These folks recently SPAMMED the quality NG with the following. Any comments, folks?

******************************************

From: oxebridge@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: How to get ISO 9001 registered in 40 days

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 04:56:55 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - TampaBay

Get ISO 9001 registered in as little as 40 days, with no pre-existing
quality system in place.

--- Registrar of YOUR choice (no conflict of interest.)
--- Low impact program, does not intrude on operations.
--- Fully visible, on-site work, nothing "mailed in."
--- Inexpensive, as much as 1/3 the cost of leading competitors.
--- Includes training and hand-off of system after registration
--- Fully customized system, no boilerplate documentation.
--- Unprecedented success rate: ALL Rapid ISO clients have successfully registered, and ALL have maintained registration throughout surveillance.
--- No unethical "guarantees"--- just proven results (client references available.)
--- Free preassessment audit for qualified candidate companies.

Our proprietary "Rapid ISO Implementation Program" was designed by experienced ISO Administrators, not "consultants," and presents real-world implementation strategies without unnecessary documentation, calibration, or burdensome meetings. Our Implementation Specialists are not consultants, but RAB-certified registrar auditors, with real world, "in-the-trenches" experience, that brings both the views of auditor and auditee to bear on the process.

You provide the commitment to quality; we'll do the rest.

Maybe they are a new branch of PJ!

Among other things there are records requirements. I think these are folks who tell you to hire them technically as 'contract' personnel. They provide a person who serves as Management Rep through the audit. I think another one of the 'tricks' is a management review meeting at the start of the project - which gets a start on that requirement.

I guess what really gets me is the 40 day statement. Few companies with no pre-existing quality system is going to have enough history to show the systems are effective. I have seen companies where a registration audit was possible in 40 days but they had systems in place already.

They are aggressive marketers, and, like PJ, the marketing is probably highly effective.

I think there are many companies out there who have existing quality systems that are compatible with either ISO or QS. These companies are in a good position to become certified at any moment they choose, but for whatever reason have not elected to do so.

I think companies like this already have the committment to stable and progressive manufacturing systems and would elect to use a registration company with a proven track record of honesty and integrity.

You get what you pay for.

ASD...

It might be possible in a small organization where every single person is 125% committed to the goal. Not otherwise, IMHO. And beyond the initial registration, what is their success rate for surveillance audits?

Their web site appears to be down right now (Sunday evening). Maybe it's swamped by the thundering demand? :D Looking up the domain name in the Internet "whois" service reveals name, address and phone numbers for those who really want to know. ( http://www.networksolutions.com )


[This message has been edited by Graeme (edited 15 July 2001).]

I wouldn't go anywhere near those people. Unless It's some mom and pop shop with 3 employees it's impossible. How could you write procedures and everything, much less have internal audit evidence. On second thought if you were making snow-kones I guess you could do It.

Greg

Sounds a lot like PJ.
I think that most registrars want at least three months records prior to audit. Anybody who buys a pkg. like this is asking for trouble. BUT........Here's a better one !
There's a company in the UK that, for only 500 Lbs, will give you a cert! Just fill in a form, stating that you have a manual, have done at least one internal audit, send the money and PRESTO ! You're certified! WHat a scam. Just don't get caught by ANSI/RAB or some other REAL organization. I don't know the name of this company, but I'm sure if there's one, there's more. Best do the required work with a reputable registrar.

My memory is not what it used to be but I seem to remember an interpretation by IASG on QS-9000 which stated that an applicant company could be audited and approved based on evidence that the documented quality system was in place. The effectiveness of the system could be demonstrated in surveillance audits.
If this were true, wouldn't a pre-packaged system with evidence of management participation (along with a few other smoke screens) be able to squeeze through this crack?
Just a thought but I know there are a lot of disgruntled auditors out there who could not pass the upgrade. Could it be that some of them have pooled all the "tricks" and are pushing the limits of the system?
As for "buying" a certificate, the same goes on right here in the good old USA. When we were scouting registrars one of them (mentioned earlier in this string but I won't say who)came right out and asked where we would like to hang the certificate.
I am not surprised that this new service has started. If there is a way to make a buck, somebody will do it. Watch for the "Shortcut Registration Accreditation Board" opening next month.

