin on the wall.

One final thought: if the restaurant wants to compete with MacDonalds, with a repeatable process that can be duplicated anywhere in the world (they do that amazingly well) then ISO 9001 would be a grand idea in my uninformed-about-the-restaurant-business opinion. But if it's going to be a flag-ship operation with a fancy chef and a snazzy theme, I'd suggest weighing the costs (including the costs of staff and auditor time) and benefits objectively.

Patrick

pldey42

28th June 2006, 03:19 AM

It might have something to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html

Just guessin' ;-)
Patrick

Nemain

28th June 2006, 04:31 AM

Hi Dawelah,

I work in resorts in Egypt - we do not run an ISO based QMS but a home-made one, so I have hardly experience with ISO... but 1 thing I would like to tell you:
If you receive international customers, then definitely implement a HACCP (or similar) system (for kitchen, stores, food handling etc.) - I would say that this is even more important than any other QMS tools.

Unfortunately my time is extremely limited since weeks - I would love to speak more with you .-)

Read you - hopefully - after I freed myself from my work...

apestate

28th June 2006, 06:16 AM

My opinion on this matter could perhaps be summed up by a comparison of management styles. Let me illustrate with an example from my brief experience.

My father owns and runs a small business machine shop, and could be loosely compared to the chef you describe. He walks around and oversees all the production and supporting operations. He was never interested in documenting his processes. There is no procedure for sharpening a form tool, and there is no procedure for centering a cutoff. Why would he write documents that would never be read (assuming they can read) when he could get the work accomplished with shouting and excitability?

He didn't carry a cleaver and a cook's knife, but he had a checkbook and a foul mood on him.

The secretary of this business could be compared to the maitre'd, who is extremely polite to all the customers and visitors and quick to correct any transgressions by staff. This person micro-manages control of the purchasing, accounts, production schedule, and payroll. There is a minimum of documentation associated with her work as well. There are no work instructions for purchasing raw materials, and there is no redundancy in her position.

However, there are documents that are necessary, at a bare minimum, to accomplish the mission of the business. Setup sheets for machines are messy and terrible to read, but contain the required information. Material is labelled clearly, and calibrated instruments all have due date stickers.

In retrospect, a Denny's restaurant franchise is probably better managed, and generates more documentation than the above mentioned, ISO 9001:2000 machine shop.

The difference is that Denny's is a serious business.

The machine shop was at a size threshold where the traditional figurehead management of the owner/operator could just keep up with operations. It was never intended to be a serious business and has never gotten out of the micromanaging control of the two or three people who have ever been in charge.

For an organization to grow beyond this threshold, which 200 tables in a restaurant would far exceed, it's necessary to have controlled conditions. Nothing needs to be too regimented, but the processes must be formalized, documented, and then improved.

This is a great discussion, and I'm glad you picked up on it. I would like to look into some details that are on my mind, such as if a dish or a recipe requires design controls, if cooking is a production or service provision, and whether or not ISO 9001:2000 would help avoid the common mistakes and pitfalls that drive new restaurants out of business.

Since I have seen ISO 9001:2000 agree with the machine shop example, I can say that it is a flexible standard. There are as many ways to accomplish things as you can dream of.

Of course, I hold the pure premise that ISO 9001:2000 is as refined a management standard as could be drafted, and that if it is properly applied will provide the framework of success for any organization and for some things that you would not call an organization. I admire the standard and believe it is an important and new derivitive of progress in society.

Probably, a paradigm shift to service provision would shed light on the application of ISO 9001:2000 to a restaurant. I still work in machine shops, so I am not really capable of that.

If there's a bar, I'll offer to get that organised. I'll work for beer!

Cheers to that! Haha.

True Position

28th June 2006, 07:20 AM

Since we're offering our specialized assistances, for food and drink, I can assist you with incoming inspection on materials. Size of napkins, etc, almost any measurable you would find useful as a method to validate suppliers.

Don't forget if you go down this route, you'll need to find a 17025 accredited source to calibrate all measuring cups, scales, and other measuring tools.

apestate

28th June 2006, 07:49 AM

We don't know if they have any medical or automotive customers...

Seriously, a restaurant's management system could be formalized and documented in accordance with the ISO 9001:2000 standard in an efficient and valuable manner.

If they do not require a formalized and documented management system, and management by walking around, policy by the rumor mill is effective and satisfactory, then ISO 9000 would not be applicable, because they would not need to demonstrate their ability to consistently provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory requirements. Nevermind the aim of enhancing customer satisfaction through effective application of a management system.

It's necessary to shift paradigms from manufacturing to service. There are many here and abroad who have experience with this management system in service organizations.

Do you realize how easy it would be to implement ISO 9000 for a restaurant? People who joined the company would probably be surprised that the operations were so well documented and managed, but it would not be out of line.

It's easy anyway, the problem is that very few are doing it well.

I am RSVPing "maybe"

pldey42

28th June 2006, 08:56 AM

I agree, Atetsade, that ISO 9001 is a good general model for management of an organisation, especially if you want to scale up, or it's sizeable or complex.

I enjoyed the analogy with your Dad's machine shop, which reminds me of that ... animal that runs Orange County Choppers: fascinates me how they make so much money out of crazy custom motorcycles with a culture of "Do it my way or I'll brain you with my wrench."

I have a feeling that the restaurant business has a culture which I guess has its roots in the service industry of the 1800s or earlier. It's a relatively simple business and its repeatable ways of doing things are mostly easy to pass on verbally. Now, I agree, if this were a Denny's chain we were talking about, there'd be a lot more reason to use ISO 9001 because you want to give diners the same, dependable experience where ever they go.

But, ISO 9001 is a very generic framework which, as you know, was originally conceived to reduce variation and increase repeatability in manufacturing, where the thing that's difficult to do is to make millions and millions of copies of a product, all absolutely identical. The things that destabilise the process, which ISO 9001 therefore controls, are quality of supplies and suppliers, design (of product), repeatability of the process itself (worker training and disciplines, calibration) and continual improvement.

It was changed in 2000, as you know, to be more service oriented, but they had industrial services like software development, engineering installations and call centres in mind.

