Our 5 facility division has a directive to acheive registration to the new 2000 standard. Previous to this decision, one of the facilities was working on 1994. During that time they had an outside form perform ISO 9000 1994 training (1/2 day) for all the employees. They are conserned now that they will need to incure additional expense to train on the new version. Is this really needed, would not a registrar consider the original training adequate, with perhaps and hour or so from the management rep on the changes and how the employees will be affected?

Mark:

I hope this reply isn't appearing twice. I was keying and my format disappeared. I'll try again.

I would contact the company, which provided the ISO training, and ask them what their business practice is concerning the ISO 2000 version upgrade.

As a Trainer I am providing the upgrade free of charge to those clients that recently received training to the 1994 version.

awk

Some of the ISO training is pure bunk. The majority of folks in a company only need to know how to do their jobs. Who are they planning on training?

Remember - ISO does not require internal training on what ISO is, etc. It requires people to know how to do their job, etc.

thanks for the input Marc. i agree this training is not required and not a good use of company funds, in my own facility I did the exposure training myself in a couple of hours, with more than anough overview for the operators. However we have some facilities that feel this is a good way to show an auditor that employees are being provided comminucation on the quality systems, your thoughts

I cant honestly see the sense in training people too deeply in the standard itself, as Marc says it is more important that they know how to do their job.

However, somebody inside the company needs to know the standard.
There seems to be some ongoing discussion about the use of Internal Auditors (ie should they audit against your procedures or against the standard), my guess is that a Certification Body will expect your Internal Auditors to have an understanding of the Standard, whatever your arguements are.

Coming back to your orginal question, it is very often said that if your company was doing what the standard originally intended, then the new ISO 9000:2000 is not greatly different from the old one, however my experience is that very few companies were doing what the standard intended,so i see quite a big difference in application and therefore some new training required.
I personally see absolutely no reason why the training could not be done by the MR, providing the training is of a good standard.

Regards



------------------
Andy B

I agree - someone inside has to understand QS (or ISO). This is not to say folks should be kept ignorant of what is happening. It used to be that I believed in, and did a lot of, internal 'awareness' training. As time went by I saw this to be mostly a waste of time.

As far as internal auditors understanding the spec, it depends upon what you expect of them. My personal advice is to limit internal auditors to process audits. Let your MR do a yearly "Are our major systems still compliant?" audit. Like awareness training, internal audits are over-blown in their perceived importance. I personally believe internal audits are for companies which have a low level of control of their employees. Take a look at Toyota and Honda - no internal audit system. They don't need one. Ask yourself why.

> From: "JRT" <jimturner@attcanada.net>
> Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
> Subject: Re: Toyota & ISO 9000
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:22:43 -0400
> Organization: AT&T Canada IES

> In my opinion the Japanese system do not require auditing because of
> the structure of the system. The Toyotas and Hondas employ "Lean
> Manufacturing" concepts where visibility of quality issues is front
> and foremost. JIT ensures that quality problems surface immediately at
> all levels. Using my company as an example: we would rather deliver
> substandard quality as a result of a fault in our manufacturing
> process rather than stop production and fix the problem...cost before
> quality. Whereas Toyota would not produce substandard product. They
> would fix the defect first and absorb the cost. AS far as ISO is
> concerned the principles are sound. The Japanese have nothing to gain
> from ISO because their systems are superior and that is the bottom
> line.
>
> JRT...

I agree 100% - these companies do not need a 'customer satisfaction' specification or internal auditing to excel.

Finally, comments suggesting internal audits are not really needed or imo not even effective.
If your process cannot tell you when something is wrong, then you have more problems then an audit can fix.(Like tires, maybe)
Thanks, Marc for sharing this with us maybe it will catch on.

Maybe Toyota is that much better - I don't know. Last time I looked, I don't remember Toyota having a car ranked in the top 10 of Consumer Reports (maybe they are in some other report that I haven't looked at). I also think their cars are just as expensive as any other car. So where's the beef? I know internal audits may not help Toyota, but Toyota may not be that good either. Now, Honda may be another story. I don't know. Altough their cars seem just as expensive as any other car, they may have a better quality system that catches defects before they get out. I have at least seen their cars in some car magazines and rated favorably.

1. I don't trust Consumer Reports any more than I trust JD Powers (which rated MSN the #1 ISP in the 'world' 2 years ago).

2. Cost is only relative to a class of cars and does not (should not) reflect a level of quality. You can have a 'quality' sub-compact and you can have a 'quality' luxury car.

3. In the cases of Toyota and Honda, they look at the situation from an integrated design / manufacturing environment. When those are done well there is no need for 'quality' systems.

I have a Mazda 626 in my drive - a 1989 with 245,000 miles - have had few repairs over the years. Still drives well, burns no oil (no major or minor overhaul, ever) and - well, it's a 2.2 litre turbo and its the best car I ever bought. Its it quality?

Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do). Just my lowly opinion...

Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do). Just my lowly opinion...[/B]

ie 100% agree, but i wander if this also applies to quality standard, ie they are only needed in environments with low discipline levels. This would cetainly explain why Toyota dont need it.

Regards



------------------
Andy B

I hear you, Marc, but I think the "Japanese phenomenon" is way overplayed - Toyota included. I had a GM van that had over 270,000 miles on it which is an American car from one of the much-maligned Big 3. All I did is change the oil regulary and did some other simple maintenance items.
My cost argument is based on a within-same-car-class comparison. I don't see Toyota as any more cost-competitive as any other car maker. I'm not trying to bash Toyota, I'm just saying that I wonder from all these quality management initiatives (especially from Japan) - where's the beef? Anyway, that's my humble opinion, such as it is....

I'm not pushing a Japanese is better thing. I just used Toyota and Honda because of the automotive bent. As I said, I don't put much faith in consumer reports so to me their ratings mean little. To me it's a person's experience. While I don't think all American manufacturing is sub-standard, I stand my my comments that internal audits are bunk in any well run company.

And cost is relative. If I buy a certain 'class' of car, I don't always expect price parity among the contenders. +/- a couple of thousand isn't always a deal breaker.

No big deal. I just believe the 'internal audit' phenomena is 'over played' in its importance, particularly to well run companies.

And again, I don't see this as a 'Japanese superiority' thing. There are many well run companies world-wide. Fed Ex comes to mind in the service sector.

Im not so sure Roger. Toyota are pretty well-known to have a cost effective structure, they are siad to be able to operate the plants at 78% capacity and still make money. (Womack and Womack 'the Machine that Changed the World)

They have consistently made money over the years, and out of proportion with their size. Many years ago when Mazda was rescued it was only done on condition that they adopted the Toyota Lean Production method.

I travel quite a lot and i am consistently hiring cars, Toyota's are definitely one of the best designed vehicles on the road. In my corner of Ireland the old cars that you see most often tramping along are Toyota's.

Their secret is a consequent displined approach to work, that i believe lies in their culture.

But if you beleived that, maybe consultants should be offering courses in 'How to run Disciplined Companies', instead of Baldridge, TQM, ISO 9000 etc.

The world is too complex and dynamic to say what makes companies succssful, which is why most management fads are just that. The only common factor that i have seen that exists in nearly every successful company is discipline.

Regards

Regards


------------------
Andy B

I have to agree and am happy to have found some similar trains of thought to my own. Although I have created, trained persons in use, and implemented some fairly comprehensive process and system audit schemes, this quote could not be any more true:
"Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do)."
Excpet that even here their effectiveness is questionable. If the discipline is that bad more than likely the supervision or management is seriously lacking. In this case no audit scheme in the world is going to ever do anything more than point out the problems - repeatedly!

I'd have to slightly disagree on the issue of internal audits. 1) You are discussing Toyota as an example - the information source needs to be questioned. Are you sure Toyota does no internal audits, or are you taking the word of the person making the post. 2) Internal audits are more like verification of process and system capabilities and effectivness. How does Toyota rate it's process capabilities and effectiveness without some sort of audit? I agree that without the support of the executive management that no internal audit system would prevail... but disagree that it's does not add value in measuring a quality system.

[This message has been edited by Dave Davis (edited 01 November 2000).]

Please do not confuse good business practice with "culture" Japanese or otherwise. How many of you followed the Mitsubishi Automotive problem last year with the raid on the Mitsubishi Automotive President's personal house? The Japanese government carted away several boxes of customer complaints. This was reported in the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Internal Audits are only as good as the people doing them and in some cases are very necessary. "Control" of employees or not.

Please be careful. Toyota is doing and has been doing a good job but only time will tell if they can continue. Internal audits proper conducted and sustained can only help.



------------------
Don Evans

The folks on the floor need to know their job, what to do with non-conforming product, and what to do with suggestions on improving the system/process. As for ISO awareness, they should be able to tell me what the policy of the company is, and the fact that they are working to meet their customers requirements (internal or external). Other than that, additional training, while maybe a tax right-off, really isn't necessary or even beneficial.
Just my $.02 worth...

------------------
Ron Byrge
Operations Manager
CwC Registrar, Inc.
http://cwcregistrar.com

I agree with Ron. I couldn't give a hoot less if an employee didn't know what clause "5" says. That goes for the Top management too.

I feel as long as people are aware of the procedures they are to follow, and verifiably follow them, they are meeting the standard.

Sure someone has to be trained.....but not everyone, and definitly not on every word.

Business is not in business to have training. Minimize and supply the basic information.

