Hi Guys,

Ok to start with this is my first post on any forum anywhere :o

I've just started at my company as a Technical Manager (my first "Manager" job after a couple of years in support rolls), I look after all things IT related and was told when I was being interviewed that the company was aiming for ISO:9000 compliance and I would be the guy doing it.

It was decided that it would make sense (and cost less) to do as much of the work for ISO9000 compliance as possible BEFORE getting a consultant in. If anything this would reduce the costs of doing so.

Now I've done loads of research and also talked to people who have gone through the ISO process itself and I've started work on the document, but I was wondering if I could check with your good selves that I am heading in the right direction on this if I may?

So this is what I've come up with;

I took the company and effectively split it up into the major processes that make the company up as a whole,

Management
Sales
Manufacturing
Customer Support
Customer Training

I am also thinking about adding Marketing and IT as functions also.

Each one of the 5 headings is then broken down into subsections, for example;
Sales -
1. Sales process (text about the process in abstract with a flow diagram)
2. Ordering from Supplier post Sales process (with text and flow diagram explaining the process of ordering from supplier)
3. Receiving Stock from supplier (booking it into the system and how to handle issues which can arrive, also flow charted)
4. Dispatch to customer process (text and flow diagram)
5. Stock control process (text and flow diagram)
6. Reporting (reporting on sales performance, supplier performance, failures and customer feedback)

I document each part in an abstract way with an overview in the form of a flow chart allowing the reader to see how the process goes. With each section it is also documented with which individual (staff title/position not actual name) is responsible for each function.

I also intend to have an Appendix entry for every section where appropriate to document exactly how it's done (with examples of how to do it with the business management software we use, examples of documents that are used etc) to allow staff training manuals to be easily put together, especially for new starters.

I'm also planning on putting a company intranet together to allow all staff to access the full document at any time.

Now am I miles away from the idea or am I warm?

Thanks guys

Hello Steve,

Welcome to The Cove Forums! :bigwave: :bigwave:

From what I have read, you're on the right track! :yes:

Please come back and post your questions and suggestions.

Stijloor.

Thanks for that, as I've already done quite a lot that's a real relief :D

I've found that from what I have read it seems a lot of it is common sense.
The basic theory I'm following is;

1. Identify the major business functions
2. split it up into the process that make up the function
3. Abstract description of what it is and what is done in that process
4. flow chart the process to allow the reader to easily follow it (reader being a new employee training, a current employee making sure they're doing it right and the auditor!)
5. remember the reporting on the function bit - i.e. for the purposes of ISO record it being done right and identifiy weaknesses to allow improvement
6. Give examples of what is being done, what documents are used and how to allow the reader to learn how to do it and how to do it well.

Would you say this the correct idea then to carry through the entire document?

<snip> 6. Give examples of what is being done, what documents are used and how to allow the reader to learn how to do it and how to do it well.

Would you say this the correct idea then to carry through the entire document?

Number 6 would be applicable for training purposes, but is not necessary if the process support documentation provides sufficient detail.

Be careful not to get too carried away with "documents." You know already what documents are required by the Standard, the rest is really up to you. The question to ask is: "What documents do our people need to help them to be Safe, Effective, and Efficient?"

Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

Yes I've seen a lot of warnings about over doing the documentation and yes it's a very fine balance between documentating something and going overboard.

When this document is finally finished we will start looking for consultants to go over it. Is there anything we need to look out for when vetting for a consultant to work with? i.e. if a consultant is more interested that we follow their procedures and document templates rather than using what we've done be best avoided?

Yes I've seen a lot of warnings about over doing the documentation and yes it's a very fine balance between documentating something and going overboard.

When this document is finally finished we will start looking for consultants to go over it. Is there anything we need to look out for when vetting for a consultant to work with? i.e. if a consultant is more interested that we follow their procedures and document templates rather than using what we've done be best avoided?

Whe you select a consultant, you should determine what you expect this consultant to do. A good consultant will take a look at your entire business, its overall objectives, its processes, the documents that support all this, and the process objectives and associated measurements.

You determine what your system should look like, not the consultant. A good consultant can advise you on missing pieces in the system that are required and can offer suggestions and good practices.

Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

Steve - welcome to a fellow Englishman (well, Brit anyway!)