So the question then is, how useful is it, really, to a restaurant? Another way of asking the question is, since it's a tool, if ISO 9001 is a hammer, is a restaurant a nail? Because if it's not really a nail, ISO 9001 advisors will keep trying to hammer ISO 9001 home when it really doesn't fit. Instead of saying, "Is clause x.y.z useful to you?" they'll say, "Justify why you aren't applying clause x.y.z." And so the paper explosion starts.

So, ISO 9001 as a model for repeatable processes for restaurants: what shall we document?

Well, let's get the easy stuff out the way first: doc control, yes. Records -- yeah, might help defend accusations of food poisoning. Internal audit - well maybe, but how, who, when? Corrective and preventive actions - yes, ok.

Section 6 ... recruitment and training, resources ... ok, no big deal there, probably useful to do, and an opportunity to make sure we observe the local labour laws. (How _do_ Hooters recruit only young pretty things and avoid lawsuits based on discrimination?!)

Now, the less obvious stuff, which is really the meat of ISO 9001.

Industrial systems focus strongly on listening to the customer for design requirements. Industrial customers tell you what they want. Consumers might -- or they might just go elsewhere, silently. While restaurants clearly need to listen to customers, a large part of their appeal is their individual ambience, decor, menu, prices, table layout, etc. Get any of that wrong, and you're out of business: ISO 9001 isn't really of much help here, especially if your ISO 9001 advisors push you to listen to customers when your customers are silent.

Supplies: yes, a very big deal and a major contributor to a repeatable process. But what does ISO 9001 say to a produce buyer going down to the market? Is he really expected to have a documented preferred supplier list, when it's "Good ole Charlie" and "Jeff's good for fish but not lobster unless it's really fresh"? I believe buyers use their noses more than a list, and to expect them to qualify suppliers before purchasing, in a market which changes daily and seasonally, risks adding bureaucracy without value.

Health and safety is important too, so important that there are rules for handling and storing food that have to be followed and, I think, are audited by H&S people: ISO 9001 audits here would add nothing but extra audit cost.

Design: even service industries aren't sure how design applies to them, because ISO 9001:2000 isn't all that clear. Does it mean design of processes, or products? Of course the right answer is, it applies however you decide it applies: but that makes it less than useful as a model, and opens the floodgates for the ISO 9001 legal eagles who insist that everything in the world is a nail for their hammer.

I expect one would design the process flow, I imagine Denny's does, although a chef with a meat cleaver and a maitre'd with attitude will do it just as well.
Sure, it's not repeatable, but a good chef's cooking _is_ not repeatable, that's part of the charm, the je-ne-sais-quoi; ditto the maitre'd. So unless the restaurant is a chain one, it might be a selling point that the processes are idiosyncratic. (Just for fun, consider: how would you apply ISO 9001 to a restaurant where the gimic is insulting customers?! My point being, watching and discussing the service can be part of the fun.)

But the thing that destablises restaurant processes most, I imagine, is wild fluctuations in demand. Some days you're full, some days empty. You buy too much food and it goes to waste, or too little and you turn customers away. The place gets crowded and your documented process fails: what do you do, write another or just roll up your sleeves and get in there with your staff? You do your best to predict, but sh*t happens. People are fickle. A new place opens across the street and you have to get innovative to compete again - change the menu, bring in an entertainer, have quiz nights.

So it's not entirely clear that the dependability, the repeatability that ISO 9001 quite rightly tries to inject into an industrial concern is what restaurants really need. Sure, they need it in terms of health and safety (food storage, preparation and cleanliness) but that's handled by regulations; they need dependable cooking and serving processes, but those can be handled by eagle eyed, tough minded chefs and maitre'ds. But they also need extreme adaptability to track fast changing, fickle market demands that are not even articulated by customers: all you know is, suddenly they ain't there -- and that's something ISO 9001 has absolutely nothing to say about.

Hope this helps,
Patrick

pldey42

28th June 2006, 09:10 AM

Don't forget if you go down this route, you'll need to find a 17025 accredited source to calibrate all measuring cups, scales, and other measuring tools.

Oh I do hope you're joking. But I see no smiley :-(

ISO 9001 does not mandate the use of ISO 17025. Nor does it say "all", it says "where necessary".

Calibration is about instruments that might drift over time and produce inaccurate measurements due to wear, electronic drift or what ever.

Do measuring cups get larger, or smaller, over time? Does a chef really care if the steak is 7.9 ounces or 8.1? I think not: it matters more to chop that nasty bit off, than to keep it for the correct weight.

If it's useful, by all means let's do calibration. But please let's not find a use for every clause of ISO 9001 just because it's there.

And let's not demand rationale in triplicate for every clause that's not applicable: that alone will increase the cost and raise questions of ISO 9001's usefulness. (Which ultimately would mean locating registrars who understand catering.)

With respect,
Patrick

apestate

28th June 2006, 09:28 AM

An excellent discussion all around, however, Patrick I still disagree. ISO 9001:2000 IS adaptable to a restaurant and I will prove it if this thread is alive tomorrow!

Of course I will borrow heavily on your input, which is more about restauranting than I ever knew.

To state the thing broadly, ISO 9001:2000 is not a hammer unless the implementation of it builds one. This standard could be not adapted, but applied correctly, and suit the management of a restaurant.

Hawat, I'm not offering my professional assistance. Just wasting time.

pldey42

28th June 2006, 09:42 AM

Oh, I agree, ISO 9001 is certainly adaptable to a restaurant. I think the questions are:

As a general model born of manufacturing industry, is it useful enough? (Or is there another model out there -- what do they learn in catering college?)

Is the restaurant manager tough enough to manage the external auditor into asking useful questions and not making daft recommendations? (Elmar Cove is full of questions of the form, "What in tarnation is my auditor talking about?" -- Which is fun to discuss and great for business for people like me, but a waste of time for people trying to earn a real living!)

I look forward to your analysis. I'm thinking, one of us should visit a restaurant to see how they operate ... or a pub!

Good discussion,
Patrick

Jim Wynne

28th June 2006, 09:50 AM

...it is intrinsic to management that it is systematic.

What planet are you from?:D I've seen a lot of companies where management has no system whatsoever--other than a consistent pattern of ready-fire-aim--and still others where a coherent system is feigned, often well enough to satisfy a registrar (the fault is in the standard, not the registrars, in most instances). There are lots of fancy facades, but precious little substance.