Dave

The site is open now.

While I didn't (and won't) spend too much time looking through it, I did note that they claim companies with up to 150 employees (and even some 300 employee companies) qualify for the 40 day program.

Interesting, but not very.

Alf

What's the problem?
It says,
"However, a true estimate of implementation time must be determined via an on-site audit (see our free audit offer). Secondly, many registrars will not perform an audit on a company whose Quality System is not at least 12 weeks mature, and the entire implementation process is dependent on the company's level of management commitment. OQR makes no guarantees of a client's ability to pass registration audits! Beware consultants who do make that claim."

That's their out! Just a great come on. No guarantees. And the entire implementation is dependent on Management's commitment. Nothing new.
energy



[This message has been edited by energy (edited 17 July 2001).]

I agree with Greg.Maybe a two person operation, making die punched washers could get by with it, but even then I have my doubts.
Just noticed in the first post what may be the key phrase:"in as little as 40 days".Should add "MAY take a little longer, depending on HOW BIG YOU ARE!"
Still haven't been able to get their web site. Jeez, maybe somebody caught onto them.
Think I'll stick with the one I've got.
Later.........Ross

And here is the latest from the front:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wasn't going to post this exchange, however it appears Christopher Paris has decided to write to individual members of the Cove forums. I present the following for everyone's amusement:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To all NG readers:

For those of you who might be interested, I place the following into the public domain of this NG and the internet as a whole. It is quite obvious the guy is a bit of a wingnut and I had not planned to post this partial exchange of e-mails. However, it seems Christopher has chosen to write e-mails to many Cayman Cove forum members. These e-mails to forum members are, of course, more of his advertising and rhetoric.

Christopher took up this cause before - last year as I remember - when he initiated a brief hate campaign against my following the common practice of repeating interesting news group postings in the Cayman Cove forums as if the News Groups are somehow copyright protected and as if fair use doesn't exist. I do this to promote discussion on topics I believe are important. Many, many sites do this same thing. For almost 6 years the Cayman Cove has been helping people for free in quality assurance issues through the Cayman Cove public forums. I have spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of my time in order to help keep people informed at no cost to them.

Several forum members wrote me and attached copies of the advertisement Christopher sent them. As is obvious, he got the e-mail addresses from the Cove forums. I personally don't see this as a big issue but then again some others might.

If you read through, my complaint is based mainly on 3 issues:

1. Christopher SPAMs the NG - Well, we've all gotten used to him doing that so it's not a 'giant sized' issue.

2. He categorizes consultants and depreciates us as if he him self is not a consultant - which he most surely is by definition. This really does get my goat, so to speak. Like the pot calling the kettle black. I have to admit, this really pisses me off.

3. His advertisement copy is misleading and deceptive to say the least. The '40 day' plan is admittedly not impossible for SOME companies, but for most companies it is a pipe dream. My pappa used to tell me "If it seems too good to be true, it usually is. Make decisions carefully." Unfortunately, as we all know, some folks just can't get it through their heads that buying more magazine subscriptions does not give you a statistically better chance at winning the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes drawing.

Christopher's miracle '40 day plan' has been discussed before at some length. One such recent discussion (which was prompted by Christopher's SPAMMING the NG) is at:
http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000066.html

Whether or not Christopher is 'happy' about others discussing his '40 day plan' is of no concern to me. Nor do I feel it requisite to notify everyone and every company which we discuss that they are, in fact, being discussed. That's simply silly.

In the discussion linked to above you will note that it was started as, and continues as, a discussion of Christopher's 40 day Wonder 'program'. It is not, as he stated in so many words, a controlled attack on his imnplementation methodology. Rather, it was and is a discussion of it. It is obvious Christopher does not like such discussion unless HE can CONTROL the discussion any more than politicians want details of their programs and meetings revealed, not to mention their 'youthful indiscretions'. It makes it difficult when someone challenges your claims and all the IFs and conditions are pointed out. When people find out the details the smoke and mirrors fade away and the essence is laid bare.