Using a good consultant from the beginning is likely to be most cost effective. I know you want to save money starting out and the spectre of using a poor consultant is enough to frighten most off using one. However, by not starting off with good guidance, you might already have wasted time and effort on your direction (just a thought).

My recommendation is a personal one - and I recognize that finding a good consultant is difficult in the Uk since the market is saturated and has been for years. I'd recommend calling Geoff Doole at Excel Partnership. Look on the internet for their number - he's in Hemel Hempstead.

As for documentation and processes, before you do too much more, the best way (IMHO) is to approach your management team with what they believe are the value adding and support processes. Some of what you listed might not be a process in their eyes and you will bear the 'blame' for getting it wrong from the outset.

When you call Geoff, tell him I sent you!

Probably the major suggestion I have is to remember this is an ORGANIZATION (USA spelling;)), not a one-man show. Include the rest of your organization in the process of finding and determining what will work best for the ORGANIZATION.

Just as you rightly concern yourself with avoiding choosing a consultant who might try to impose HIS system on yours, you may fail to see you are imposing YOUR system on your ORGANIZATION.

It appears you have a good enough grasp of the minimums needed to comply with a Standard, so you won't necessarily require a consultant until you and your organization have a good handle on the most efficient business processes which are both effective and user-friendly. At that point, you might want the objective consultant to walk through a gap analysis of your system with all of you to do final "tweaking." Folks in an organization normally do a better job of "follow-through" when they are working with a system they had a lot of input in creating.

Hi Guys,

Ok to start with this is my first post on any forum anywhere :oWelcome! I look forward to your questions ... we try to be helpful, honest! :D

I've just started at my company as a Technical Manager (my first "Manager" job after a couple of years in support rolls), I look after all things IT related and was told when I was being interviewed that the company was aiming for ISO:9000 compliance and I would be the guy doing it.OK, you will have to explain the connection between IT and the "real business" the company does. No offence! ;)

BTW there are a lot of similarities between good quality work and the old systems analysts from IT - until the term got degraded through overuse. :lol:

It was decided that it would make sense (and cost less) to do as much of the work for ISO9000 compliance as possible BEFORE getting a consultant in. If anything this would reduce the costs of doing so.
As they say - you do what hits the buttons for you. My personal recommendation would be to get a consultant in early to steer you on the right path and then tell them to go back into the background until you are ready to use them again (for an audit?).

Otherwise all the steps you look to be taking are good ones!

Thanks for all that guys!

I'm quite lucky in that a friend of mine ISO 9000'd his company before he sold it and when I told him about what I am doing just emailed me everything he had done for his company! He also now works for a much bigger company that is ISO 9000'd and also told me about what they do.
Additional to this I've also done a h*ll of a lot of reading off the web on this subject and have also picked up a couple of things from this site too.
So I have a lot of guidance on what is expected, it's just a case of putting it altogether for my employer and once all the basics are together the plan is to get a consultant in and let them point out all the bits that need tweeking.... well that's the "plan" anyway.

My job? Well my job is to actually put together a proper IT system as this company has kinda just got stuff when they needed it. Once my ISO'ing task is done I'll be coming up with a proper network design, server setup and purchasing policy. As well as working with one of the directors in overhauling existing software.

I enjoy the full confidence of the directors and also plan to put together a presentation for everyone in the company to attend to bring them up to date with what I am doing.

I'm quite lucky in that a friend of mine ISO 9000'd his company before he sold it....... Hmm! Not sure this kind of terminology will strike a great chord with some of us here. You make it sound like a wash and polish job.

......the plan is to get a consultant in and let them point out all the bits that need tweeking.... well that's the "plan" anyway.Again not an area I am interested in. Doesn't sound like a real "value add" job to me.

Good luck anyway.

Hmm! Not sure this kind of terminology will strike a great chord with some of us here. You make it sound like a wash and polish job.

Again not an area I am interested in. Doesn't sound like a real "value add" job to me.

Good luck anyway.

I like to keep things simple, if you want me to use the full term ISO9000:2000 then I will though that's a little long winded for what I thought was a lighthearted friendly support forum and not a place where I am already being evaluated for ISO compliance.

And I can assure you this is not a wash and polish job and I hope I haven't misunderstood your post but that comes across as though you're trying to make out that I am not taking this very seriously as I can assure you I do otherwise I would not have posted on this site in the first place.