Insofar as the topic at hand is concerned, I see no value to be added by ISO registration in a restaurant, unless the value is the same as that in manufacturing, that being satisfaction of a customer requirement for registration. If you don't know how to manage a (fill in type of business here), ISO isn't going to help.

apestate

28th June 2006, 11:22 AM

Oh I'll be back to this!

Jim Wynne

28th June 2006, 11:25 AM

Oh I'll be back to this!

In the meantime, have a look at your signature. McDonald's had a highly structured and fabulously successful management system long before ISO 9000 was a gleam in Satan's eye. Wonder how they "managed" to do it.

Craig H.

28th June 2006, 11:44 AM

pldey42

28th June 2006, 12:15 PM

Patrick, I don't want to insert a long quote here, but I would like to comment on some aspects of your post.

First, about listening to customers. It is a little known fact that some restaurants have listening devices at the tables, and the customers' reaction to the atmosphere, food, etc. is monitored.

I didn't know that. If I ever find one, I will SHOUT VERY LOUDLY INTO IT THAT THEY SHOULD NOT EAVESDROP ON CUSTOMERS!

Concerning supplies, many restaurants use supply houses (Sysco is one) to supply their food, napkins, plates, etc. and those suppliers can certainly be audited and put on an approved supplier list (or not). Some of the large chains do exactly this, with a list of specific items to be used.

It would be useful to know if we're talking of a chain, or one restaurant. If the original poster is reading this, some info would help.

Design: what could be simpler than a recipe? What if Master Chef 1 is on vacation, and Master Chef 2 has to replicate the restaurant's signature French Onion soup? No recipe? Oops... Also, even within the same restaurant the customers (and the chef, I suspect) expect some sort of consistency. HOW CAN I MAKE MY ONION SOUP WITH THE ONIONS CUT THIS SMALL!!!!! or, a procedure, with a picture, at the onion cutting board? Your call. As far as a good chef's cooking not being repeatable, are you kidding? Of course it is.

I didn't express myself quite clearly. A good chef can repeat his or her own dishes, yes. But others trying to repeat the same dish? For burgers a la McDonald, sure, easy. But a signature dish? I'm not sure documents can capture all the art that goes into haute cuisine. I'm not saying it can't be done, I just don't know enough about cooking. Tell you what though, if I follow a recipe for bread, I'm as likely to wind up with a brick as a loaf!

Do you NEED ISO 9001 to have a great restaurant? Of course not, the same as you don't need it to build a great car, or a great TV set. But, many, if not all, of the pieces are there. They may be masked by too much pepper and hot sauce, but they are there.

I agree it can be done. My question really is, since ISO 9001 was written with manufacturing industry in mind, and has nothing in it for example on food safety or forecasting demand, is it worth it? Only a cost-benefit analysis would tell us.

Cheers!
Patrick

pldey42

28th June 2006, 12:24 PM

Insofar as the topic at hand is concerned, I see no value to be added by ISO registration in a restaurant, unless the value is the same as that in manufacturing, that being satisfaction of a customer requirement for registration. If you don't know how to manage a (fill in type of business here), ISO isn't going to help.

Jim makes an excellent point, which I forgot. (Must be slippin')

ISO 9001 assures industrial customers you're fairly likely to deliver on your promises. It's especially valuable when lead times are long or you're buying stuff like custom software built specially to your requirements. You can't kick the tyres before purchase, so to speak.

But, how do you identify a good restaurant in an unfamiliar town? Pick one that's crowded, that's how. An empty restaurant with an ISO 9001 certificate in the window? -- Nah, I think I'll pass.

That's not to say ISO 9001 is not a good model for some of the processes you'll need. But a significant part of the expense is the audit fees necessary for a certificate nobody will look at. (Unless you can get the auditors to work in exchange for a free lunch.)

With respect,
Patrick

Craig H.

28th June 2006, 12:37 PM

That's not to say ISO 9001 is not a good model for some of the processes you'll need. But a significant part of the expense is the audit fees necessary for a certificate nobody will look at.

Patrick, (and everyone) this is an interesting and enjoyable thread.

Ok, let's say we don't go for the certificate, but use ISO 9001 (and, for kicks, 9004 too) as a template for our system?

There would still be costs, but the CBA might begin to look more promising. Of course, the problems we DON'T have because we have a system in place are unknown and unknowable.

As for the HAACP and health inspection issue, this reminds me of the discussions we have had here about applying ISO 9001 to the accounting and finance departments. They are audited by outside accountants, just as restaurants are "audited" by the health inspectors.

Jim Wynne

28th June 2006, 12:39 PM

It bears mention that the word "restaurant" covers an awful lot of different types of businesses, from the aformentioned McDonald's, to The Four Seasons to Martha's Squat 'n Gobble. In the first two types there are structures at least roughly analgous to manufacturing operations; in a "fancy" restaurant kitchen there's a head or "executive" chef (the plant manager) and a sous chef (the production manager) and line cooks (the production workers). There are recipes (work instructions) that are strictly followed in order to insure that design intent is consistently achieved.
So it's not that reasonable analogies don't exist, it's just that I can't for the life of me see any value in ISO registration for restaurants, especially in light of the fact that only a very small percentage of customers will even know what it means (thus eliminating perhaps the only real advantage that industrial companies derive from registration).

pldey42

28th June 2006, 01:19 PM

Yes, it is interesting. Probably not practical, but good exercise for the mind with a business everyone finds accessible.

Yes, we could use it as a template, especially if we know nothing at all of general management. But the more we chat about this, the more I wonder about McDonalds. As Jim pointed out, they have an extraordinary system that's exactly the same right around the world aside from regional variations. For example, their fries are the same everywhere, yet they're made from local potatoes which vary from one place to another if you're not careful. (I think: I speak as a total non-expert here. Except I read a magazine article about them years ago.) ISO 9001 is all about making things -- not the agricultural science of growing potatoes so they taste the same world wide, nor about baking buns so they not only taste the same, but don't lose their shape when they're slapped around soggy lettuce and sauce and stuff. I think the design process, and the supplier management process, might be more different from industry than we imagine, and that ISO has little relevant to say as a model.

