Generalizations are always risky. But, realizing that we are seeing more Cove participants from regions of the World other than North America and Europe, I detect that many participants from the Middle East and Australasia seem to have strong affinity with "old fashioned", document and form intensive QMS's. In my experience, these regions have been and continue to be influenced by British quality consulting organizations, which tend to be extremely traditional and "out of the box solution" bashers.
Some of the recent post exchanges here at the Cove about internal audits, CA/PA (DIE HARD 376), etc... show a significant difference in cultural approaches to implementing QMS's.
Don't get me wrong. I am not inferring that all British quality consultants are too prescriptive. We have a number of UK based Covers that show a lot of creativity and forward thinking. And we also have a number of North American Covers that don't like out of the box thinking, but I hope that the quality system "culture" in emerging economies is not overly influenced by archaic, ineffective, document and form intensive quality consultants.

Here's my look at it...when ISO 9001 first came out, those of us who first implemented it more than likely had a tendancy to go document-happy! Having hundreds if not thousands of documents was normal and expected. As our systems - and those of us in Management Systems - have matured, styles and methodologies to maintain and improve have also evolved.

Many of us now question the need for all this documentation. Many of us now question the need for rigidity within the system. Our growth and development has led many of us to realize that a system (and its tools and methodologies) must be flexible and dynamic. As the company grows, so to must the system and the culture.

For those people looking to develop rigidly documented systems in these economies (and for those that are new to Management Systems), I say "Give 'em time...they'll see the light, just as we did." As much as I would like to say "Listen to us with experience! We know what you're going through and where you'll end up!", I know that we won't necessarily be listened to. So I try to explain from a mature system standpoint, but I admit that more than likely, my point-of-view is falling on deaf ears...I just hope that perhaps I can help one person.

I think that there are "growing pains" that every Management System must go through...and every person involved in the field, as well.

I've said this before and I'll say it again...when I started at my current organization, the very thought of a Quality Manual got me excited. I could go on and on about ISO 9001 and how wonderful it was. It's hard to believe that it's only been 5 years here...but in that time, I've come to appreciate and love the beauty of the Business Management System. I've learned to appreciate all of the tools and methodolgies (i.e., ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISRS, failure analysis, standard auditing, standardization and there are so many more) and the linkages between all of them. To that effect, my organization even has a "board game" to help people learn how all of the individual tools and methodologies link up and align. It's actually a lot of fun!

I became involved in ISO 9001 as part of my summer off after 1st year University. Personnally, my boss at the time and I joked that I was hired because I used the word "crap" in my definition of ISO...but I still believed that it could benefit an organization.

Over 10 years later, I still appreciate it, but also see that there is a remarkable difference between doing was the standard says and what the standard implies. There is so much more value to all Stakeholders if the latter is done...but it may take time for people who are new to the concept to appreciate this subtlety.

*steps down from the soapbox and hands the microphone back to Sidney*

It's nothing to do with being British. As an Englishman I spent nine years in the USA and for every one American quality manager I found that could think outside the box, there were many, many who were archaic, ineffective, documentation and form intensive. As you said, generalisations are risky and this one's plain wrong.

The reason people all over the world - please do not imagine America is ahead, because you ain't - emphasise documentation too much is fear of auditors. Look at the questions here at the Cove: most are concerned with what the auditors think.

Patrick

It's nothing to do with being British. As an Englishman I spent nine years in the USA and for every one American quality manager I found that could think outside the box, there were many, many who were archaic, ineffective, documentation and form intensive. As you said, generalisations are risky and this one's plain wrong.

The reason people all over the world - please do not imagine America is ahead, because you ain't - emphasise documentation too much is fear of auditors. Look at the questions here at the Cove: most are concerned with what the auditors think.

Patrick

Very frank Patrick.:thanx:

I feel that there are a lot of American QA Managers that will think outside the box. I believe that comes with experience. As for the question of "what the auditors think" is true. Most of the experienced QA Managers know to challenge auditors when they feel that the Auditor is out-of-bed. But a lot of this again is experience. There are some other issues that some auditors have a difference of opinion on what the standard requires, but there are some auditors that understand the standard and are consistent with the way they audit. Again this falls under experience, in my opinion.