During each process of going through and evaluating every part of this company's processes and functions I've already identified several areas which need improvement and have already started serveral process changes. Thanks to my work the how sales process has been streamlined by something like 60% and people are already commenting on how much better that part of the business is running.

it's just a case of putting it altogether for my employer and once all the basics are together the plan is to get a consultant in and let them point out all the bits that need tweeking.... well that's the "plan" anyway.
There's no easy answer, Steve. It's a plan that may well work, or it may have flaws in it. I've seen both. Without knowing a heck of a lot more about it/seeing examples, one couldn't really say whether the plan will work.

I've been asked in to companies using that approach. IN some cases, what they'd done was pretty good, and tweaking/fine tuning was fine. IN others, they'd spent one heck of a lot of time and wasted a lot of effort, alas.

it's I enjoy the full confidence of the directors and also plan to put together a presentation for everyone in the company to attend to bring them up to date with what I am doing.

That's good. I'd certainly want people involved though - they do better when involved, not told.

PS - I didn't see anything in the previous post by Steve to produce such a prickly response.

I like to keep things simple, if you want me to use the full term ISO9000:2000 then I will though that's a little long winded for what I thought was a lighthearted friendly support forum and not a place where I am already being evaluated for ISO compliance.

And I can assure you this is not a wash and polish job and I hope I haven't misunderstood your post but that comes across as though you're trying to make out that I am not taking this very seriously as I can assure you I do otherwise I would not have posted on this site in the first place.

During each process of going through and evaluating every part of this company's processes and functions I've already identified several areas which need improvement and have already started serveral process changes. Thanks to my work the how sales process has been streamlined by something like 60% and people are already commenting on how much better that part of the business is running.

Thank you, Steve! And well stated:applause:

You have learned one of many valuable lessons-don't take anything laying down. If you know you're right, stand up for it!!:yes:

Please don't take anything here too strongly. Most people have well-intentioned responses, and don't mean things personally. :D

I'm quite lucky in that a friend of mine ISO 9000'd his company before he sold it and when I told him about what I am doing just emailed me everything he had done for his company! He also now works for a much bigger company that is ISO 9000'd and also told me about what they do.
Additional to this I've also done a h*ll of a lot of reading off the web on this subject and have also picked up a couple of things from this site too.
So I have a lot of guidance on what is expected, it's just a case of putting it altogether for my employer and once all the basics are together the plan is to get a consultant in and let them point out all the bits that need tweeking.... well that's the "plan" anyway.



It sounds like you have a good start. However... it is really important that your QMS be for your organization, for the purpose of your upper management, and to meet your organizational objectives. It's OK to start from an existing program if it is highly similar. If not, it may be better to start from scratch. If your management's goals and the goals of the target organization are not the same/highly similar, you might want to rethink the plan.


My job? Well my job is to actually put together a proper IT system as this company has kinda just got stuff when they needed it. Once my ISO'ing task is done I'll be coming up with a proper network design, server setup and purchasing policy. As well as working with one of the directors in overhauling existing software.

I enjoy the full confidence of the directors and also plan to put together a presentation for everyone in the company to attend to bring them up to date with what I am doing.


Again, I will applaud you for your strategic planning and beefing up the infrastructure for the system. Again... like a broken record (if you're old enough to ever hear a broken record:lol:) the most important thing is to assure that the system first matches what your upper management desires. Also, the most important infrastructure change will encompass a change of culture among the employees to embrace the QMS system, and make it a working, living, viable part of the company.

Welcome Steve!!

"Keep on truckin", this is a good place for experienced discussion covering all areas of industry.:applause:

Al...

You have learned one of many valuable lessons-don't take anything laying down. If you know you're right, stand up for it!!:yes:

You're darn right Brad!

Please don't take anything here too strongly. Most people have well-intentioned responses, and don't mean things personally. :D

Most people? Yes!

Stijloor.

...
It appears you have a good enough grasp of the minimums needed to comply with a Standard, so you won't necessarily require a consultant until you and your organization have a good handle on the most efficient business processes which are both effective and user-friendly. At that point, you might want the objective consultant to walk through a gap analysis of your system with all of you to do final "tweaking." Folks in an organization normally do a better job of "follow-through" when they are working with a system they had a lot of input in creating.