Scaling up a design for large scale manufacture is surely more than drawing it on paper and doing some math, which works pretty well in engineering: it's way more experimental, surely, and again, what do we have to tell them?

So yes, maybe it's a useful template. But I think it only really contributes common sense to this scenario. If I were opening a restaurant, I'd rather have an experienced chef, a maitre'd and someone to watch the money, than a book ;-)

Patrick

pldey42

28th June 2006, 01:32 PM

Yes, I agree, Jim. (Martha's Squat 'n Gobble sounds like my kinda place, BTW:-)

They've been doing it a long time, too. Hotels go back centuries, and they all do it pretty much the same way. I'd rather visit one or two established places and see how they run things, than do ISO 9001. And I certainly wouldn't go for certification, I'd get some decent mentions in local papers and tourist guides, and keep the place FULL.

There's another thing that occurs to me: I've stayed in many hotels around the US and used all the major chains. They do have set ways of doing things, quite consistently within one chain and without a whiff of ISO 9001 -- but, there are still differences.

In my mind the best hotels stand out not for their processes, but their people. I don't mind that the San Jose Crowne Plaza sometimes runs out of Guiness: Thomas the barman is absolutely dependable for good company and I'd rather hang out with Tom and a Bud than Guiness and a bore! At the end of the day, decent restaurants are part of the hospitality industry and the people matter almost as much as the product.

(Sorry, I drifted into hotels, not restaurants, but you get the idea.)

Patrick

apestate

29th June 2006, 06:45 AM

Hello everybody

This is a good discussion, I agree.

I think the ensuing debate is whether or not ISO 9001:2000 is suitable to a restaurant business. A good question, but the roots of the standard are not only manufacturing. MIL STD 9858 applies equally well to products and services, for example.

It might be better to consider the standard in the light of its customer. MIL STD 9858 was applicable to businesses that supplied a product or service to the government or military. ISO 9001:2000 then, could be considered as requirements for supplying a product or service to a big customer, typically industry.

I will concede that the standard is constructed to most comfortably fit manufacturing operations and suppliers of products and services to large industrial customers.

However, when the standard and registration scheme has failed to achieve results, the fault lies not in the standard, but in the application and use of it. We are some of the people responsible for that. Since I hold that the management standards are a new correllary and derivative of progress in society, I see a world of improvement opportunities that is exciting and engaging.

Take the current debate, for example. While ISO 9001:2000 may not be directed specifically at a restaurant business, and its fit to this type of organization is not perfectly comfortable at first glance, it is wholly applicable and would be extremely valuable.

This debate has uncovered so many important success factors for starting and profiting from a restaurant business, but none of the posts have considered the fact that this is precisely what would be contained within the ISO 9001:2000 implemenation. The standard's requirements outline and mandate a process of identifying these factors and using them to build a management system that will be suitable and effective.

Some people have suggested that an ISO 9001:2000 certificate on the wall of a restaurant is not what is going to draw you to eat there. You would patronize a restaurant that was busy, got good reviews, and was recommended by friends. This is exactly the same thing that wins business for manufacturing organizations. The flaw is that the ISO 9001:2000 certificate on the wall is a factor at a factory, not that the ISO 9001:2000 certificate on the wall is not a factor at a restaurant.

Franchise restaurants are successful because they are efficient. They are well managed. You see McDonald's restaurants all over the world, not because the brand is just that good, but because their efficiency has toppled and dominated competition. McDonald's is the Wal-Mart of food service, and it took the world by storm then just the same as Wal-Mart has recently.

The secret of these businesses is that they are efficient, and well managed. The intent and proper application of ISO 9001:2000 is exactly the same.

It should be referenced some of the pertinent details of ISO 9001:2000 that clearly apply to a restaurant business, since so much effort has been directed at referencing details that would not. Perhaps in the light of these bits, it can be seen that those details claimed inapplicable to a restaurant are actually ideal.

Throughout the text of this International Standard, wherever the term "product" occurs, it can also mean "service".

The extent of the quality management system documentation can differ from one organization to another due to

a) the size of the organization and type of activities,
b) the complexity of processes and their interactions, and
c) the competence of personnel.

Top management shall ensure that

a) the planning of the quality management system is carried out in order to meet the requirements given in 4.1, as well as the quality objectives ...

The organization shall establish, document, implement and maintain a quality management system and continually improve its effectiveness in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard

4.1 is THE requirement if ISO 9001:2000. I inherited a copy of ISO 9001:2000 from someone who had underlined all the "shalls", and thought it interesting that the only one missed was in section 4.1.

We are missing that requirement if we are missing the fact that ISO 9001:2000 would be advantageous to a restaurant. The idea blows up when our manufacturing-centered tools and techniques are applied. If we were to do this implementation, the registration certificate would be blowing in the wind on the door of an empty building. If someone did this right, you would never see that certificate.

This restaurant business would benefit from formalized, documented management that is continually improved as a process. McDonald's has it. Denny's has it. Wal-Mart has it. ISO 9000 quality management is an easy way to accomplish it. Why re-invent the wheel if you can borrow one from a friend?

I have enjoyed this debate so far, and was thinking about it yesterday. I created something on the computer and want to share it.

pldey42

29th June 2006, 09:02 AM

Oh, what fun! An intelligent debate where hopefully we all learn something, even if none of us plans to open a restaurant any time soon. (Do we?)

So, let me present some counter-arguments in three sections: the ISO 9001 model, the influence of auditors, and certification.

First, the model. Yes, agreed, ISO 9001 is well suited to its original audience of large industrial customers purchasing raw materials, products and services.

But there's a deeper thing with the model. Its focus is repeatable, dependable processes, or as Deming might have said (except he didn't like standards), it aims to reduce variation because when you're making a car engine or an electronic circuit, if the basic design is ok you'll get problems in mass production because of variation: but we all know that, right?

So even thought it's general purpose, it has hidden assumptions -- that you want to eliminate variation everywhere. Now if you're brewing beer on a large scale, controlling variation is a Big Deal and they use SPC and stuff to do it, so I can imagine ISO 9001 might -- might -- be useful to large breweries. It might even be useful to restaurant chains although I have my doubts.