Look at the questions here at the Cove: most are concerned with what the auditors think.

Fear of:

The Auditors
Their Boss
Losing their job
Being deemed a failure


Yes, fear plays a part. With time and experience and exposure that fear should go away. I've reached that point where our system is our system. It meets not only the requirements of ISO 9001 but also the requirements of our Stakeholders.

It's hardly perfect, though...we have hiccups...but we also strive to continually improve our processes through the involvement of our Stakeholders.

I've realized that our system is bigger than one auditor coming in with a checklist and pen. It is who we are...what we do.

My only fear is that our system will fail (irrational, but a fear nevertheless)...not because of an auditor....but because of ourselves.

Fear of:

The Auditors
Their Boss
Losing their job
Being deemed a failure


Yes, fear plays a part. With time and experience and exposure that fear should go away. I've reached that point where our system is our system. It meets not only the requirements of ISO 9001 but also the requirements of our Stakeholders.

It's hardly perfect, though...we have hiccups...but we also strive to continually improve our processes through the involvement of our Stakeholders.

I've realized that our system is bigger than one auditor coming in with a checklist and pen. It is who we are...what we do.

My only fear is that our system will fail (irrational, but a fear nevertheless)...not because of an auditor....but because of ourselves.


Well put RC. And for the three words that you like to hear: You are right.

Well put RC. And for the three words that you like to hear: You are right.

I'm swooning! :D

Ain't no reason to be afeared of old Randy:notme:

It's nothing to do with being British. You are right. But when you consider the fact that certification to quality management standards is an activity that has been in place in the UK since the 1970's and, relatively speaking, the UK has the highest concentration of "ISO 9001" certificates in the World, the British have influenced the ISO 9000 consulting and certification business all over the World. And the influence continues to propagate. Look who was providing ISO 9000 and Lead Assessor Courses in the US in the 90's.

Many ineffective QMS's around the World are a undesired byproduct of the legacy of consulting models that have been proofed and tested to pass audits, but ineffective in terms of improving organizational performance.

You are right. But when you consider the fact that certification to quality management standards is an activity that has been in place in the UK since the 1970's and, relatively speaking, the UK has the highest concentration of "ISO 9001" certificates in the World, the British have influenced the ISO 9000 consulting and certification business all over the World. And the influence continues to propagate. Look who was providing ISO 9000 and Lead Assessor Courses in the US in the 90's.



These remarks are objectionable. I refuse to engage in such nationalistic nonsense. I suggest the Cove does likewise if it intends to retain its international flavour.


Having worked in quality in England, Germany, France, America, Australia and Japan I;ve learned it's true there are cultural influences that impact the implementation of quality management systems in different countries; but in that discussion there is no room nationalistic one-upmanship.


Many ineffective QMS's around the World are a undesired byproduct of the legacy of consulting models that have been proofed and tested to pass audits, but ineffective in terms of improving organizational performance.

True. Nothing to do with auditors or consultants being British. All nations, including the USA, are equally capable of misunderstanding a simple message.

Patrick

The word "fear" comes up to often in these type of discussions. If only we could embrace Deming's philosophy and drive out fear.

Fear of failure - we learn from mistakes, not successes
Fear of the Auditors - auditors can be and are sometimes wrong and need to be challenged when required.
Fear of Their Boss - it is our duty to express all available options and alternatives.
Fear of Losing their job - I have finally come to the point where if I lose my job for doing my job, I at least can live with myself.


Just my :2cents:

You are right. But when you consider the fact that certification to quality management standards is an activity that has been in place in the UK since the 1970's and, relatively speaking, the UK has the highest concentration of "ISO 9001" certificates in the World, the British have influenced the ISO 9000 consulting and certification business all over the World. And the influence continues to propagate. Look who was providing ISO 9000 and Lead Assessor Courses in the US in the 90's.

Many ineffective QMS's around the World are a undesired byproduct of the legacy of consulting models that have been proofed and tested to pass audits, but ineffective in terms of improving organizational performance.

