Hello to all :)

I was hired as a Quality coordinator for a big IT company about 10 months ago . This company had 3 other consultant try to establish for it an ISO system but they all resigned for various reasons.

in the span of 8 months I Basically wrote /ammended the Quality system with all the required procedures , ammending some of the old existing procedures and creating new ones from scratch.

we brought an external consultant to audit our QDS and basically no non conformance were detected , but he noted that the biggest part of the implementation had not been done .

The implementation problem has proven to be a huge problem since the company has very strong headed department managers who want to do things on their own way and often refuse to follow procedures.

Furthermore top administration has been somewhat reluctant to take serious measures against that kind of behavior since these department managers are "earning money for the company" ... top management has even been reluctant to file corrective/preventive actions against such behaviors :nope:

my question is... what should i do ?:confused:

I've been thinking more and more about resigning ...the implementation is proving to be such a head ache im losing sleep over it and feeling frustrated .

Please help :(

Thanks in advance.

Hi Sardokar,

Welcome to the Cove. :bigwave:

It's sad to hear about the resistance/commitment from your management, unfortunately this is not a unique situation. For starters I suggest that you look at the similar threads at the bottom of the page, since this subject - in broad terms - have been touched upon several times.

Furthermore top administration has been somewhat reluctant to take serious measures against that kind of behavior since these department managers are "earning money for the company" ... top management has even been reluctant to file corrective/preventive actions against such behaviors :nope:Welcome to The Cove! :bigwave:

As Gert said, this is not a unique problem. In addition to going through consultants like governesses in the movie The Sound of Music, your quote above really put the finger on it.

But why would these middle managers not want to follow procedures? Are there aspects or controls that are absolutely required by a QMS ("Inspection? We don't need no stinking inspection!") that they simply don't think is necessary? Have you asked them - have you involved them in making those procedures so they will actually represent what is done and not make them think they're being redesigned as an organization?

To get buy-in there are some things you really need:

1. An understanding of why the whole project is important. Is it to gain market share through a more reliable product (build brand loyalty like with Toyota), reduce the cost of returned product, pass regulator audits, take the company public--why are you people doing this in the first place? Top manamement needs to do more than say "Now we will do ISO" or some such.

2. Involve them as qualified internal consultants. These are subject matter experts, so they should be asked what procedures should say...unless processes are being completely redesigned and there will be confusion and turf wars.

3. A set of measures to use for discussion of how well things are going. Not just for QMS implementation, but its expected impact that will affect them personally. Profits, market growth, security, personal pride in being THE brand to beat, or maybe a different one of these for each person. Motivation is a very personal thing.

4. Regular temperature checks to see what needs to be updated. Again, these managers should be intimately involved. If the procedure and process don't match, which needs to be changed more and why? In what way? Be specific and make it clear that if the process is sound, it may be the procedure that needs to be changed...or eliminated. Not everything requires a written procedure. Sometimes a flow chart and turtle diagram will do.

Sounds like you have a lot of challenges to deal with, and some may rest with you because you wrote these things and are now being told (without words) they are not acceptable for some reason. You have to look at this again and honestly determine if their attitudes are what needs changing--such a thing is like pushing a rock uphill.

I hope this helps!

Welcome Sardokar,

Apart from the good points in Jennifer's post, you may have to consider this.

Quality Management Systems that are build around the existing operational methods of the company, meaning incorporate ISO requirements into the existing method or way of doing things (with minimal amendments here and there and only when necessary) are easily accepted. Systems that are built around a template normally required major changes in operational ways and methods create resistance from existing employees and management alike.

I don’t know which method was adopted in your place. I do know that it is an accepted fact that IT people resist perceived red tapes and systems because of the nature of their job. Therefore any system created without such considerations and flexibility is doomed to failure.

First off , thank you for the welcomes and the responses :)

second, let me quote a few of

But why would these middle managers not want to follow procedures?

To get buy-in there are some things you really need:

1. An understanding of why the whole project is important.

2. Involve them as qualified internal consultants.

3. A set of measures to use for discussion of how well things are going.

4. Regular temperature checks to see what needs to be updated. Again, these managers should be intimately involved. If the procedure and process don't match, which needs to be changed more and why? In what way? Be specific and make it clear that if the process is sound, it may be the procedure that needs to be changed...or eliminated. Not everything requires a written procedure. Sometimes a flow chart and turtle diagram will do.

