Split from Expected Process Maps - Requirement to somehow document how these processes work? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17440).

We should avoid the dark side of ISO implementation, with the ISO coordinator in a room, cutting and pasting shall clauses...that way leads to the dreaded plak on the wall and no value obtained from ISO....just added costs....
This is a bit off topic :topic: , but I thought I'd respond...

The 'No Value' aspect is a whole different discussion. Any more I usually take a 'stand back' position in discussing these topics because I've gone through productive implementations with clients and I've had clients from 'heck' for which the process was not particularly productive. And I've discussed these aspects in many threads in these forums over the years.

I also have had a lot of feedback over the years from old clients who initially profitted very much from the implementation phase but say after that 'things went back to normal' after the registration audit thus they are seeing yearly audits as a cost of business. I have some old clients who did very good work to begin with and others who did 'poor' (for lack of a better word) work. After implementation and registration both companies had the same 'personalities' as they had before they started the project.

The ideal is improvement - The reality is often quite different. I hear the 'value' arguement a lot but I think for many companies it just isn't there. They do a good job to begin with, low scrap, high quality, low rejects, etc., etc. Registration does nothing for them. I have several old clients that haven't had nonconformances in their audits for going on 4 to 5 years. They are well run companies and were before ISO 9001 came into play (customer requirement, don't 'cha know...).

In part what comes into play here is what one's expectations of ISO 9001 are, as well as how much of a part there is an expectation that the auditor in essense becomes a consultant or advisor in how a company is operating it's business. It's not appropriate for us to rekindle the 'Value Added' debate in this thread and totally derail it, but... We can start a new thread to discuss 'Value Added'.

If you start a new thread, I'll particpate. This process approach - value thing is a soapbox for me. I think that most companies are only getting part of the potential value from ISO and TS. They implement OK, but there is a potent power that comes form using these tools to truly optimize each process on the molecular level. Kind of applying Lean and Six Sigma to ISO and TS. I don't see companies going that far, even in appropriate implementations, thus they leave a lot on the table. It is no wonder so many don't feel they want to do this.

How much of this do you see as companies running 'lean'? I've seen a lot of companies that simply don't have the number of personnel to act in what many would classify as 'ideal'.

How much of this do you see as companies running 'lean'? I've seen a lot of companies that simply don't have the number of personnel to act in what many would classify as 'ideal'.My experience is that many folks who assume the mantle of a "Lean Consultant" know the techniques of Lean backwards and forwards, but they are terrible consultants who don't have sufficient charisma to act as a Change Agent to coerce and cajole management and the employees of an organization into changing the corporate culture enough to accept and adopt the Lean techniques as their own.

Management without the benefit of an adviser they respect quickly leaps to the mistaken belief Lean is all about reducing body count instead of increasing production with the same body count. Once management seizes on this theme, the cascading ramifications in efficiency and morale (because of the element of FEAR about the stability of job tenure for self and friends) rapidly nullifies ANY benefit of the techniques the noncharismatic Lean consultant brought into play.

:topic: Why not tuck this thread over in Philosophy, Gurus, Controversy and Evolution (http://elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55) ?

:topic: Why not tuck this thread over in the Philosophy, Gurus, Controversy and Evolution (http://elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55) forum?
Oh, we could. I put it here because it essentially started as a 'Value of ISO 9001' thread, but like many threads here it could 'fit' in several forums.

Split from Expected Process Maps - Requirement to somehow document how these processes work? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17440).

The ideal is improvement - The reality is often quite different. I hear the 'value' arguement a lot but I think for many companies it just isn't there. They do a good job to begin with, low scrap, high quality, low rejects, etc., etc. Registration does nothing for them. I have several old clients that haven't had nonconformances in their audits for going on 4 to 5 years. They are well run companies and were before ISO 9001 came into play (customer requirement, don't 'cha know...).

Words never spoken more truly. As Wes noted, if you are not a well run company then the game becomes how do you change the culture. That can only happen if management is willing to change. Getting ISO 9001 registered can have its benefits but are not important if management has no understanding or intention of becoming better.

Bill Pflanz

Very good thoughts on this subject.

I personnally feel that a company does NOT neccesarily have to be registered but should have a "quality system" in place. It does not even have to be modeled after ISO but what is the best fit for that particular company.

But what do you do when a company does not want to pursue registration, (ISO would restrict us as to what we can do) and does not desire to have a Quality system per say? (A documented system would interfere with the successful financial model).

I believe that the "value" of having a sound QMS (or business quality model) eventually leads to increased profits at a much lower costs with increased customer satisfaction. Unfortunately, some companies still operate with the 60's mentally and cannot see the trees for the leaves much less the forest for the trees.

:2cents:

As Marc mentioned.....