I fully agree with including the whole organization, but I will disagree with how you intend to use the consultant. If you do all the hard work of cobbling together a system from what you learned, and what you gathered from here or there, by yourself, and then have him finish it off, you run the risk of having to undo and redo much of the system.

A (good) consultant has seen and worked with many systems. You are working on your first. It would be like me building an addition to my house, then having the professional builder put the finishing touches on it. Or building your own computers and network for the first time. You will make many mistakes, and leave many things less effective and efficient than they might be.

I applaud your energy, but better to work with a (good) consultant from the beginning, agree on the roadmap and framework, and decide which parts you will do and which he or she will do. This will allow you to control costs, but still get coordinated direction. Have meetings at certain milestones along the way, etc. This will save you far more than it costs, and put you on the path for a far superior system.

I will disagree with how you intend to use the consultant. If you do all the hard work of cobbling together a system from what you learned, and what you gathered from here or there, by yourself, and then have him finish it off, you run the risk of having to undo and redo much of the system.

A (good) consultant has seen and worked with many systems. You are working on your first. It would be like me building an addition to my house, then having the professional builder put the finishing touches on it. Or building your own computers and network for the first time. You will make many mistakes, and leave many things less effective and efficient than they might be.

Good analogy. Or, like someone building their own database application and then 'just bringing in the consultant at the end to tweak it a bit'.

I applaud your energy, but better to work with a (good) consultant from the beginning...

I wouldn't parenthesize (good) - ie, I wouldn't put it in brackets. Essential to have a good consultant. Anything less than good (from ordinary through to yuk) can be diabolical.

This tends to be my opinion also, but of course we both of us have to declare a possible bias here, given our professions :)
OTOH Steve says he has a good contact who's done this before. I've also noticed that some people with IT backgrounds can be very good at systems analysis (in the nature of their work!), although sometimes inclined to focus overly on process and technology at the expense of some other aspects of a good management system such as resources, especially people! and management.

...
I wouldn't parenthesize (good) - ie, I wouldn't put it in brackets. Essential to have a good consultant. Anything less than good (from ordinary through to yuk) can be diabolical.

This tends to be my opinion also, but of course we both of us have to declare a possible bias here, given our professions :)
OTOH Steve says he has a good contact who's done this before. I've also noticed that some people with IT backgrounds can be very good at systems analysis (in the nature of their work!), although sometimes inclined to focus overly on process and technology at the expense of some other aspects of a good management system such as resources, especially people! and management.


I find the biggest weakness in systems are when they do not really understand the process approach. I see a lot of systems that are compliant, as to documentation, but miss the benefit of performance improvements inherent in the process approach.

I find the biggest weakness in systems are when they do not really understand the process approach. I see a lot of systems that are compliant, as to documentation, but miss the benefit of performance improvements inherent in the process approach.

I do find it interesting to hear this. It's one of the reasons I find the Cove so interesting, to hear different perspectives and learn from others' experience and wisdom - including yours, Helmut. I too see systems that haven't really got to grips with the process approach, but I don't see that as the biggest weakness.

I agree it's a very important principle. But I also see systems which haven't really embraced/realised the power of various of the other underlying QM principles underlying, particularly Leadership, Involvement of people at all levels, Systems approach to management - and interestingly, often even Factual approach to decision-making.

But the biggest weakness I believe is a failure in systems thinking and consequent lack of understanding of management systems.

I'd see a system that had compliant documentation but demonstrated a failure to understand the process approach as a failure in systems thinking: not seeing it as a system: something that is more than its documentation.

I do find it interesting to hear this. It's one of the reasons I find the Cove so interesting, to hear different perspectives and learn from others' experience and wisdom - including yours, Helmut. I too see systems that haven't really got to grips with the process approach, but I don't see that as the biggest weakness.

I agree it's a very important principle. But I also see systems which haven't really embraced/realised the power of various of the other underlying QM principles underlying, particularly Leadership, Involvement of people at all levels, Systems approach to management - and interestingly, often even Factual approach to decision-making.

But the biggest weakness I believe is a failure in systems thinking and consequent lack of understanding of management systems.

I'd see a system that had compliant documentation but demonstrated a failure to understand the process approach as a failure in systems thinking: not seeing it as a system: something that is more than its documentation.