You have to look at this again and honestly determine if their attitudes are what needs changing--such a thing is like pushing a rock uphill.

I hope this helps!

Hi Jennifer .

Let me try to discuss your post point by point :

Some of the Things that are happening right now:

*recruitement is being done before even sending a recruitement request to the HR dpt, although the procedure and top management requires it...this has happened repeatedly and top management is reluctant to file a CAPA against the department manager .as to the "why" this is happening , it is widely known that the said manager is strong headed and never wanted ISO in the first place .

*most dept managers are "very busy" and the implementation is taking way too long , for example our department objectives are not yet set although weve been discussing it for over a month and a half and several reminders had been sent

* records of Customer complaints and relevant CAPA are not always filled...the organization used to keep them as email and the transition is being reluctant at best ,furthermore dpt manage are hardly setting the right example

etc...

to answer your points one by one , jennifer

1- i believe that the GM wants the ISO certification a commercial purpose first and foremost since a lot of foreign companies require the ISO certifications to accept to deal with another. They did formulate that they wanted to improve the "quality" of their organization but i do believe that the first point is the most crucial to them.

2- The department managers were involved in the creation of some of the procedures ( among others: the design and development , the sales, the support, the inspection procedure... )

3. good idea. Thanks:)

4.im not sure i understood you ,could you please rephrase or develop that point?

If your problem is getting people to comply with procedures I would ask why these procedures are there in the first place anyway ?

Thank you for details that can be answered directly.

Top management needs to draw a line in expectations. Why they require HR requests needs to be defined (why does it matter enough for them to make a procedure out of it?) and why it matters if this is not done. Armed with this information, top management needs to weigh how badly they want that HR request, the damage if it's not made, and the degree to which they will press the point. This is top management's purview, but the issue must be raised as a valid CAPA and sent to top management if the middle managers refuse to accept it. It's no good to say, "Well, I guess you don't have to do this..." if the control really matters.

Department objectives are something that should be set as a management group so they will compliment each other, are acceptable as a group, and are vetted for organizational soundness and measurability. Everyone is busy, so this is something that may need to be done over an out-of-office lunch or management retreat. Sometimes it helps a lot to go for pizza and hash this stuff out away from the office.

If department managers were involved with procedure creation, are the end results something they approved of? Did they affirm their approval in some way? Why would they do that if there's no intention to uphold the promise? This might be a cultural issue, or they might think the procedure itself is not a good fit. That must be determined and the specifics addressed. Like I said, sometimes a simple flow chart and turtle diagram will do. But their essential controls must be defined, understood, obeyed and corrected as needed. Send the CAPA up the ranks if people refuse to respond to something they signed agreement with.

Customer satisfaction is a very big deal, and not only because ISO requires it. Tracking, understanding and improving customer response support is a critical part of keeping the company brand attractive. IT people sometimes find it hard to understand this, but top management gets to drive - and I mean drive - the effort to make sure customers are served well. If top management isn't willing to exert its authority to make sure customers are happy, you have a more profound problem than middle management not following procedures.

The reason for doing the customer satisfaction management thing needs to be discussed. I once read about a study (I think Coca Cola did it) that showed an unhappy customer will talk about the experience many times more often than a happy one. Westinghouse (I think it was) long ago determined that for every $1 spent to get a new customer, it cost $7 to get that customer back if lost. These discussions and descisions (to move from selling software to building lifelong software customers) are what transforms technical experts to business unit managers. Not everyone makes that transition well. How to deal with that is, again, a top management concern.

But the customer happiness project must be easy to manage and check for success. Ask these managers how that would best be done, and then act as an internal consultant to say, "Okay that's good, now how should we do XYZ (that pesky QMS requirement)?" If they give you the brush off, go higher because the question MUST be answered.

All of this stuff takes time; sometimes it takes a really long time. With some people you will find more business thinking than others; some will act like artists and others will think very pragmatically. Everyone has their gifts, so the organization's responsibility is to make those gifts profitable or examine if the person is still who, and what, they really need. Again, this is based on the business plan and top management's leaderhip.

As you go, you must critically examine the system's design (processes and procedures) and ask: Does the process need changing? Does the procedure need changing? Or, is it a simple matter of compliance? Do your procedures fit the need? Are they too bureaucratic or complex? Is there some reasonable middle ground you can find? This is what I mean with #4.