At one point Christopher states:
-> Your behavior on the newsgroup, your website and in
-> business only solidify my opinion of traditional
-> consultants as bottom-feeders

Gee... We're all bottom feeders. Maybe there's a law somewhere....

If you peruse his advertisement and his e-mails herein, I believe you will see who the anti-Christ is.

Christopher went to the forums, copied peoples e-mail addresses of readers and sends them each his advertising and hate e-mails. This is from his 'propaganda base' sent to many forum members:

-> I am not about to add further credence to Cayman's
-> ill-advised practice of robbing newsgroup posts to build
-> its site content, and failing to notify the original
-> authors. Only by a thorough search did I happen to find
-> his latest thread, criticizing my company under very
-> controlled conditions. This is certainly not a criticism
-> of the contributors, just the methods of its moderator.

Let me first start out by again saying read the discussion thread. His claims were posted, including a link to his site. From there people made their own comments about Christopher's company's claims. I don't call this "controlled criticism'.

And - Robbing NG posts? Come on, now, really. As if NGs are not public domain. Forum members know I scour NGs, ListServes, news postings and many other resources for interesting topics to bring to light for discussion. Is this my nefarious method of building my sites 'hits'? Well, I guess everyone can have a conspiracy theory. We at the Cove try to keep up with what's new. With what's happening. And what's interesting. I do this because I care. I believe in vigorous discussion. After almost 6 years on the internet I am well past the stage where 'hits' were impotant. People come to the Cove, including the forums, for information and help. And we're there for them.

At this point I will end my narrative and let the e-mail exchanges speak for them selves.

****************************

Received: from hotmail.com (oe57.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.16.192]) by qs9000.com (8.11.2) id f78LY2442585; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:34:02 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:33:52 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [24.26.87.234]
From: "Christopher Paris"
To: "Marc Smith"
Subject: Re: How to get ISO 9001 registered in 40 days
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:33:49 -0400

Marc:

I currently contract as an RAB certified registration auditor with at least two registrars of Cayman clients. I have already had to recuse myself from registration audits of these clients because of our previous interactions. The conflict of interest extends to any public comments I might make on your clients' consultant (that is, Cayman), so cannot respond to your post. I am sure that you understand this is to abide by our profession's (and the RAB's) ethical guidelines.

Rest assured, I will NOT audit a Cayman client.

As for my post, sorry I can't fulfill your desire for a fight. Let the folks on the newsgroup think you won. If you'd like to chat about this, feel free to call me at 863-651-3750.

Please do not reprint this private correspondence on your site or elsewhere; this was written for your eyes only.

Christopher

**************************************************
## My response:

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 08:53:17 -0400
Subject: Re: How to get ISO 9001 registered in 40 days
From: Marc Smith
To: Christopher Paris

On 8/8/01 5:33 PM, Christopher Paris at oxebridge@hotmail.com wrote:

> Marc:
>
> I currently contract as an RAB certified registration auditor with at least
> two registrars of Cayman clients. I have already had to recuse myself from
> registration audits of these clients because of our previous interactions.

Simply silly. I don't like UL because it's stringent but I'll prepare a client for them. I see no reason for you to preclude yourself from any of my clients registration or surveillance audits simply because there are areas we personally disagree on. I see absolutely no conflict of interest there.

> The conflict of interest extends to any public comments I might make on your
> clients' consultant (that is, Cayman), so cannot respond to your post.

So far, almost to a client, every registration audit has brought unsolicited positive comments from the auditors including "...you really got your money's worth..." The last registrar pulled me aside after the audit when we were at our cars leaving and told me how impressed he was with what I had done for the client. He wanted to discuss my implementation methodologies.