You hit the nail on the head, Sidney! As another (ex-pat) Brit who came over on the first wave of ISO certifications, I too agree that the British model has been firmly planted in the US implementation. Furthermore, since the Brits wrote the model on which ISO9000 was based (BS5750) this influence was very clear, until the 2000 version which attempted to bring about some (US) influences.:applause:

Indeed, culturally, the Brits still don't give a fig for customers! My trip back to the UK recently reconfirmed that! Take a look at service industries such as hotels, resturants etc to see that customers are not taken seriously.:mg:

There is, however, some culpability on the part of US businesses - I believe it was DuPont who coined the phrase that "ISO is say what you do, do what you say" - (I've even given presentations which said the same - a loooooong time ago!!):notme:

This mantra is, of course, grossly wrong. It was, however, sufficient to get you registered.............:nope:

So, what's the score now, Sidney? US1 - UK 1?;)

Andy

OK...I may rant here so bare with me. I was in the military, primarily Aviation, for twenty years. I saw MIL Specs, TQM and all three ISOs flash before my eyes along with Guru Theory upon Guru Theory including Six Sigma, Kepner Tregoe etc
My take on the whole 'Boxed system' of ISO documentation is that the initial Auditors, Registrars etc etc were from the military or departments involved with them. Aviation Documentation is precise and long winded..they leave nothing to Chance. It does not matter that everyone is trained to a superior level - You still have to take the manual along to change an 'O' ring. With this in mind and the requirement of governments require (in many cases) that companies needed to be Certified to be able to conduct business started a need for more 'Consultants', they left the service jobs in droves and handed out boxed sets of QMS's where the only difference was the company name. The initial ISO (1984) did not really give us much of a break from the boxed system and the majority of registrars deemed anything different to be sacrilege. The 2K system allowed us to be more free and build a system along our company business programs. I hope everyone adopts this system although I can see from the cove that many haven't or aren't allowed to. there are still people that take the Specification as literal and regurgitate such things as SHALL all over the place. People should look at their company and see how it operates - they should then take the standard and see how it fits aginst THEIR system. Adjustments can then be made.
I disagree that the British were the sole contributors to this Boxed set system but agree that they were more inclined to conform to ISO through the paperwork side of things whereas the Americas (IMHO) looked for Guru theories to make the Standard better when they should have been adopting these solely to make their companies better. We had and still have differing opinions on QUALITY ASSURANCE versus QUALITY CONTROL versus the STANDARD. It is evident by the responses of Guru followers, Statiticians, Auditors and Consultants. It is evident by the fact that we NEED a forum of this nature to debate the STANDARD.
I'm all ranted out but look forward to your responses as I am sure there will be many LOL:D

You hit the nail on the head, Sidney! As another (ex-pat) Brit who came over on the first wave of ISO certifications, I too agree that the British model has been firmly planted in the US implementation. Furthermore, since the Brits wrote the model on which ISO9000 was based (BS5750) this influence was very clear, until the 2000 version which attempted to bring about some (US) influences.:applause:



Why listen to US influences? Which nation was it that decided it could afford to send Deming to Japan because he wasn't useful at home?

How did Harley Davidson fend off Japanese better quality motorcycles? (These were bikes that didn't spit oil.) By making better bikes? No. They lobbied to control imports and made breaking down on the highway a feature!

What about the American motor industry and how it was decimated by Japanese imports? Or radios, CD players and TVs - does anyone have an American or British made system? No, they're all Sony, Panasonic and Samsung.

How does a country driven by Wall Street quarterly short term greed contribute anything to quality thinking? What has the US contributed?

"Six Sigma", some will say. "Motorola and GE, good ole American companies," they'll say. Yet that merely encapsulates what Deming and Japan knew decades ago. Next?!


Indeed, culturally, the Brits still don't give a fig for customers! My trip back to the UK recently reconfirmed that! Take a look at service industries such as hotels, resturants etc to see that customers are not taken seriously.:mg:



In a word: beer.

For decades since Prohibition American beer companies gave no figs at all to customers. Only recently did microbreweries start making a decent product.

And where's the pleasure in hotels and restaurants all over the USA doing exactly the same thing with their repeatable processes and formulae? If you sit in a Holiday Inn or a Hooters, you can't tell if you're in Peoria or Princeton: the service will be equally good -- or bad. No personality, no excitement, just same ole, same ole.