ISO 9001 has clauses which are especially suited to large scale industrial manufacturing but will, I fear, mislead our restauranteur because their focus is _engineering_ variation. For example:

1. I suspect the biggest source of variation in the restaurant business is the fickle tastes of customers. There's no guidance at all on managing that, and it's arguably the biggest reason restaurants fail.

2. Purchasing: In industry suppliers are a huge source of variation because we manage them indirectly and lead times can be uncomfortably long. But purchasers of raw meat, fruit and veg actually look at the stuff before they purchase: they poke it and smell it. They don't generally buy blind, like we do. That stuff about qualified supplier lists, evaluation and re-evaluation: in this industry I'm guessing feeback to a bad supplier is immediate -- if it smells bad or looks rotten it's still there, unsold, at the end of the day. I think a general model for the catering industry would look different in this respect. Repeatability depends much, much more on the purchasing person and their nose -- think of buyers of tea, or coffee, for example. You can't document a nose!

3. Calibration: Big source of variance in manufacturing. But as I said somewhere else, who cares if a steak is 8.1 ounces or 7.9, it's still an 8 ounce steak. When it really matters, e.g. English pints of beer or measured shorts, the glasses or measures are certified by government inspectors and they don't wear. (Not sure about optics. But really, will small variations in weights and measures matter to repeat business? In an engine, variant parts won't fit, or will wear too fast. But fish and chips is still fish and chips whether there are 42 chips or 39!)

4. Design: In the service sector, it's not clear whether ISO 9001:2000 intends "design" to be applied to products or the design of the processes used to deliver the products. This leads to some confusion amongst registrars, auditors and implementers. We can apply it to either, of course, and that's what I'd do. In product design, ISO 9001 is focused on _engineering_ product design. It assumes we can draw the design on paper somehow, review it, test it and deliver it. For large scale menu design I imagine they do that, somewhat, using food science and nutritional value analysis and stuff. But unlike engineering, a big part of menu and recipe design is about aesthetics, taste and style, about which ISO 9001 has nothing to say. It's also very much more experimental; on a large scale with focus groups tasting the stuff, and at the other end of the scale with Martha saying, "Yep, that'll do!" So yes, you could apply the design model but I'm not sure it's going to help you much. And if one day you can't buy spinach so the chef substitutes lettuce in the salad, are you really going to make him fill out a design change request? (He's the one with the meat cleaver, don't forget.)

To summarise so far: the ISO 9001 model is concerned with reducing product variation because it displeases customers when things don't fit, or wear out quickly, and they don't come back with repeat business. (Remember, repeat business is where all the real money comes from.) For a restuarant to succeed by winning lots of repeat business it needs, not only a repeatable process, but it must second-guess fickle customers, employ or train pleasant staff and do it all with the right sense of aesthetics, taste and style.

As a model, ISO 9001 only addresses variation in design, manufacturing and service delivery and the additional sources of variance which affect a restaurant aren't addressed: by itself it would be misleading.

Next, the auditors: Despite their best efforts (and some are better than others) auditors skew the process and become, themselves, customers for it. That's wrong, and robust companies manage their auditors such that they deliver value. But there aren't many. (Deming said, "Drive out fear" -- and what do we do? Introduce auditors!) The system, not the auditors, is largely at fault. Look at the questions here at Elsmar Cove. What proportion ask, "What's best for my business?" compared to "What do the auditors expect?"

For example, many many companies write a quality manual by taking the ISO 9001 standard and, everywhere it says "shall" they write "will". What's the point of that?! Like the rest of the QMS, documentation should be written for the people who do the work, not the auditors. It's done the other "shall = will" way, not because it's good for the business, but because there's a perception it makes getting certification easier. It doesn't -- or shouldn't. It makes the jobs of lazy auditors easier, IMHO.

So in summary: unless you manage your registrar robustly, auditors will skew the implementation towards their convenience.

Finally, the certificate: I've trained hundreds of auditors and implemeters of ISO 9001 and TL 9000 and I listen to them. Very few companies "do" ISO 9001 voluntarily. For most it's a 'license to do business' with major customers. In automotive and telecom, such certification is pretty much mandatory. Those that do do it voluntarily see it as a way of getting ahead of the game and earning kudos, and feel that since they'll have to do it anyway they might as well earn some value from it.

There's no evidence that I'm aware of that consumers would value -- even understand -- an ISO 9001 certificate on the wall. Arguably, those of us who _do_ know what it means would go elsewhere because the establishment would likely be boring! A good restaurant is about more than repeatablity and efficiency: it's about fun, taste -- and gross inefficiencies like taking an hour over appetizers, discussing how the soup of the day is like nothing we tasted here before and asking chef what's in it, and ordering a surprise birthday cake with a Hooters girl inside and never mind, please, that you never did it before and don't have a documented process for it!

So to summarise this entire, um, missive: ISO 9001 might (not will, might: I know nothing about restaurants except from having sat in them lots of times and observing behaviour as a quality consultant, and listening to an ex-wife who was a trained chef and whose cooking I miss) ... might not be suitable for a restaurant because:

1. The model is designed to reduce variation in large scale industrial manufacturing and service delivery processes because variation is a significant influence on repeat business. Restaurants suffer from additional factors which affect repeat business, notably fickle tastes of customers and their requirements for aesthetics and personable service.

2. Auditors tend to skew the process towards their own needs.

3. Consumers won't value certification.

Interesting discussion, thanks!
Patrick

apestate

29th June 2006, 09:08 AM

DAWELAH will have a surprise upon returning to this thread.

:)

apestate

29th June 2006, 09:21 AM

pldey42

29th June 2006, 09:30 AM

Or indigestion!

pldey42

29th June 2006, 09:39 AM

I've got to think on this a bit more before I can parry that, but I shall.

My opinion on the matter would swing if I could prove that the standard is not suitable through a mockup. That is what I've been playing with. The debate, specifics, and anecdotal evidence of this thread is going to be incorporated into the processes, which are service processes.

For example, if you read Design in section 7 and physically replace "product" with "service", the standard becomes a very excellent business weapon for a restaurant. However, it's clear that the design section is talking about designing parts, and controlling blueprints. Section 7 is probably what will make or break it in my opinion.

You have made some top notch points thus far.