I wouldn't expect you to comment negatively without a reason and evidence. Since I have never had a client even come close to failing an audit, I'm not sure there's much you could say except that maybe you 'personally' might have done something differently. If you were to audit one of my clients I would expect you to assess them on their systems and compliance - not on who helped them.

> I am sure that you understand this is to abide by our profession's
> (and the RAB's) ethical guidelines.
>
> Rest assured, I will NOT audit a Cayman client.

I have no idea why not. You're supposed to be auditing them, not me. As an auditor, I would assume you would not savage a company during an audit simply because I helped them through their implementation. I would be more than happy for you, or any other auditor, to audit any of my clients - past, present or future. Raising the 'ethics' issue is a red herring and you know it.

> As for my post, sorry I can't fulfill your desire for a fight. Let the
> folks on the newsgroup think you won.

It's not 'a fight'. Nor is it a matter of win or loose. It's a matter of sticking with facts and not name calling. It's a matter of being honest. I personally responded to your NG post because I get tired of hearing one consultant tell folks other consultants are assholes - but that you are different, that you're not a consultant. What you say may be good advertising copy, but it's not accurate and it's inflammatory.

As I said, there are a number of threads on NGs and BBSs about your advertisement. Few say a 40 day 'implementation' is impossible (and I agree) - IF---- and a litany of IFs follows. Most simply laugh as we all know the typical company will not be 'eligible' for the 40 day program. Most are, shall we say, disappointed that you denigrate consultants as you do.

> If you'd like to chat about this,
> feel free to call me at 863-651-3750.
>
> Please do not reprint this private correspondence on your site or elsewhere;
> this was written for your eyes only.
>
> Christopher Paris

Bottom line is if you slam consultants you should be ready to be slammed right back.

Regards!

Marc T. Smith
Cayman Business Systems
8466 Lesourdesville - West Chester Road
West Chester, OH 45069-1929

**************************************************
## Then I got this:

From: Bill
Subject: FW: 40-Day ISO 9000 Implementations
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:08:10 -0400

Marc,

I guess you put a burr under his saddle. As for the remark regarding "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in any way reveal/communicate any information about anything to any person, any company or any other entity inclusive of log files, e-mail addresses and cookie information." "If that were true, I wouldn't be writing you right now.", I say who cares? He could have sent this to me using the e-mail function in the Cove. It doesn't matter. Profiles are posted, e-mails provided, voluntarily, with issues of confidentiality a non issue. Go for him, as only you know how. What a gas!

Bill

-----Original Message-----
## Then a hot one from Mr. Christopher to another Froum Member:

From: Christopher Paris
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:54 AM
To: wef at tenergywater.com
Subject: re: 40-Day ISO 9000 Implementations

I am not about to add further credence to Cayman's ill-advised practice of robbing newsgroup posts to build its site content, and failing to notify the original authors. Only by a thorough search did I happen to find his latest thread, criticizing my company under very controlled conditions. This is certainly not a criticism of the contributors, just the methods of its moderator.

Anyone interested in details of 40-Day Implementations email me directly. I would be glad to talk about Rapid implementations, not from a sales or marketing aspect, but to answer your specific questions. There are no "secret tricks." I can tell you I am honestly and totally astounded that it would take any consultant MORE than 40 days to implement ISO 9000, and might have a few questions of my own for you.

You may also wish to review Cayman's published privacy policy against its practice:

"Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in any way reveal / communicate any information about anything to any person, any company or any other entity inclusive of log files, e-mail addresses and cookie information."

If that were true, I wouldn't be writing you right now.

Christopher

This is a private communication, not to be reposted in any public forum without the author's approval.


## I guess Christopher is fishing for customers from Cove forum participants.
************************************************

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:46:40 -0400
Subject: Re: 40-Day ISO 9000 Implementations
From: Marc Smith
To: Bill

Well, he's written me twice - I responded once. Shall we say BIG BURR in the ol' saddle! I had no idea he responded to you as well!