The load of dung that some put out saying that everybody has to know everything about a particular standard is just so much hog wash. I'm a registered EMS-LA and I don't even have the stinking 14001 thing put to memory. I know the basics and I keep one nearby at all times for referencing to. For me to ask more of an organization would not be correct by my way of thinking.

-> I feel as long as people are aware of the procedures they
-> are to follow, and verifiably follow them, they are
-> meeting the standard.

Undocumented procedures as well, I might add.

well....my 2 cents worth....

I do an awareness training for my clients...Its a no nonsense quickie that leads into the quality policy (communicate the policy...yada yada yada)....its for all hands, abeit modified for each group dependant on how they fit into the scheme of things...as Sales/contract review spends a bit more time there...design....manufacturing...quality etc...based on who owns what requirement. talks about how their piece fits into the whole picture in support of the Quality policy, and for all groups i detail/support audits and corrective action and the feed back loop. How to submit a document change, and the importance of timely procedural updates etc. is covered when appropriate. the hand out is a element by element clip art presentation. The new standard reqirements are verbally inserted right now, as i haven't had the time to update the presentation. Will do it before I present it again though!!!!! Lasts about 45 minutes typically, with questions. Lots of good feedback on it...short sweet and informative, lively...can also include the "how to be audited" stuff easy enough.

it works for me.....and my clients like it

ok, now for the original question. 9000.2000 training updates...Does what people do in support of the Quality Policy change? probably not....if the policy didn't change....maybe add a quickie on continuous improvement and customer satisfaction measures, etc... for applicable bodies, but not for all hands unless all hands will be doing CI and CS stuff??????? Only what applies to who it applies to, should be the rule

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 08 July 2001).]

Who should be trained and why? It doesn't matter what any other company does or how they do audits and how effective the audits are. It is a decision by the people in charge of the blood lines of your organization to decide. Training is a benefit to those who need to use it. If you over-train all you Internal Auditors to a specific standard as opposed to the written procedures and relative job functions, don't they lose their objectivity and ability to audit well? What are they auditing? The procedures should be structured around how the people work and perform their jobs, not the other way around. An Auditor should be looking to see that the documentation matches the job junctions. Then you have a bench mark for improving. The system hinges on "documenting what you do" and then "doing what you document". It appears that all the dicussion regarding different automotive companies got away from the basics. What about continual improvement. Aren't Audits a forum for finding holes in areas where documentation is lacking, or offering opportunities for improvement (OFI's)? Is there any company out there that is so perfect that they don't need to improve? If so, then they are exempt from auditing themselves. Training is a direct link and issue. The individuals that make a company are different in their training needs. All (6) of my Internal Auditors will receive training of the new standard. We are ISO 9001:1994 registered at all (4) divisions and (3) remote sites. I can't expect my Auditors to learn it on their own that is for sure. They may not need (2) days like I received, but they will need a certain amount of training that sets a base line for them all to start from accompanied with coaching from me. You need to determine for your own company how much training is needed and why. Don't rely on the attitudes of other companies, regardless of their product, people or profit.

I have to agree with Barb's posting. Every department, sometime during the year in one of their regular meetings, gets to listen to my (approx.) 30 minute update/Q&A on ISO and our performance. More importantly, during our Initial Assessment audit our registrar told us that they expect to see something of this nature in every company they visit.

Works for us.

Alf

it just make sense....common sense. The quality system does not work in a bubble. You have new people coming from other companies and experiences and they all need to be on the same page. As an Auditor, i see plenty.....and a little training goes a long way. The standard and Tony have it right...you need to identify the training need ....then provide that training. when auditing, I am as concerned about how that need is identified as i am about the training record. If it was a specific training, the standard would say that.....it leads you to whatever is right for you. Unfortunately too many have taken liberty with that...as with many other requirements. As to auditor training to the new standard? well, again that depends. if the MGT Rep/company has a handle on all procedures and has changed/updated them, the Internal auditor needs minimal training. if the IA will be driving the document updates then they need more, obviously. I see the new 'auditors' getting into measurements more, and that may be a training of its own.

Some observations:

1. With the exceptions of Large sedans and full size pickups, Most of the cars in all the top 10 categories for consumer reports and most other buyers guides are imports, with the Japanese leading the way and the Koreans close at their heels.

2. You don't see Ford or GM offering a 10year/100,000mile powertrain warranty on ANYTHING. How can Hyundai et al do it?
I have no problem buying domestic and I have no problem buying foreign, but don't pi** down my back and tell me it's raining.

3. If you take care of any vehicle properly, Changing the oil, tune ups etc., the chances of a catastrophic (losing the engine) are greatly reduced.

4. Internal audits are nothing more than an excuse for common sense. The ONLY reason ANY company continues them to the level of detail that they do is because they live in fear of their registrar.

5. You didn't HAVE to use an outside source to train the employees to the ISO standard in the first place, why would you waste more money?