This is very interesting as well, with a design specification published by ISO TC 176 for the purposes of amending ISO 9001 around 2008. I haven't read it yet, but I wonder if it addresses these issues?

--Erik
Yes, the main point is section 7. If it were really serious about services it would have a lot more on customer relations, and would clearly distinguish between the design of service processes, and the design of products. It would also provide alternative models of supplier management when personal characteristics of key individuals are critical. Since fluctuating demand is a big factor for service industries, and affects their ability to operate a repeatable process, we might expect something on forecasting and inventory management too.

Patrick

Craig H.

29th June 2006, 10:00 AM

jaimezepeda

29th June 2006, 10:01 AM

...
But, how do you identify a good restaurant in an unfamiliar town? Pick one that's crowded, that's how....
Patrick
Nobody ever goes there. It's always too crowded :D

p/s apologies to Yogi.

M Greenaway

29th June 2006, 11:50 AM

As someone previously stated above, why would you go for ISO9001:2000 ?

I think you need to consider what is the most recognised, accepted and/or prestigious mark of quality for this particular industry ?

I dont think ISO9001:2000 would mean much to anyone, however Michelin awards or AA stars might be a better mark of approval for this particular industry sector.

However on a purely theoretical basis, of course you could implement ISO9001 in a restaurant.

pldey42

29th June 2006, 12:53 PM

OK, a couple of observations.

First, lets say that repeat business is important to a restaurant, although this is not always true. (What about a mom and pop on the Interstate? - there are a few). When someone comes in for a second helping of our famous French Onion Soup, they will expect it to be the same as it was last time.

When I install a new oil filter on my car, I expect it to be the same as last time.

What's the difference?

Good question. I don't think Mom and Pop would be able to afford ISO 9001 audits. My understanding is the catering trade is a low-margin business and they do not spend on what they do not need.

So, you're driving along the interstate and there are two massive signs in the distance. One says, "Denny's" and the other says, "Mom & Pop's Stop and Stuff - ISO 9001 Registered". Which do you pick? How can you tell Mom and Pop how much extra business they'll get in exchange for the costs of registration and surveillance audits? The expense of ISO 9001 audits is a major factor in this discussion, methinks.

If the chef is so important, why bother with section 7, design, at all? Because the customer expects the same dish to be pretty much the same as it was last time. They expect that they can tell a friend that "Chef Craig's Onion soup is the best you will ever taste, you should go", and that friend won't get last week's dish water in a bowl. Sounds like standardization to me.

But, it goes beyond that. One of the main things you are paying for in a restaurant is atmosphere and service. You can buy a great steak and cook it yourself for much less than that same steak will cost at Trader Nick's. But, you won't see the other folks in town, and won't have the exciting experience that a first class meal can bring. Surprise and delight are what we are looking for. (Except for McDonalds and the like. Then we are looking for a full stomach quickly and inexpensively). That surprise and delight are not likely if the basics are not done very well, and that is where the QMS will take care of business.

Besides, the customers get out of doing the dishes.

Hmm. Well if it really is Chef Craig's he might refuse to write his recipe down so that nobody can copy his signature recipe. If he's not at the cafe when you visit, too bad, hopefully you'll get another equally unforgettable experience from the replacement Chef and the restaurant owner will make it his business that that happens: in this scenario ISO 9001 would actually be in conflict with what the cafe trade expects, and worse than useless.

Besides, how many chefs need a recipe for "steak, medium rare"? More to the point, how many of us can follow a recipe and make it work? There's more to being a good cook than a documented procedure, I believe.

I'm tired of typing "restaurant" so it's a cafe, ok?

Let's take style, aesthetics, ambience and the pleasure of being with nice waiting staff and chefs out of the equation for a moment and concentrate on the operational processes of buying meat, fruit and veg and turning them into served meals where yes, I agree, you could apply the ISO 9001 model. My question is, does it offer enough value?

As we said before, the value of ISO 9001 is in managing industrial products and services when variance is a significant issue and -- here's a new bit I just thought of as a result of your comments -- when your supply base is diverse, when you have suppliers of many different kinds of products and services. Automotive manufacturers and telecom service providers, for example, deal with thousands of suppliers. A system that's standardised across them all helps, for example in supplier monitoring and corrective action

Now let's look at large cafe chains where, as someone already said, McDonalds for example have been highly successful at replicating a repeatable process world-wide -- without bothering with ISO 9001. Let's surmise how they do that. (With apologies to McDonalds: if you're reading this and want to correct be, do chime in, Ronald!)

The McDonalds QMS is highly prescriptive. Aside from allowing regional and local variants, the system tells you exactly what to do. Fried are fried for _this_ long. Burgers are made _that_ way.

Yes, it's all written up and there are pictures showing what's expected. But what happens when the auditors visit? Well first, they're McDonalds auditors I'm guessing. None of that "don't give advice" stuff here. "Do it our way or the high way" is more likely, though no doubt more politely. I read somewhere they're the same with buns, and fried. Buns are made to their recipe which was designed to enable the bun to withstand freezing, unfreezing, toasting, hot meat, cold soggy salad -- and still be bright and fresh and bouncy on the plate. Potatoe growers are told exactly which variety of spud to grow so that it can be ground into powder, made into things that look like frozen fried, etc, etc. Again, suppliers have no choices and I imagine the whole thing is audited. The QMS includes recipes not just for burgers but for buns, agricultural advice, precise rules for suppliers, precise rules for franchisees, and its audited -- prescriptively -- by McDonalds corporate people. I imagine other major chains have similar, prescriptive systems. They're spectacularly effective, partly because the supply chain is _not_ diverse and, unlike ISO 9001, they are almost entirely prescriptive. I don't think ISO 9001 would help you get anywhere near such a system: instead of going on an ISO 9001 course, I'd go work at McDonalds for a week.

The American telecos used to work that way. The auditors from Ma Bell would visit and audit to very prescriptive standards that were written by Bell Labs (who became Telcordia). You did not argue with a Bell auditor as you would with an ISO 9001 registrar -- not if you wanted to keep their business. The management system was massive, because it had to cover a diversity of suppliers -- switches, cable, line cards, telephone handsets, wall sockets, services like digging up the road. After divestiture (when Bell was broken up) they all kept the old system, but slowly went their own ways, so now suppliers had to comply with several different, prescriptive QMS's.