This topic cuts across a bunch of things.....accredited organizations (laboratories, inspection bodies, etc.) have the same issues as they mature.....a neutral location as Wes suggested may be a good move.

Just my thoughts.

Hershal

Very good thoughts on this subject.
....(ISO would restrict us as to what we can do) and does not desire to have a Quality system per say? (A documented system would interfere with the successful financial model)....




I've been auditing for almost 10 years. In about a 1000 audits, I have never seen an example where ISO restricted a good process, or interfered with succesful financial models. Any chance you could elaborate on this concern?

...Management without the benefit of an adviser they respect quickly leaps to the mistaken belief Lean is all about reducing body count instead of increasing production with the same body count. Once management seizes on this theme, the cascading ramifications in efficiency and morale (because of the element of FEAR about the stability of job tenure for self and friends) rapidly nullifies ANY benefit of the techniques the noncharismatic Lean consultant brought into play....



Boy, a HEARTY Amen to that! :applause: I am so tired of seeing staff reductions being equated with Lean. They are usually decisions made by accountants to meet arbitrary or mandated ratios and targets without a whit's consideration given to what is good for the process. Less is not necessarily Lean, though it can be. But, sometimes more is more Lean.

One only has to look at the massive billion dollar reductions Ford and GM are doing as they race toward the bottom. It is already becoming widely clear they are merely losing their best and brightest.

I am sick and tired of downright stupid decisions being made at Corproate and mandated to the palnts. This is pervasive in all kinds of big companies. I mean decisions that are so patently obvious that they will not save money at the plant level, but it will save money in a particular category.

For example:
Mandating reductions in tooling costs (which resulted in a 2X increase in scrap costs).

Limiting new hiring at a real loss of improvement that was 4X the salary of the new hire.

Denying a capital improvement that would pay back 3X in 6 months.

This list can go on for pages. I am continually amazed at the absolutely incredibly stupid and patently blind decisions made by people with far more rank and ego than they have talent and insight. I am starting to write a white paper to capture some of the incredible stuff I see. (send me a private email if you have an example you are able to share).

...I also have had a lot of feedback over the years from old clients who initially profitted very much from the implementation phase but say after that 'things went back to normal' after the registration audit thus they are seeing yearly audits as a cost of business. I have some old clients who did very good work to begin with and others who did 'poor' (for lack of a better word) work. After implementation and registration both companies had the same 'personalities' as they had before they started the project.

The ideal is improvement - The reality is often quite different. I hear the 'value' arguement a lot but I think for many companies it just isn't there. They do a good job to begin with, low scrap, high quality, low rejects, etc., etc. Registration does nothing for them. I have several old clients that haven't had nonconformances in their audits for going on 4 to 5 years. They are well run companies and were before ISO 9001 came into play (customer requirement, don't 'cha know...).

In part what comes into play here is what one's expectations of ISO 9001 are, as well as how much of a part there is an expectation that the auditor in essense becomes a consultant or advisor in how a company is operating it's business. It's not appropriate for us to rekindle the 'Value Added' debate in this thread and totally derail it, but... We can start a new thread to discuss 'Value Added'.

1. I have never seen a good company, doing a good job with good data, that can not benefit from an appropriate implementation. Good understanding and implementation help poor companies get better, and help really good companies get even better.

2. I have seen a lot of companies who just "put in ISO" without really learning it, and they (surprise, surprise) claim they see no value in it. I posted a challenge some time ago for some of these companies who feel they are so good without ISO to post their numbers, but, somehow, that post got little action (though it had a lot of viewers).

3. The point is, ISO is common sense, codified into a system. Good companies do most of these things anyway. But, learning the process approach provides a framework to align and improve better than most systems I have seen.

There is a power in using ISO correctly, to it's fullest, that goes far beyond drawing flowcharts which get filed away for the auditor.

It seems that most companies who register for ISO9001 and so on are not really want to improve their capability of quality assurance, but to attract more attention from the potential customers.

In our country, to "make false" in the work of registration is very popular! And the auditor open one eye and close another eye. Why? All for the profits.

It seems that most companies who register for ISO9001 and so on are not really want to improve their capability of quality assurance, but to attract more attention from the potential customers.

In our country, to "make false" in the work of registration is very popular! And the auditor open one eye and close another eye. Why? All for the profits.


Your country does a lot of this now, but it will quickly catch up with the bad companies, just like it did in USA. Then, the good companies will excel, and the bad ones will suffer.