There is, however, some culpability on the part of US businesses - I believe it was DuPont who coined the phrase that "ISO is say what you do, do what you say" - (I've even given presentations which said the same - a loooooong time ago!!):notme:

This mantra is, of course, grossly wrong. It was, however, sufficient to get you registered.............:nope:

So, what's the score now, Sidney? US1 - UK 1?;)

Andy

I really do not see any point in making this a nationalistic competition, for that will raise strong emotions and obscure the value in the question that Sydney originally raised.

Here's why. If I had to compare American and British interpretations of ISO 9001 I'd say, reluctantly, that the British interpretations are generally not literal. We have the concept of "it's not cricket", meaning, don't push the rules to the limit, remember their intent and "play the game." We call it being civilised. It's a concept almost unheard of outside the UK except possibly in places like Australia and Canada. In the US, with its foundation in the Consitution, there's a tendency to be more literally minded with ISO 9001 and that is where much of the trouble starts. Companies get into legal-beagle arguments with their auditors about whether the standard means this or that. It happens in England too, of course, but if you pick your auditor carefully the "it's not cricket" argument has a better chance.

Now, that's not really a serious point. I say it to illustrate the dangerous ground we get into when nationalistic pride takes over from objective consideration of cultural impact on implementing a QMS.

As Greg B notes, ISO 9001 has its roots in military systems, and its management theory can be traced back to Taylorism

http://melbecon.unimelb.edu.au/het/taylor/sciman.htm

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/dea453_653/ideabook1/thompson_jones/Taylorism.htm

Writing in 1911, Taylor (an American) predated Deming by decades. The question then becomes, why is ISO 9001 based on an old, outdated -- American -- management theory?

Getting back to Sidney's original question there are certainly cultural impacts on QMS implementations. The first and largest problem is auditors who, like it or not, generate fear. The UK reaction to that tends towards subtlety - make 'em happy and do the right thing when they're not looking. The American attitude tends to be more adversarial. In one European country I won't name for fear of causing undue offense, they follow the rules set by auditors without caring about value, and everyone's happy: the day after the auditors leave the site, the real QMS comes back out of hiding.

The next problem is simply that ISO 9001 is written in English, for English speakers. I think several questions at the Cove from people whose natural language is not English stem from their reasonable expectation that it should be clearly written. The incredibly long discussion about "CARs and PARs - one procedure or two" is surely a clear indicator that the standard itself is badly written in places, and that will make it extra difficult for people who are translating into their own language as they read.

But please don't blame bad QMS teaching on Brits. It's a gross generalisation that does nothing to promote understanding of quality or of cultural differences.

Patrick

Very frank Patrick.:thanx:

I feel that there are a lot of American QA Managers that will think outside the box.


That's true. Silicon Valley is daily proof of that. But sadly, I think that's despite ISO 9001, not because of it. How can continual improvement encourage innovation when it's done by procedure?!

Indeed, one can argue that the purpose of ISO 9001 is to discourage thinking outside the box, because its objective is to establish repeatable, predictable processes.

Auditors exacerbate this problem. More than once I have seen innovative thinking stifled -- in America -- because the auditors have certified the management system and the quality manager, while not scared of losing the certificate, doesn't want the expense of teaching the auditors that the new system meets the requirements too: short term thinking dicates that it's cheaper to leave it alone, even if long term it will be more expensive.

It's true that ISO 9001 has continual improvement in section 8. But it was only added in 2000 - fifty or sixty years after Deming identified it as a key ingredient of competitive business management. Still, the balance is towards conformity and companies are encouraged to put the brakes on change with "change management systems" and the like.


I believe that comes with experience. As for the question of "what the auditors think" is true. Most of the experienced QA Managers know to challenge auditors when they feel that the Auditor is out-of-bed. But a lot of this again is experience. There are some other issues that some auditors have a difference of opinion on what the standard requires, but there are some auditors that understand the standard and are consistent with the way they audit. Again this falls under experience, in my opinion.

Yes, my experience is in accord.