I believe we are in fact describing the same weakness, using different terminology. It is the key difference between the top companies and those who are struggling. It manifests in all sorts of manners - pricing, employee disatisfaction, quality, lack of top management support, customer issues, etc.

I'm quite lucky in that a friend of mine ISO 9000'd his company before he sold it and when I told him about what I am doing just emailed me everything he had done for his company! He also now works for a much bigger company that is ISO 9000'd and also told me about what they do.

I would be careful about using someone else's model. Paul Simpson has already pointed out the problem of organizational differences. To that I would add the possibility that some of the methods are unnecessarily burdensome. If it seems to others that you are making the organization do a lot of "extra" things for ISO 9001, you will meet resistance.

I, too, have an IT background. (little outfit called IBM) Learn from my mistakes of long ago: go slow with automating your quality management system processes. It may seem like a really neat idea to put everything on line, but it's not always justified in terms of the initial cost, learning curve for the users and support over the long term. What works in a knowledge worker environment doesn't always translate to the shop floor.

And as another user observed in a previous thread on a similar topic,
K.I.S.S. (props to Randy.)

I can see where everyone is coming from and appreciate all the angles people are coming from (one of the reasons why I am here).
I am lucky in the respect that this company has a business management software suite which I am involved in to get the company using it properly. It's called Hansaworld. One bonus of this is you can set up activities and processes which the users follow and depending on what process it is and what the outcome is it gives "activities" to different users to carry out. This system then forces the user to do things correctly and records who does what. All the processes I am designing work within the framework of this software and thus helps to give me a template to work to and everyone uses it.

I am not expecting to hit the nail on the head first time with this, but the fact that I will have a form of documentation for this business will give me something for the consultant to work with when we bring them in. Remember what I am doing at the minute is only phase 1 and none of the directors (nor me for that matter) are expecting this to be right first time. One positive thing about going through phase 1 is that we (as a company) have been finding weaknesses all over the place and have been addressing them. If anything we should be in far better shape when the consultant does come in then we would be if we went to a consultant cold.

I will keep you guys up to date with developments. I've been targeted with getting a first draft ready by May this year, though I might have this done by the end of March (with luck). I'll let you guys no the initial conclusions of the consultant and will also of course post any questions I think of along the way.

Just incase anyone is still watching this thread;
I've made contact with an ISO consultant after nearly completing the project.
The ISO Consultant was recommended through some contacts I have in the Business Community where I live. We've discussed at length what I have done and he's of the opinion I've got it right! (Yipee!) The plan is to put everything in front of him in May and he believes we'll be ISO'd up in no time.

I'll let you know the outcome after the meeting.

Hope all is good with everyone.

Just incase anyone is still watching this thread;Always, Steve, always! :)
The ISO Consultant was recommended through some contacts I have in the Business Community where I live. So you have been through your rigorous selection process then. ;)
We've discussed at length what I have done and he's of the opinion I've got it right! (Yipee!) The plan is to put everything in front of him in May and he believes we'll be ISO'd up in no time.
Please excuse my emphasis ... and I don't want to reopen our debate about how lighthearted the Cove is

.... but I do hope you have a rigorous assessment of your quality management system and, at the end of the assessment, the certification body is satisfied your system meets the requirements of the international standard - ISO 9001.2000 and is able to recommend you for certification. :D

Hi Guys,

Thought you'd like to know that I've finished the ISO'ing of the company (ISO9001:2008). The body we went with was BSI (http://www.bsigroup.co.uk/About-BSI/) as we have a clinic as part of the business and they were one of the only auditors that have the scope to audit such an operation (see I'm now even using ISO speak!).
Thanks to everyone for pointing me in the right direction.
When I get some more time I may post/create a quick guide to what you need to cover and what the auditor likes to see.
Hope you're all well.

It's good that you got your certificate. Congratulations.

End of one phase, and now begins the work of maintaining and improving the system. And understanding the real power of quality management, beyond 'ISO-ing up' something, which is a misnomer if ever there was one.

Forget about 'what the auditor likes to see' - focus on a system that meets requirements and works for you. Running things according to 'what the auditor likes to see' is a waste of time and counter-productive. I'd be far more interested in what learning and improvement came out of the exercise.