Your country does a lot of this now, but it will quickly catch up with the bad companies, just like it did in USA. Then, the good companies will excel, and the bad ones will suffer.

before we continue..i would like us to define what is a good company and what is bad company, so that we do not misunderstand each other... my definition of good company is successful/profitable company for the discussion of this thread.

ok, back to discussion...iso 9001 registration has nothing to do with the success or failure of the company...we have seen enough examples in us/canada...companies in china will continue to thrive as long as they have the government's backing and continue to export their products.

as mentioned in other threads, if the iso requirments from the customer are dropped, the popularity of iso will drop like a hot potatoes (which would not be a good thing for my employment)...chinese companies will continue to register for iso 9001/14001 because we (north america / europe) demand it, not because they want to improve.

Boy, a HEARTY Amen to that! :applause: I am so tired of seeing staff reductions being equated with Lean. They are usually decisions made by accountants to meet arbitrary or mandated ratios and targets without a whit's consideration given to what is good for the process. Less is not necessarily Lean, though it can be. But, sometimes more is more Lean.

One only has to look at the massive billion dollar reductions Ford and GM are doing as they race toward the bottom. It is already becoming widely clear they are merely losing their best and brightest.

I am sick and tired of downright stupid decisions being made at Corproate and mandated to the palnts. This is pervasive in all kinds of big companies. I mean decisions that are so patently obvious that they will not save money at the plant level, but it will save money in a particular category.

For example:
Mandating reductions in tooling costs (which resulted in a 2X increase in scrap costs).

Limiting new hiring at a real loss of improvement that was 4X the salary of the new hire.

Denying a capital improvement that would pay back 3X in 6 months.

This list can go on for pages. I am continually amazed at the absolutely incredibly stupid and patently blind decisions made by people with far more rank and ego than they have talent and insight. I am starting to write a white paper to capture some of the incredible stuff I see. (send me a private email if you have an example you are able to share).

You are dead on target with this information.:applause: This needs to be communicated widely to the people that can make the right decisions.

The big CEOs, COOs, and CFOs have lost the abililty to see and do what reality mandates in lieu of preception.

before we continue..i would like us to define what is a good company and what is bad company, so that we do not misunderstand each other... my definition of good company is successful/profitable company for the discussion of this thread.

ok, back to discussion...iso 9001 registration has nothing to do with the success or failure of the company...we have seen enough examples in us/canada...companies in china will continue to thrive as long as they have the government's backing and continue to export their products.

as mentioned in other threads, if the iso requirments from the customer are dropped, the popularity of iso will drop like a hot potatoes (which would not be a good thing for my employment)...chinese companies will continue to register for iso 9001/14001 because we (north america / europe) demand it, not because they want to improve.

No argument. ISO is a tool box of common sense business tools. Owning tools does not make a company good or bad. But a good company will use all the available tools for its benefit.

Whether you are certified or not, good companies generally apply the same common sense tools. It generally would be pretty easy for a non-certified company with good performance to become ISO certified.

Bad leadership, poor practices, and poor performance will eventually harm you. The weak only succeed when outside forces prop them up. In the US, some companies succeeded for years by milking their position. But, eventually, global competition caught up with their poor practices. China will enjoy a long period of growth, because external macro-economic forces are driving it. But, very quickly, good and not so good companies will begin to diverge. Not because they are or are not certified to ISO, but because those companies who cheat and do not focus on improvement will quickly be outpaced.

It is an inevitable law of Free Enterprise, and it will impact China before most of us retire.

China will enjoy a long period of growth, because external macro-economic forces are driving it. But, very quickly, good and not so good companies will begin to diverge. Not because they are or are not certified to ISO, but because those companies who cheat and do not focus on improvement will quickly be outpaced.

It is an inevitable law of Free Enterprise, and it will impact China before most of us retire.If you listen to this NPR piece (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5560807), you might re-think your opinion on China. An emerging pseudo capitalism with a lot of communist baggage doesn't work that great. Click on the http://elsmar.com/gif/icon_listen.gif icon.

:) Personally I believe that standards are common sense business practices and work well for a reference. The darker side I compare with our US lawmakers trying to legislate morality or that to a diet fad.
From my observations companies like Toyota doesn't use ISO/TS standards because the company has a culture of discipline. Many companies become ISO/TS because it carries a perception of discipline which is misplaced. For example many people join weight watchers because they don't have the discipline to follow proper eating & nutrition habits. If I tell someone I belong to weight watchers there is a perception that I am now disciplined in my nutrition when just the opposite is in fact true.

If you listen to this NPR piece (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5560807), you might re-think your opinion on China. An emerging pseudo capitalism with a lot of communist baggage doesn't work that great. Click on the http://elsmar.com/gif/icon_listen.gif icon.


I agree long run, but short term, the external macro-economic forces are driving it. Companies are falling all over themselves to open plants in China. Just like the Gold Rush of 1849. No way we can stop it externally for now, but internally they can kill it politically. And, if they maintain their politics, they may just do that eventually.