-> "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in
-> any way reveal/communicate any information about anything
-> to any person, any company or any other entity inclusive
-> of log files, e-mail addresses and cookie information."
-> "If that were true, I wouldn't be writing you right now."

This is basically true in the case of e-mails - there are a lot floating around but that's pretty much routine and they are not used for tracking or sold or anything. But yeah - he's being a pompous *** as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention that, like is so often done in politics and the news, Christopher cites one part of the Cove privacy policy ( http://Elsmar.com/entry2.html at the bottom of the page), takes it out of context and - well, you've seen it before so..... It's like listening to Rush.

I honestly wanted to **** him off and I told him why. I do not like fools like him berating consultants when he himself is one. His SPAMMING the NG is not surprising - he does it now and again. But like I say - he uses "fightin' words" in his advertisement copy. I'd shut up if he didn't use such bull in his SPAM. Our exchange went like this (my reply to his first e-mail - which, of course, includes his original text to me):

*********************
Here I copied him on Christopher's e-mail to me and my response above.
**************************
--------------------------
NOW - if you want to talk about a burr in his saddle, he then sent me the following (which I really haven't read in detail and don't plan to respond to - although I would LOVE to in public just to REALLY **** him off... This has reached the absurd. Anyway, here's his last epistle to me:
--------------------------
Marc:

For reasons only known to you, you've personalized the debate. You take my criticisms of consultants as a whole as a personal insult, and respond with personal attacks, accusations, false quotes, intentional misinterpretations and (worse still) vulgarity. You have consistently and publicly represented me personally as a liar, with the direct intent to dissuade companies from using me personally; that is quite a different tack to take then pointing out deficiencies in an industry, and the legality of that tack is in question. You have subsequently insulted all of our current clients in the process. And you blithely drop your own clients' names while doing it, which is an inexcusable ethical error.

Not sure why you aren't aware of the professional ethics guidelines, but I am. Your clients are better for it.

Your behaviour on the newsgroup, your website and in business only solidify my opinion of traditional consultants as bottom-feeders who have to pick fights to gain clients. That's not what my company is about, and exactly the reason I distance myself from your ilk. You'll note, however, that I give you the respect not to publicly air my opinion of you personally, which is why (again) I disallow you from reposting this private email in any forum.

Does this mean I won't market or contribute on the newsgroup? Not at all. In fact, I appreciate that your posts satisfy two major needs for me: (1) they drive hits to my site, and (2) they prove my point about consultants. But I could do without the libel.

As for any threads regarding our programs, I only contribute to that single newsgroup. If you have transported them again to your own commercial forum in order to boost your site's content & traffic, and to criticize my company & clients behind their backs, you have not (again) notified me as per my previous request. And that's *exactly* the kind of behaviour that (thankfully) separates folks like you and myself.

*******************************************

From: Bill
To: "'Marc Smith'"
Subject: RE: 40-Day ISO 9000 Implementations
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:03:04 -0400

Marc,

It appears that this individual has a lot of free time on his hands to spend it festering, sending e-mails to you, and now, Cove participants. If you do decide to respond, please mention that a few of the Cove participants aren't too happy with his unsolicited e-mail about topics that they could care less about(I'm sure you will get more). In fact, the very tone of his message is childlike, very unprofessional, personal in nature and what I consider a waste of my valuable time and his. Additionally, you can post this, if you choose, as an example. After all, I didn't post his message to a public forum as "warned" about. As for his instructions to me about that very thing, I'll send them anywhere I choose. I don't work for him and intrusion into my workplace and personal e-mail is what I consider "unethical" practices. So there!

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Smith
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 1:47 PM
To: Bill Fennelly
Subject: Re: 40-Day ISO 9000 Implementations


Well, he's written me twice - I responded once. Shall we say BIG BURR in the ol' saddle! I had no idea he responded to you as well!

-> "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in
-> any way reveal/communicate any information about anything
-> to any person, any company or any other entity inclusive
-> of log files, e-mail addresses and cookie information."
-> "If that were true, I wouldn't be writing you right now."