As a quality manager there is no way you can do anything more than guide people through this process. Top management gets to decide what it wants, but may not have anticipated the personal resistance to following certain rules. If the rules can be continuously flaunted your company may look like a 4077th M*A*S*H unit. But that unit turned out to be the region's best... rules need to be designed in a way that fits the organization's need. In an IT organization that need will include a greater sense of middle management freedom than, for example a pharmaceutical manufacturer.

Figuring out that vehicle is where you come in. Making sure it gets done is, ultimately, top management's job. How well these things suit you is what makes you decide if you should still work there.

I hope this helps!

Hello to all :)

my question is... what should i do ?:confused:

Put everything into management review and let the top dogs worry about it, it's their problem to fix, not yours.

If top management doesn't want to fix it and it looks like you'll take the hit for their lack of whatever my suggestion would be to "stand up-hook up'-shuffle to the door-jump right out and count to 4".

I know it sounds easy, but I've done it myself in the past.

Sorry for the concise post, but I am in a hurry.

The problem lies on the shoulders of the management representative. If you are it, you obviously don't have the authority, as required. If someone else is the MR, s/he is either incompetent or is in a state of dereliction.

Sorry for the concise post, but I am in a hurry.

The problem lies on the shoulders of the management representative. If you are it, you obviously don't have the authority, as required. Then this is top managment's problem for not giving it and making it clear to eveyone else....a communication issue as well.If someone else is the MR, s/he is either incompetent or is in a state of dereliction. Are you serious?

I think the ball got swung at and missed here.

I think the ball got swung at and missed here.Ultimately, it is always top management's responsibility. However, I stand by my post. ISO 9001 5.5.2 clearly makes the MR accountable for system implementation. If department managers lack the discipline to implement processes, the MR should be the one initiating action. That is why an MR must have organizational AUTHORITY to enforce change. As I said in a previous post on another thread, a quality coordinator normally lacks such clout, which violates both the intent and the text of the ISO 9001 requirement referenced above.

Yes, I am serious. http://www.ugoplayer.com/forum/images/smilies/crazy.gif

I re read the first post. I think it says it all.

We have a "coordinator" level person charged to "get ISO" because the competitors have ISO.

Man, don't lose sleep over it. Senior mangement does not want to understand it, they don't want to do it, they don't want to get value out of it (they've proven that by their actions). They just want to "get it".

So just get it for them. Go for multiple registrar quotes, interview the 2 or 3 lowest cost ones.

They won't say it out loud, but it will be clear you can buy a plaque for the wall.

Or save your trouble and search here for the ones we complain the most about and call them in.

Three days of chit chat in the conference room, 2 cheesy minors you can close by creative typing and presto boingo you have ISO.

Then ask for a performance bonus.

If you feel the need to actually make improvement, add this success to your resume and look elsewhere.

Sorry, feeling kind of cynical tonight.

You can't make anyone do anything they don't want to do.

This applies even more to your boss.

[QUOTE]ISO 9001 5.5.2 clearly makes the MR accountable for system implementation. No it doesn't, it states that it is the MR's responsibility. Responsibility and accountability are two entirely different creatures. We are held accountable for those things we are responsible for.

If department managers lack the discipline to implement processes, the MR should be the one initiating action. You can't be serious? The MR, who could be a 3rd level or 4th level "member of management" is going to correct a 1st or 2nd level person?

That is why an MR must have organizational AUTHORITY to enforce change. Authority can only come from the top and the top has to make that very clear to those down stream. The authority I carried as a law enforcement officer came through the elected officals of the city I served who were granted their authority by the constitution and laws of the State. The evidence of my authority was through the badge I wore.

The authority I had as a Staff Non-Commissioned Officer in the USMC came to me through the Commandant who got his from the President, who got his from the Constitution as Commander in Chief. The evidence of my authority was the Commission Warrant I was given when promoted and the stripes I wore.

In both cases my authority was clearly communicated to all who were subject to it.

I have stated and will continue to state in my courses one of the greatest weakness's in business organizations is the clearly communicated assignment of "authority".

As I said in a previous post on another thread, a quality coordinator normally lacks such clout, which violates both the intent and the text of the ISO 9001 requirement referenced above. The "manager of janitorial services" could have the authority if it were clearly defined by top management. Job titles are meaningless unless real and not presumed authority is attached to them


Yes, I am serious. [IMG] You're not really serious though,are you?