Several years ago I saw an experienced quality manager report in a newsgroup that he perceived two kinds of auditor: those with business experience, and those without. He reported he got valuable audit findings from the first group, only. I believe but sadly cannot prove that there are very many auditors out there from the second group, and that's why they can't agree on what the standard means: they don't have the background that it assumes readers have.

But you raise a profound point: ISO 9001 and the audit process is supposed to help companies improve their process management maturity. If it can't do that repeatably, predictably, with inexperienced people -- who surely are the prime audience -- what's it doing? The quality management teaching process itself, with the standard and the auditing, is Taylorism. It's trying to make teaching quality into a mechanistic "science" (in the old fashioned sense of the word, a system of rules to be followed blindly). It pays lip service to leadership (calls it "management"), avoids accountability and promotes fear with auditors and their "corrective actions".

ISO 9001 can be described as the very antithesis of Deming's ideas. After Taylorism had turned industries into automata, Deming saw that instituting leadership and driving out fear were two keys to quality management, customer service and innovative thinking -- and now they're two hallmarks of Silicon Valley companies, missing still from ISO 9001.

Patrick

I really do not see any point in making this a nationalistic competition, for that will raise strong emotions and obscure the value in the question that Sydney originally raised.
Patrick


It seems that there is a lot a bashing here on this issue, and I agree with Patrick, Nationalistic does not come into play.

What is the big deal if the QMS Standards were based in the UK, US, Japan...who really gives a _ _ _ t !

The main focus here is that culture does play a major role in business, be it right or wrong. Each country/continent has taken the positive aspects of each other countries/continent way of doing business and modified it to meet their needs.

"Each country/continent has taken the positive aspects of each other countries/continent way of doing business and modified it to meet their needs."

Yes, absolutely. As you probably know some multinationals deliberately move their people around to broaden their education, develop cultural sensitivity and (while avoiding sterotyping) take advantage of each nation's strengths. For example, the Mediterranean parts of Europe are known for their passion, while those of us in the more northerly regions are regarded as cool and dispassionate. Bring us together and you can form an amazing team that combines the best of both worlds.

I was thinking of giving an example of how Americans and Brits can complement each others strengths ... but I couldn't think of one ;-)

Patrick

I was thinking of giving an example of how Americans and Brits can complement each others strengths ... but I couldn't think of one ;-)

Patrick


Patrick,

The closest I could think of, even though this is way off topic, is Allies in wars.

I think we're getting a little off topic here. I would also hate to see this thread turn into a nation-bashing zone - this would more than likely result in the thread being closed/deleted.

I highly doubt that Sidney's post was meant to insult anyone or their nation. Instead, I think he was commenting on something that I, too, am seeing in some of the more newer members to start participating in the Cove. Nationality aside, I am amazed at how rigid some of these newcomers are.

Either one their one or with the help of a mentor/consultant, the questions appear to be geared towards the development of rigid (i.e., old-fashioned) management systems.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to why this might be happening? Is it just fear? Is it lack of knowledge and experience? Is it a need to conform with the "shalls" and only the "shalls"?

Generalizations are always risky. But, realizing that we are seeing more Cove participants from regions of the World other than North America and Europe, I detect that many participants from the Middle East and Australasia seem to have strong affinity with "old fashioned", document and form intensive QMS's. In my experience, these regions have been and continue to be influenced by British quality consulting organizations, which tend to be extremely traditional and "out of the box solution" bashers.



RC, That is what I was saying in the previous reply, that this has gone way off topic and was becoming Nationalistic. But as you can see from Sidney's original post (which I have underlined certain statements) this put the negative attitude toward other Countries.

But as for your question: "Does anyone have any thoughts as to why this might be happening? Is it just fear? Is it lack of knowledge and experience? Is it a need to conform with the "shalls" and only the "shalls"?"

1. As for my thoughts why this is happening. I believe I sort of addressed this when I said: "The main focus here is that culture does play a major role in business, be it right or wrong. Each country/continent has taken the positive aspects of each other countries/continent way of doing business and modified it to meet their needs."

2. I agreed with your statements of "fear" because it is the major factor for most people. This can be alleviated by applying experience to how to handle the 3rd Party Auditors.