Over the last few years the American telcos have replaced their old systems with TL 9000, which is based on ISO 9001. Here's the not-so-hidden agenda: they fired their quality auditors and passed the costs of auditing onto their suppliers, replacing their old prescriptive QMS with TL 9000. They didn't use plain vanilla ISO 9001 because it's too general. TL 9000 is very presecriptive about certain issues that telcos find expensive and that ISO 9001 does not cover, ESD for example. The down side of doing this is that now they are having to train TL 9000 registrars in detail, and they are having to manage the quality of external audits: that's much harder to do now than it was when all the auditors worked for Bell. So they're saving direct audit costs, but may not be getting everything they expect from auditors.

So here's a summary: I would suggest you use ISO 9001 when

- systematic reduction of variance matters to your business
- you have a diverse range of suppliers
- the model teaches you useful stuff
- there isn't a more detailed model for your business sector (documented or otherwise)
- as a franchise operator you can't afford corporate auditors
- as a cafe owner you can afford registrars
- your customers value the ISO 9001 certificate.

Craig H.

29th June 2006, 02:26 PM

Wow, Patrick. A well thought out and composed response, indeed.

I think, as far as the restaur..um, café discussion goes, we may be suffering a little from the diversity of the genre. Its hard to make generalizations about a group of businesses that includes really bad greasy spoons, McDonald's, and the Four Seasons. I think we all agree that we can apply ISO 9001 to a café, but that doing a registration may be needlessly expensive.

I do like your listing of situations where ISO 9001 should be pursued. Well done!

apestate

30th June 2006, 02:11 AM

Cafe? Don't get scrappy, Patrick. :)

I found some interesting information on the inner net
http://www.bizstats.com/spf.rest.htm

Company....Year end...Sales/ft^2....Avg. Size...Avg. Sales..# Stores
McDonalds..12/31/02.........$543....3,000.......$1,628,000..31,108
Denny's....12/25/02.........$270....4,800.......$1,294,765..1,676
Red Robin..12/29/02.........$465....6,400.......$2,975,000..194

The average Denny's restaurant probably seats 200... 50 tables or so? Or is the average Denny's somewhat smaller than that?

I'm referring to the original post where DAWELAH says management decided to establish and operate a restaurant with 200 person capacity, right next to their main branch, which IS certified to ISO 9001:2000, and provides Travel & Tourism services. I wonder what value an industrial executive would perceive when noticing that hey, the restaurant is ISO 9001:2000 also! Impressive, but immaterial.

This is THE PLACE to implement ISO 9001:2000. The business is going to be substantial and complex, the margins are slim, customer perception is key. Success is absolutely critical.

The participants of this thread, Patrick foremost, have provided first-rate input on characteristics and factors of success in a restaurant business.

What we have not provided are good examples of how the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 would be met in a restaurant.

Let's talk about where the shall's are and where the shall's aren't. The standard is non-proscriptive and non-specific precisely because they wanted it to be applicable to restaurants and factories and schools and government offices.

The standard does not dictate that Steak a la Fancy Schmancy is defined as 8.9 to 9.1 ounces, or that measuring cups need to be calibrated just because they're used in producing an output.

The standard does dictate that the management system based on it must be suitable, adequate, and effective. It dictates that the requirements of the product are determined. It dictates that the objectives of the organization are appropriate to the purpose of the organization.

The ISO 9001 certificate as a badge on the wall is not the way to succeed in restauranting. ISO 9001 is the way to Michelin stars, good reviews in print. ISO 9001 is the way to avoid shortages or waste from poor scheduling, the way to avoid fires, fines and closings because of unsafe food.

Because we have removed the value and focus on the badge on the wall, this is a pure implementation. ISO 9001 will be suitable and adequate to a restaurant based on merits alone.

I don't entirely agree that the model we've defined is accurate. OK, true, the service must be repeatable, and maybe that doesn't apply to Mom n' Pop's. It applies to serious business.

Maybe the customer requirements are that something different is found every time... can't we design a service to accomplish that?

What if the customer needs and expectations include being insulted by wait staff? Well, then you PERFECT that. You develop a process for new insults and new slang that the customers are going to enjoy.

When I read the standard, I see nothing that would not be applicable to a restaurant. The value of certification is immaterial (I learned that here at The Cove). The focus of the standard is effective management that is documented, formalized, and improved as a process.

If my company were turning over a million dollars a year, you bet I'd use ISO 9001:2000, whether the company was 200 seats in a restaurant or 60 screw machine spindles cranking out parts.

Let's give the premise that the business turns over $2M a year, employs 20, and the style and atmosphere of the place isn't to the extremes. For example, it's not fast food, it's not fine dining. Patrick's cafe is probably spot on.

Can anyone find a requirement that would not be applicable to an efficient and successful restaurant business management system?

apestate

30th June 2006, 03:38 AM

So here's a summary: I would suggest you use ISO 9001 when

- systematic reduction of variance matters to your business
- you have a diverse range of suppliers
- the model teaches you useful stuff
- there isn't a more detailed model for your business sector (documented or otherwise)
- as a franchise operator you can't afford corporate auditors
- as a cafe owner you can afford registrars
- your customers value the ISO 9001 certificate.

These specifics are simply the way we quality practitioners have applied the standard, with exception.

For instance, a large portion of management is creating a systemic construct. Rules, for instance. Therefore, I would agree with the inclusion of variation reduction into your applicability model.

I don't think having a diverse range of suppliers makes a difference. What controls are specified by section 7.4? Shalls: Ensure that purchased product conforms to specified requirements. Base the extent of control on the importance of purchased product to final product. Evaluate and select suppliers who can supply needed product. Establish criteria for this selection, and maintain records of it.

Patrick, we could do this at the local farmer's market with a notebook in hand.

I'll skip purchasing information because that will take more creativity than I can sit around and arse right now.

Shalls: establish inspection or verification necessary for ensuring that purchased product meets specified purchase requirements.

OK, here's an idea. We need tomatoes. Not roma tomatoes so much, not the big ugly beefsteaks, something more like a hot house or a good hybrid, for the distinguishing customer. We develop and establish the purchasing criteria. We select the supplier on the spot, because if he's got tomatoes in a cart, yes he is able to supply to our requirements.