I'm starting to forget what the OP asked:confused:

This reminds me of a scene that goes something like this.. A man is trying to give a motivation speech to high schoolers:

When you graduate, go ahead and spend your summer preparing for college. Buckle down in college, study real hard, and stay disciplined. It will take at least four or fives years for a good degree... and then....

Ah heck, who am I kidding? Stay at home; live with mom and dad. Play video games, and avoid work and responsibility at all options. Just do what it takes to keep from getting kicked out, have them do your laundry, and fix your meals....:tg:I think Caster had :sarcasm: in the previous post,:D but honestly, probably wasn't far from the truth.

If your management are not going to manage the organization, tell them don't bother spending the money. If they have a decent auditor from a decent agency come out, you are going to have serious problems due to senior management. The quality program will not succeed without management support.

I don't want that ISO I know you're quoting, but that just shows there are still stupid people left in the world to have that mentality. Chances are the procedures are not any good, because the reluctant manager would not help in the first place. Thus, the procedures are not integral in the process, and he don't want to use it, on and on; a vicious cycle. It's management's job to break that cycle.

Upper management needs to manage their organization. If they want a good quality process, they need to tell the "super" manager to shape up or ship out. Period. Even if he leaves, any decent organization he goes to will have rules. Everyone is replaceable.

If management asks, tell them what the problem is. If not, don't say a thing. Unless they are going to manage the "golden boy" that is Untouchable, brush up your resume and get another job.

No it doesn't, it states that it is the MR's responsibility. Responsibility and accountability are two entirely different creatures. I see it differently. To me when someone is made responsible and provided authority, they are held accountable. In this context, ISO 9001 leaves very little to interpretation, imo. You can't be serious? The MR, who could be a 3rd level or 4th level "member of management" is going to correct a 1st or 2nd level person? That is exactly why ISO 9001 requires the MR to have THE authority to....You're not really serious though, are you?Yes, I am serious.

I am the MR & have the authority but many times top management does not comply with the standard requirements.
Will I be responsible for everything that goes wrong with the QMS?:confused:

I see it differently. To me when someone is made responsible and provided authority, they are held accountable.

I have to agree with Sidney again on this one - much as it goes against the grain. :lol:

As with all the simple statements in ISO 9001 the devil is in the detail:
Top management shall appoint a member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes:So, if we look at this in detail:
Top management decide who the MR is - they have total control of what happens in the company
The MR has to be a member of management - whatever they are called they have to have some standing in the company
Even if they have other duties they are accountable for the QMS (Responsibility)
They have the necessary authority - so what they say goes wrt the QMS


a) ensuring that processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and
maintained,For a MR to satisfy this requirement the requirement for processes (from clause 4.1) for the business have to be:
Identified (4.1 (a)),
Controls established (criteria and methods) to operate and control (4.1.(c)),
Ensure resources are available (4.1(d)),
Monitored / measured (4.1(e)),
Take actions to ensure results are achieved (4.1 (f))


If these two requirements (of 5.5.2) are not met then either:

You are not doing your job properly :)
You are not really the management representative (someone else is and they are not doing the job properly :lol: )

I get the impression from reading through this thread the one and only reason the management of the OP's organization are pursuing registration to an ISO Standard is to appease current and potential customers. There is no desire (stated or implied) to implement an optimum business and quality management system.

Perhaps (only perhaps) one of the principal owners or top managers may have an inkling there is more benefit than simply qualifying to be on some customer's bid list (no guarantees the bids will be successful - smart customers look to other factors besides mere registration to a Standard.)

If that owner or manager follows up on that inkling and hires a top notch consultant on change management (as opposed to a consultant who is focused on meeting ISO Standards), he (maybe she?) will be able to help ALL the employees (managers and staff) recognize a benefit to themselves (the old "What's In It For Me? syndrome) in implementing an ISO compliant QMS. Once they understand and agree a COMPLIANT system is worthwhile, it is only a short step to actual registration to the Standard.

Without that inkling on the part of an owner or manager who has enough authority or persuasive power to initiate and implement a compliant QMS, the OP's organization will continue to be a bunch of scattered silos incapable of working toward a common goal as each department manager jealously guards his turf.