3. I have answered that one with my reply.

4. The minimum requirements (the shalls) are usually written by persons that may lack the experience in developing and implementing a QMS. For most beginners in the Quality Arena (from their bosses or company) want only the Certificate of Registration and place little or no value of the Business as a whole. But, for us maybe the experienced ones, know that there is more to a QMS then the shalls, and drive for the Business improvements and try to break through the competitive markets.

The next problem is simply that ISO 9001 is written in English, for English speakers. I think several questions at the Cove from people whose natural language is not English stem from their reasonable expectation that it should be clearly written. The incredibly long discussion about "CARs and PARs - one procedure or two" is surely a clear indicator that the standard itself is badly written in places, and that will make it extra difficult for people who are translating into their own language as they read.


Patrick

As a "newbie" and a writer, I dispute the notion that ISO 9001 is written in clear and understandable English. The words are English, but ISOspeak is akin to a foreign language. I would despair of translating it effectively into another language without some serious rewriting. So much effort was put forth to be all-inclusive, that clarity has gone out the window.:frust:

Gail

The issue of "fear" is one that cannot be totally quantified and will not go away regardless of what flavor of the day management philosophy put into play.

Just yesterday during the present course I'm presenting (14K LA) I talked about the influences that management, auditors, guides and conditons can can present on the folks being interviewed, and how those influences can impact what you get out of them.....mostly regugitation.

Fear is real, fear is there, and fear isn't going to go away.

:topic:
pldey42 is just being honest and blunt which is one of the traits I admire in my Brit friends.

Patrick,

The closest I could think of, even though this is way off topic, is Allies in wars.

Yeah, cheerful thought, that.

It does remind me, though, of the story I hope is true about how it was American pilots who perfected power turns in the British-designed HS Jump-Jets, because our guys were too busy following the manual which said something like "Don't do power turns, the wings might fall off."

That perhaps encapsulates some of how Brits and Americans work well together - a blend of formal control and informal risk-taking can work better than just the one approach alone. The English have a tendency, I think, to be second to market with an excellent product, while the Americans tend to be first to market with a ... less-than-perfect product. (Colour TV for example.) Being first means you capture market share, but then you drive your market nuts. Being second means being nowhere these days. I suppose Quality is about trying to get the best of both those worlds -- as the Japanese keep demonstrating.

Patrick

As a "newbie" and a writer, I dispute the notion that ISO 9001 is written in clear and understandable English. The words are English, but ISOspeak is akin to a foreign language. I would despair of translating it effectively into another language without some serious rewriting. So much effort was put forth to be all-inclusive, that clarity has gone out the window.:frust:

Gail

As an oldie and wannabe writer, I agree and did not mean to imply ISO 9001 is written well. It's not. In addition to being all-inclusive -- which makes it too abstract as practical guidance unless you know what it means -- it doesn't give examples, in a misguided attempt to avoid being prescriptive.

It doesn't even start right, with its definition of quality thus: "degree to which a set of inherent characteristics (3.5.1) fulfils requirements (3.1.2)". Even English speakers have trouble deciding what that means, so heaven help anyone whose natural language is not English. What was wrong with Crosby's "conformance to requirements"?

For us at the Cove I think this means listening to questions from an international audience carefully and first checking that the language of the standard means the same to them as it does to us English speakers ... which of course it won't because we can't even agree amongst ourselves what it means in some cases :-(

Patrick

I think we're getting a little off topic here. I would also hate to see this thread turn into a nation-bashing zone - this would more than likely result in the thread being closed/deleted.



I agree whole-heartedly. As one who has actively worked in Quality in several different countries, I'd like to add this:

I do believe there are differences in how a QMS works depending on the local culture. It can't be avoided sometimes and has to be discussed, but with sensitivity to the "hot buttons" of other cultures. It's best done in the style you and Coury are exemplifying, I think, of rejoicing in eachothers strengths.

For example, I worked on quality in Germany for some while. They know they have a reputation for being a rules-based culture. Thankfully they can see the funny side of a pedestrian waiting patiently at the curb, waiting to cross the road on a quiet Sunday morning, waiting forever for the little green man even though there's not a moving car in sight, because the rule is, wait for the green man. The upside of their rule-based culture is it's perfectly safe to leave a Ferrari parked on the streets of Stuttgart, with the top down.