Carl-

Carl...i really disagree with that 'fear of the registrar' thing. I was doing internal audits long before 1987...because it was good practice and we felt even back then it added value to the company....i try to instill that to auditors i train, and for the most part, i think i do. Its healthy for auditors to do more tham "police", they are change agents and ambassadors. But that is only my humble opinion...

Barb, Your point is well taken, however we are speaking about an ISO related topic. The harsh reality of it is that MOST Companies that are ISO 9000 registered DO NOT use their auditors as "ambassadors of change". If You have worked, or continue to work for a company that actually uses the internal audit function for continuous improvement, GREAT!. How did you measure the value added to the company? I would also question how your auditors maintain their objectivity while being change agents. Sorry, I am not buying it. Internal audits serve 2 purposes, 1. Maintaining discipline in an otherwise unmotivated workforce. Are the employees following their work instructions or not? Any further "suggestion" or "adding value to the company" will end in subjectivity and supposition. Just like ALL ISO 9000 registration audits do. AND 2. Keeping the cert. on the wall.

As for the original thread, I have never, nor will I ever call an outside service in to do ANY training related to ISO 9000. It is a WASTE of the company $.

My not so humble opinion.

Carl-

I see internal audit as a prevention method as opposed to a detection method and therefore cost effective to some point. Can we really determine the actual dollars saved from internal audit? Probably not.

Internal audit must be used in an effective manner. If a company has a once a year internal audit, it will not work and starts to move towards a detection method. It must be part of everyday business as usual to be effective.

Let's not limit the scope of what an internal audit is, say an operator has a daily checksheet of what is required at a workstation, is that not a type of internal audit.

The purpose of internal audit is to continuously monitor ongoing activities, not so much at the corporate/managerial level, but at the core of the business which is to produce a product that the customer wants to purchase.

By doing this the corporate/management sector is initially doing what they are supposed to do, giving the workforce the required tools to do their jobs.

Just call me ramblin man today!

ASD...

Al,
Sorry to disagree, a checksheet at a workstation is NOT an internal audit. If you don't beleive me, the next time the registrar asks for evidence of your internal audit program, hand him or her a stack of them and see what they say.

I think you all might want to look over 9001-2000 section 8.2.2 so that everyone is "on the same page"

Carl-

Originally posted by Carl:
Al,
Sorry to disagree, a checksheet at a workstation is NOT an internal audit. If you don't beleive me, the next time the registrar asks for evidence of your internal audit program, hand him or her a stack of them and see what they say.

I think you all might want to look over 9001-2000 section 8.2.2 so that everyone is "on the same page"

Carl-


Carl:

Sorry to disagree, a checksheet at a workstation is NOT an internal audit.

Why not, I think it a major part of an internal audit system. It provides evidence of compliance to the requirements.

If you don't beleive me, the next time the registrar asks for evidence of your internal audit program, hand him or her a stack of them and see what they say.

I did and he suggested it that the I.A. process is not just about auditing elements, it's about auditing processes.

I think you all might want to look over 9001-2000 section 8.2.2 so that everyone is "on the same page"

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been on my last post. There must be an internal audit system that monitors all the elements of a quality system, whether it be ISO/QS/TS/AS/TE etc... but on top of it, a good business practice is to get continuous feedback on how the system is operating on a daily or weekly basis. This is done through "mini-audits" for lack of better words.

Does a line manager want to wait a month to find out how his/her operatives are performing? No, up to date information and a daily/continuous outlook will pinpoint deficient activities and lead to problem solving as the process runs, not monthly, quarterly or whatever the time fram of the "traditional" internal audit scheme.

By the way, don't be sorry to disagree, this is a forum for open discussion and we are all capable of adapting and learning as we go along. Your posts were informative and thought provoking, hope you register as a member of the Cove.

Have a good day!

ASD...

Al,

Now your talking! I agree a sound quality system would take full advantage. I meant only that it is unfortunate that Most ISO 9000 companies are more concerned with the certificate. It is the rare company that does not do Audits for the two points I mention above. As a quality Manager, it is my challange to try to "make them see the light" Not an easy task.

Thanks,

Carl-

We train on our QMS system which mirrors ISO 9002. Most of our training is ojt and formal classroom training. Training is very important for the job required and also the old saying "knowlwdge is power". In most world class companies provide on the average 40 hours of training per year per person. Mark you will need to train the people who you have determined that needs to know on any changes to your QMS, which is what you probably do anyway. How you do the training is up to you. Depending on your people it could be a memo that is read, signed and returned. What do your QMS require of you for training (element 17).

Originally posted by Carl

4. Internal audits are nothing more than an excuse for common sense. The ONLY reason ANY company continues them to the level of detail that they do is because they live in fear of their registrar.

5. You didn't HAVE to use an outside source to train the employees to the ISO standard in the first place, why would you waste more money?

Carl-My sentiments.