As I wrote once when I sought organizations for case studies when I started writing my book:
Here are some "should have" criteria for the target organizations:
I deal with chief executive and/or Board of Directors directly and interact with any or all staff as necessary
organization should be in self-perceived "crisis" due to pressure from time, regulators, or customers
I don't do work by myself, but will "mentor and advise" existing staff to do it so they can continue when I am gone (for example, I don't "perform" Gap Analysis by myself, but will help personnel learn how to do it themselves, keyed to the organization's circumstances, and will review and suggest modifications as required)
There is no minimum term for the assignment - some issues could be resolved in as little as one or two days, but still be important to the organization and pertinent for my book.
the maximum term might be as long as a year, but would involve my full time presence for only a fraction of the time to help personnel learn to do a task, returning from time to time for evaluation and suggestions for improvement
organization may be any size, from small business to transnational giant.Some of the perceived "crisis" situations might be, but are not limited to:
seeking registration to a Standard due to outside pressure
"re-engineering" an organization which needs major Kaizen events to become competitive in its market
"assimilating" a recent takeover of an organization with a different culture
"fairness opinions" when selling an organization or creating an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) or Initial Public Offering (IPO)
Complying with Sarbannes-Oxley Act for public corporations
new product introduction (production and marketing)
achieving government certification in a regulated industry
negotiating with aggressive customers
negotiating with banks, financiers, equity investors
adopting and assimilating new technologies (such as Electronic Document Management or Customer Relationship Management)Above all, I want to leave the organization in better shape than I found it. Fees will be negotiated in each instance. There is no guarantee I will take any assignment, but if I refuse one, I will make a suggestion for other sources of help. I will not charge for such a suggestion, but the source may charge for its services.Almost any qualified advisor with a strong general background in a variety of organizations should be able to help an organization like the one OP describes.The key is that someone has to give the hint to the top officer or owner that a satisfactory solution IS possible.

I have met with such a situation many times and usually the reasons are as follows:

1. Top Management are misinformed about the requirements of the quality system and think it's all about paperwork which we'll get someone to do and that's it.

2. The MR has no authority to direct people towards implementation, and people will not care about whatever he says, because he hasn't been given any management fire power or attention.

3. The MR is an Intovert! sometimes, the problem lies with the MR himself, he knows the requirements by heart, and likes to work in his office infront of his PC and not deal with all those nasty people who don't want to follow what he says,

4. The documentd procedures are those which are not customized to the people's needs...meaning a QA dude sat in his office all day writing down what other people should and shouldn't do, without consulting them at all throughout the process and them trying to impose such procedures on them

Let me be very honest with you, at first when i was starting off, trying to get people to do what i wanted, i used to get so frustrated, but then i learnt that i should see things from their perspective, use their terms and definitions and tailor the procedures so that in works in the company's favour not that of the auditor.

My advice is that you need to sit with all the departments and write down the procedures with them not against them, break this fear barrier and approach the poeple and talk to them, win them over on their side, the way you made it sound in your first post, was like top management is the parent and he has to punish the neighbor's kid for not being nice to you, you have to consider what negative effect this has on the whole company, now that 3 people before you have occupied this job, this already means there's somethig wrong, but not necessarily with the people or Top Management!

This thread also sounds like 'the customer' never audits the supplier. Try illustrating to him upstairs what would be found if a customer came to audit, what they might think of the QMS, and what action they might take as a result eg. stop being a customer.

Sorry Sidney and Paul, I have to seriously disagree with you. As the MR, I have done absolutely everything I can get people to "toe the line" as it related to the system. There are 2 people that regularly move around the system...when a CA is issued, the owner simple sweeps it under the rug.

We are now seeing in high definition what happens when the system is circumvented. Yet, I still get the "go find out why the information isn't being received on the floor". I basically showed him the CA...he told me I was wrong and to go find the right answer (which means don't pick on his friend).

Yes....time for the hook step.

Sorry Sidney and Paul, I have to seriously disagree with you. Please don't take my comments personally. The earlier post was my attempt to logically explain the role of the MR. If my logic is faulty please feel free to correct it. :D

As the MR, I have done absolutely everything I can get people to "toe the line" as it related to the system. There are 2 people that regularly move around the system...when a CA is issued, the owner simple sweeps it under the rug.Then here's the rub - You haven't been given the necessary authority to do your job. So your "top management" have failed to meet the requirements of clause 5.5.2.