For quality, that means you have to write incredibly detailed procedures. Where an English or American person would just get on with following the procedure and hope they get it right, a German will find a dozen questions to ask about "is it this way or that?" ... which is how one learns -- reluctantly and screaming and belatedly, begrudgingly acknowledging they're right -- that German precision has something going for it.


I highly doubt that Sidney's post was meant to insult anyone or their nation. Instead, I think he was commenting on something that I, too, am seeing in some of the more newer members to start participating in the Cove. Nationality aside, I am amazed at how rigid some of these newcomers are.

Either one their one or with the help of a mentor/consultant, the questions appear to be geared towards the development of rigid (i.e., old-fashioned) management systems.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to why this might be happening? Is it just fear? Is it lack of knowledge and experience? Is it a need to conform with the "shalls" and only the "shalls"?

I think it's certainly language, fear of auditors and certainly a steep learning curve.

I think it may be another thing too and I'd love to know if I'm right or not: I've been told that some Eastern countries have very hierarchical structures and will not go against authority easily. (In China, for obvious reasons, I can imagine that might be an especially strong characteristic although I would love to be proven wrong.)

So where an Englishman might politely tell the boss he's a "stupid sod" for suggesting something obviously daft, and an American or Australian might be more ... blunt, I imagine that more compliant cultures will obediently do what is requested, regardless of its inherent sanity or lack thereof.

In such cultures, I can imagine that "shall" will carry more weight than it does in Western cultures -- especially since the advice to ignore requirements that do not apply to the business is stated in the dense, obscure language of section 1.2. (I can imagine someone new asking themselves, "So if it's in section 7, how do I know when I have to do it or not?!")

Patrick

The issue of "fear" is one that cannot be totally quantified and will not go away regardless of what flavor of the day management philosophy put into play.

Just yesterday during the present course I'm presenting (14K LA) I talked about the influences that management, auditors, guides and conditons can can present on the folks being interviewed, and how those influences can impact what you get out of them.....mostly regugitation.

Fear is real, fear is there, and fear isn't going to go away.



We could make it go away tomorrow: eliminate external auditors because they are the root cause of the fear.

There are some companies that say, do everything you need to do for ISO 9001 certification -- except bring in the external auditors.

I can think of one scenario where I think external auditors actually add real value. That is in auditing measurements collection, analysis and reporting processes in TL 9000 and thus assuring everyone the numbers they're using for benchmarking are reasonably accurate and comparable.

I think if other industries could follow telecom's example that would be healthy, because fear would shift from "Did I interpret the requirement correctly for my business?" to "Did I report my numbers correctly?"

In my view that's a healthy kind of fear, akin to the fear of competitors Grove instilled into Intel with his "only the paranoid survive" mantra.

So, I agree we can't elimiinate fear; but we could direct it towards the competition instead of people who ought to be our mentors.


:topic:
pldey42 is just being honest and blunt which is one of the traits I admire in my Brit friends.

<blush> Here, 'ave a pint!

Patrick

A little :topic: Each culture has its way, see this definition of Kaizen in which I have quoted someone that I feel knows his stuff. It was also originally placed in the thread Kaizen:

“Kaizen” is originally a Chinese word meaning “making bad things good”. There are many companies in Japan who are boasting of doing lots of kaizen. I think they are very rich of bad things. If they need to do kaizen continually, it means that they are no good eternally. Most of them do not know the true meaning of kaizen even in their own language and doing it just wrong way. This needs kaizen, indeed.

If you need to make any improvement, waste reduction or some necessary change, you should first use common sense. You can do most of them only with common sense or traditional (scientifically validated) techniques, without using tools of kindergarten level people. Process mapping is good but you can do it only with common sense of high school level.

Akio Miura"

The definition of "Kaizen or Kaizen Event" have different meanings to each culture. This is a quote that a very knowledgeable Asian named Akio Miura who has worked with companies from Asia and his definition of Kaizen which is not what other cultures might define what Kaizen means.

This just supports that each culture has their own definition of what a QMS is and what is the requirements.