This is basically true in the case of e-mails - there are a lot floating around but that's pretty much routine and not used for tracking or sold or anything. But yeah - he's being a pompous *** as far as I'm concerned.

I honestly wanted to **** him off and I told him why. I do not like fools like him berating consultants when he himself is one. His SPAMMING the NG is not surprising - he does it now and again. But like I say - he uses "fightin' words" in his advertisement copy. I'd shut up if he didn't use such bull**** in his SPAM. Our exchange went like this (my reply to his first e-mail - which, of course, includes his original text to me):

*********************

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:27:06 -0400
Subject: Re: 40-Day ISO 9000 Implementations
From: Marc Smith
To: Bill

I'm going to wait it out for a bit and enjoy. I'm working on the web site and - well, half fun and half work. It's pretty much a hobby as anything else.

I agree with your evaluation of the discourse which has passed and of your evaluation of his 'personality'. So it goes. I don't know that I'll post it because it took on a lot of anger and hate. I'm not sure it would benefit anything or anyone. I pretty much believe people with minds see through the facade he presents. The rest buy the National Enquirer and/ or People at the grocery and watch FOX newstainment. And they believe it all. I don't worry about them. I'd be up nights if I did.

Thanks for the comments! Always nice to know one is not alone in the boat,
so to speak.

***************************

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: James
To: Christopher Paris
Subject: re: 40-Day ISO 9000 Implementations

Christopher,

I wish I knew what you were talking about. By the way, what company do you represent? Sounds like P.J.

Cayman Cove is just a group of people, some new and some professionals that try to help juggle the specifics of the different quality systems. Anything that is posted is posted by members and people trying to untangle the regulations.

ASD...


On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:54:06 -0400, Christopher Paris wrote:

| I am not about to add further credence to Cayman's ill-advised practice
of
| robbing newsgroup posts to build its site content, and failing to notify
the
| original authors. Only by a thorough search did I happen to find his
latest
| thread, criticizing my company under very controlled conditions. This is
| certainly not a criticism of the contributors, just the methods of its
| moderator. I would be glad to talk about
| Rapid implementations, not from a sales or marketing aspect, but to
answer
| your specific questions. There are no "secret tricks." I can tell you I
am
| honestly and totally astounded that it would take any consultant MORE
than
| 40 days to implement ISO 9000, and might have a few questions of my own
for
| you.
|
| You may also wish to review Cayman's published privacy policy against its
| practice:
|
| "Cayman Business Systems does not sell, give away or in any way reveal /
| communicate any information about anything to any person, any company or
any
| other entity inclusive of log files, e-mail addresses and cookie
| information."
|
| If that were true, I wouldn't be writing you right now.
|
|
| Christopher Paris
|
| This is a private communication, not to be reposted in any public forum
| without the author's approval.

*************************************

So folks, that's the scoop.
As Fox News says: We Report - You Decide!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regards!

Marc T. Smith
Cayman Business Systems
8466 Lesourdesville - West Chester Road
West Chester, OH 45069-1929

*****************************************************

This message is NOT a PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL communication. No e-mail is....

Whether or not you are the intended recipient, you and I both know you can read, copy, or use it, and disclose it to anyone you like. You can post it on the internet or in any public forum or venue in any format, including, but not limited to, electronic, internet, print, or photocopy, on your local grocery store public postings board or anywhere else. To think an e-mail is anything otherwise is silly wishful thinking only a lawyer or a fool would expect. If you have something to hide from the public, I suggest you consider another method of communication. But remember - Even a FAX can be easily intercepted.

After reading this dudes tripe I'm glad UL didn't think I was qualified to be an Auditor for them. (I may be out of line. If so I apologize to the bottom of my cold, cold heart).

40 days may be adequate for some small mom & pop company, but large corp's can take longer than that to just do the awareness training for all employees.

I just do not believe there is any way to prove within 40 days that a system is functional. IMHO

Randy

Welllll... that was fun reading... *laff* Good distraction for a Friday morning.