We verify the product on the spot and maintain records with our little record/receipt book.

Suitable, adequate, effective. Extent of documentation differs from organization to organization. Can be in any form or medium. One-page quality manuals. Procedures with no language, just pictures.

This model of standard teaches us useful things. Industry-specific adaptations of ISO 9001:2000 like TL9000 could be obtained by taking ISO 9001:2000 into a telecommunications provider and applying it properly. Boom, TL9000. The advent of these specific standards is just to help us when the work is already done. It's a custom QMS and facilitates the standardization of b2b.

And I'll also contest the cost. Quality is free.

pldey42

30th June 2006, 06:46 AM

pldey42

30th June 2006, 06:56 AM

On tomatoes: ISO 9001's assumption is that you can write down all the criteria that matter, and in the engineering world you can.

Tomatoes: They need to be red. A little unripe green is ok, especially if they look like they'll keep for a day. And they need to smell good.

Avocados: Not too firm, not too soft.

Brie cheese: A bit runny, so it'll be nice and soft by tonight. If it's very runny or smells off, don't buy it.

All these definitions are very subjective. For example, many people think Brie always smells off. You could maybe define "not too soft" with some kind of caliper instrument I suppose, but a fresh food buyer with experience and a nose is going to be far more effective. I don't believe real food buyers would allow themselves to be managed by documented specs, except in the large chains like McDonalds where they have it rigorously controlled.

Quality is Free: It's a good title for a book but it's not to be taken literally, IMHO. You invest time, money and equipment in quality and the return, in terms of revenues, has to be more. Otherwise, quality costs credibility. (I just made that up -- cool, huh?! :-)

Patrick

pldey42

30th June 2006, 07:11 AM

Agreed you could apply the requirements to the cafe. But they're about reducing variation in operational processes.

So yes, we could design processes to cope with wildly varying customer requirements -- but ISO 9001 won't help us.

I'm curious: What would be the documented procedure for insults? The criteria for a good insult? ;-)

"The value of certification is immaterial." Hmph. Why bother then? More seriously, I think it's desperately important for quality practitioners to be able to show the value of certification to their business on a continuing basis. I know several who are now redundant because they couldn't. And persuading managers to "do quality" is much easier when you can convince them that they'll get more, in terms of revenues, than they'll spend. (Sometimes that's a leap of faith, and infectious enthusiasm like yours can help them make it, provided they believe there will ultimately be value.)

Which is where we (or at least I) started!
Patrick

apestate

30th June 2006, 07:39 AM

I'm beginning to understand your position, Patrick.

Reading the standard is one thing, interpreting it is another. If we're going to apply ISO 9000 to every conceivable thing out there, then why does it look so darn much like factory management?

Is it universal enough to be valuable to a restaurant?

Still, if I got the job managing a $1.5M business as a plank owner, I would convince top management to implement an effective formalized, documented management system that was continually improved as a process. ISO 9000 taught me that, and I would look to it first to accomplish that.

I can't stand the fact that the value of certification is a factor here, and altruistic idealism rejects that as incorrect.

So, I'll be back again. For now, the weekend beckons.

pldey42

30th June 2006, 08:47 AM

Good :-)

Yes, ISO 9001 is a great general model for a management team minded to run their business in a design- or specification-based fashion. I think the sector-specific variants add real value to it by giving useful guidance on things that matter in that sector: TL 9000 addresses 24/7 telecom network issues, TS 16949 addresses variance and FMEA across the system of components in an automotive engine or transmission that come from different suppliers, and ISO 13485 addresses issues like sterilisation that are vital in the medical field. What they all have in common is, there's a big bad ugly bunch of -- usually three or four -- customers at the top of the food chain demanding certification, thus making it worth doing: proactive suppliers make sure it adds value to their business, while the rest drag their feet and then wonder why it costs so much.

You share idealism with Deming, who championed continual improvement regardless of the return on investment. I think there are many companies out there that validate that philosophy, most of them Japanese or Far Eastern. If the management culture one is working with shares that belief, wonderful. But for most quality engineers, it's but a dream, a vision to work towards by producing Crosby's "dead dragons" regularly and piling them in a heap to show "management" of the value of quality. Sadly.

Patrick

apestate

30th June 2006, 08:53 AM

aH, your last post sparked an idea for a restaurant management system.

Kanban.

We'll talk next week. :)

Martijn

4th July 2006, 07:22 AM

Yes, it's all written up and there are pictures showing what's expected. But what happens when the auditors visit? Well first, they're McDonalds auditors I'm guessing. None of that "don't give advice" stuff here. "Do it our way or the high way" is more likely, though no doubt more politely. I read somewhere they're the same with buns, and fried. Buns are made to their recipe which was designed to enable the bun to withstand freezing, unfreezing, toasting, hot meat, cold soggy salad -- and still be bright and fresh and bouncy on the plate. Potatoe growers are told exactly which variety of spud to grow so that it can be ground into powder, made into things that look like frozen fried, etc, etc. Again, suppliers have no choices and I imagine the whole thing is audited. The QMS includes recipes not just for burgers but for buns, agricultural advice, precise rules for suppliers, precise rules for franchisees, and its audited -- prescriptively -- by McDonalds corporate people. I imagine other major chains have similar, prescriptive systems. They're spectacularly effective, partly because the supply chain is _not_ diverse and, unlike ISO 9001, they are almost entirely prescriptive. I don't think ISO 9001 would help you get anywhere near such a system: instead of going on an ISO 9001 course, I'd go work at McDonalds for a week.

Besides the prescriptive auditing you mention here, there's also a very customer satisfaction focussed mechanism they use, the "mystery guest" or whatever you call it. Pay people to eat at a certain Mac, then call them for results with questions like "did they ask if you wanted supersize" etc.. Sort of a mix of auditing from a customer point of view and customer satisfaction assessment.

This has become a really interesting thread I must say. I've got the feeling that the "traditional" manufacturing QMS's can learn from how restaurants are run. Intense customer contact, no bureaucracy, teamwork and training is key, etc.. So perhaps restaurants should not go for ISO 9000 after all (my first opinion). Perhaps we should try to run our business more like restaurants :bonk: .


	Web Elsmar.com