40 days, huh? I've spent more than 40 days simply thinking about how to approach implementing just one element of the ISO standard (Design & Development) trying to get our shop ready for the 2000 upgrade. Oh sure -- I could go out and get a canned package and just "insert your company name here", and perhaps be done in 40 days. But what's the point? If ISO is to be a living, working part of the quality management system, it needs to be implemented using current work practices and adapting those, and the standard to an integrated fit. There would be no buy-in, no sense of ownership, if I were to go the "canned" route.

As far as consultants go... those that I know and have known, are by and large, some of the most knowledgeable and ethical individuals I have met. They have to be. Their careers are built on their reputation and their ability. Sure, I'll admit that there are those out there who are less than scrupulous - but then - they don't last, do they?

Anyway, JMHO....

Cheers!!!

Mike

You've all addressed the professional side so no need to add more to it...just, ECHO, ECHO, ECHO!

On another note...Does this guy not have a clue that mail (in any form) is the property of the recipient not the sender? If he doesn't want it spread around he shouldn't write it or communicate it in manner!

Marc, I applaud your perserverance and suggest we all just ignore him! (imagine what a tizzy that will put him in)

All: I, too, have received e-mail from Mr. Paris. My comments: "Christopher, butt out. Go do your advertising elsewhere and leave the Cove forums to the people who use them as they were ment to be used, I.E. Discussion and information of QMS/EMS.If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. Just don't degrade and slam people who are pretty dammed good at what they do, myself included (three degrees, four professional certs, thirty-five years quality mgmt., nine companies ISO certified in past ten years, this present one multi-site,five world wide). Having read your garbage, I refuse to lower myself in any further discourse in any form.I believe you should do the same". Venting over, let's get on with the show.
Marc, please keep up the good work.
Ross Simpson

It seems that many of us have been quoted on the web site that was advertised in this thread.

Originally posted by Randy
It seems that many of us have been quoted on the web site that was advertised in this thread. How so? Do they now have a Cove Forums Response page? Give us a specific URL if you have it handy.

Mark - here is the URL:

### DEAD LINK REMOVED ###

Dave

I guess I'm missing something... I thought at least the guy would have enough balls to cite the source - the Cove, of course. Like his advertisement of 40 days he distorts by taking many comments out of context. Guys like that are something else. There's always someone with a Miracle Cure.

As if he's not a 'typical' consultant'. Thanks for the URL. It's appreciated.

While I don't discount that this can be accomplished, I just have a hard time trying to accept that a viable, conforming, working system can be placed in operation in 40 days.

As an auditor myself, I have to ensure that all elements of a system are performing as required before I can recommend certification. 40 days from beginning of implementation to registration just does not allow for corrective and preventive action and other elements to mature. IMHO.

I mis-spoke myself on the UL thing. I was reading between the lines and thought that UL was endorsing the 40 day program. Please forgive me UL and UL lovers for my error. I cannot sleep thinking you might be mad at me. :(

I noticed that his page says these were quotes from 'traditional consultants'. As happens so often in politics and the 'info-tainment' many now call 'The News', he fails to do his research - or is outright lying. Most of the posters he cited are, in fact, not consultants but rather people actually working in companies and real live auditors! We can't say he is lying because he'll say he simply failed to research the 'profile' of those whose posts he cites...

I guess he's still pissed about this thread...

(BTW - With regard to the UL post: Remember - you CAN edit your posts.)

Well... how 'bout that... I'm famous... :rolleyes: and a consultant to boot. Ummmm... I guess I need to come up with a catchy business name, get business cards, start getting a client list together.... ;)

This guy is amazing... I wish he had included the rest of my statement....

"Oh sure -- I could go out and get a canned package and just "insert your company name here", and perhaps be done in 40 days. But what's the point? If ISO is to be a living, working part of the quality management system, it needs to be implemented using current work practices and adapting those, and the standard to an integrated fit. There would be no buy-in, no sense of ownership, if I were to go the "canned" route."

But wait... that wouldn't benefit him, would it?

What next?

Cheers!!!

Mike

He could have at least cited the source - The Cove , of course! But then, anyone who reads through the whole thread might .... figure things out.

Here's something to think about....

If this "40 Day Implementation" works so well, why is Oxbridge spending all this energy defending it???? Why can't it's reputation stand on it's own?

JMHO

CarolX

The only thing traditional about me is God, mom, apple pie and the American Flag.

I flat out tell people that ISO 14000 (the Environmental dealy) is more about money, cost savings and improving market share than it is about protecting the Spotted Owl, old growth forest, the Ozone layer, and all that other tree-hugging crap. Of course people are agast at my saying so. I just tell them to go to the ISO home page itself and see what the 1st 3 of the 5 listed business benefits are:

*reduced cost of waste management
*savings in consumption of energy and materials
*lower distribution costs
*improved corporate image among regulators, customers and the public
*framework for continous improvement of your environmental performance

I spent my all of my early military career and a much of the later part (28.5 years total) in un-coventional (non-traditional) warfare. I am an un-conventional person and I conduct my business that way ( I try to win hearts and minds. When you do that, their butts will follow). Choke on that 40 Day Dude!!!!!!!!

> I am an un-conventional person and I conduct my business
> that way

AH! A 'typical' Cove visitor! But - then again, The Cove has never been 'establishment' oriented. We areTHINKING individuals who stand on our accomplishments!

As a famous indivual once said, " It depends on what the meaning of is is." This guy promises "implementation" in as little as 40 days. He does not say "registered" in 40 days, or even ready for registration in 40 days.

So they come barreling in, write up the documents, hold a meeting announce the new system and Poof!!!! your new system is implemented. No history, no CA's no PA's, no audits, no revs to show activity and growth, but by golly they got your system implemented.:rolleyes:

I noticed that most of the clients linked to the site are electronics firms. These guys probably already had a pretty good system in place. Just by the nature of the industry.

And for anyone wanting to quote me, I am NOT a consultant. I am in the trenches.

I haven't looked at their product so I won't knock it, but I sure as hell don't like their advertizing.


James

40 days? What's the big deal?
I can do the implementation in 5 days or less. Just send me the check. Any amount. The more it is, the faster I respond. I'll be right over. You know me, I can, I can, I can. In fact, just ask me if I can. :cool: In fact, 40 days is way too long for this type of crap.
C'mon quote me.

Here I go again.

energy;)

Originally posted by energy
40 days? What's the big deal?
I can do the implementation in 5 days or less. Just send me the check. Any amount. The more it is, the faster I respond. I'll be right over. You know me, I can, I can, I can. In fact, just ask me if I can. :cool: In fact, 40 days is way too long for this type of crap.
C'mon quote me.

energy;) Yeah. Big talk... Can you do it standing on your head? :confused:

Marc,
Of course I can do it standing on my sparsely covered head. The problem is, that with all the rapid implementation stuff I'm dispersing, I could be in for a rather unpleasant shower.:D
energy

Originally posted by JRKH

I noticed that most of the clients linked to the site are electronics firms. These guys probably already had a pretty good system in place. Just by the nature of the industry.
This is key. You are 100% correct.

I hope he had as much fun putting together his page as I've had reading this....

Did anyone read the Implementation plan? A "team" comes in an implements the system while you "watch and learn." (I'm paraphrasing - but that was the jist of it). Then they leave and what happen? Are internal audits effective enough to hold the system together?

I also want to know what a "traditional consultant" is. At 2 of my companies, I'm actually on the org chart as quality manager - they are too small to afford a full time quality manager. At another I mostly did the training after they decided what they needed - at another, I'll be the "external/ internal auditor" because they too are too small with high turnover.

Bottom line is 20, 40 or 180 days doesn't matter. What matters is the company "inventing the system" themselves or they don't feel ownership, don't understand it enough to improve it, and eventually are reestablishing it because it wasn't maintained. (Oops - that's the other 2 clients)