That isn't to say as MR you should be given carte blanche and "what I say goes" - we all have to justify our actions and, using your example if these two people can justify another course of action then as MR you should consider it.

But - and this is the big but - if your actions are reasonable then your top management are obliged to support you (and your authority) and bring these two into line.

We are now seeing in high definition what happens when the system is circumvented. Yet, I still get the "go find out why the information isn't being received on the floor". I basically showed him the CA...he told me I was wrong and to go find the right answer (which means don't pick on his friend).

Yes....time for the hook step.

This is it. If you can't change the company then you have to change company.

It reminds me of a job I had a while back. When I joined the company their management review was overdue and I made a presentation at the board meeting explaining what a review was and what the board members had to do to comply. I was sent away to meet board members individually and explain it to them - it took me another 8 months to carry out the review! :bonk:

A little while later because of departmental politics they wanted to change who I reported to (I presume to control me better) ..... time to move on. :lol:

If the Management Representative does not have the responsibility and authority to carry out his/her functions within the Management System, than Management has essentially failed to demonstrate committment. If Management feels that they (or one of their own) are the only group who should have authority, then they should have the responsibility, as well.

It boils down wanting to understand WHY Management is not committed. Even if all they want is a piece of paper on the wall, there should be some committed to a system, superficial thought it may be.

Personally, I would do a gap analysis showing current state and ideal state (i.e., what is needed to attain registration). For every requirement, I show:

Document required? Yes/No
Document developed? Yes/No
Documented process implemented? Yes/No


It's not quite a full-blown audit (i.e., I'm not really looking at records and hardcore evidence), but it's a good assessment to see where the system stands and is a quick checklist prior to an audit.

"Implemented" is based on training done, talking with people, and a general "feeling" by the people on the job.

From there, I sit with Management and discuss the gaps. As a group, we determine where we wish to be and allocate the resources approrpriate to our goal.

But thinking about the Original Poster's comments, I can't help but wonder if the QMS was developed in a bubble. Or, as I have seen (and been guilty of, as well)...was a QMS developed that should be what is done and looks great on paper, but is not an accurate reflection of reality?

If you can't change the company then you have to change company.

Paul, I'm sure this is simply a play on words and in that sense I agree with you. I honestly hope that you don't feel the MR's role is to change the company. :) The MR's role (and responsibility), in my opinion, to bring Routine and Improvement to the organization...to help understand and stabilize the current processes, with the intent to incorporate value-added improvements to the organization.

Paul, I'm sure this is simply a play on words and in that sense I agree with you. I honestly hope that you don't feel the MR's role is to change the company. :) The MR's role (and responsibility), in my opinion, to bring Routine and Improvement to the organization...to help understand and stabilize the current processes, with the intent to incorporate value-added improvements to the organization.Yes, Roxy, a play on words but not of my own making, I'm afraid - taken from "Change the person or change the person" but yes I do believe it is the MR's role to change the company - if it needs to change!

So if (taking the example we have been discussing) some people are not following the CAR procedure (i.e. it is not effectively implemented) then the organization needs to change (to meet requirements in ISO 9001) and the MR is, by definition, the person to make the change.

If they don't have the necessary authority to make changes in the system they are responsible for then they aren't an MR in the sense of clause 5.5.2.

The whole idea of this clause is to give someone within the organization the clout to develop the system. Far too many MRs are appointed and given responsibility for the QMS without the necessary authority to do the job making a mockery of the requirement - perhaps this is an area of the system that isn't explored too much at assessment?

YES! Especially #3 and #4.
#1 is ALWAYS a problem because the guy who suggested or "told" the top management about registering to a Standard also was clueless about the intrinsic benefit of having both business and quality management systems take advantage of the best practices of organizations from around the world. Almost universally, they stop at the comment - "You'll get more business if your company is registered." They never go on to say, "If you do it right, your organization will be more efficient and more profitable!"I have met with such a situation many times and usually the reasons are as follows:

1. Top Management are misinformed about the requirements of the quality system and think it's all about paperwork which we'll get someone to do and that's it.

2. The MR has no authority to direct people towards implementation, and people will not care about whatever he says, because he hasn't been given any management fire power or attention.

3. The MR is an Intovert! sometimes, the problem lies with the MR himself, he knows the requirements by heart, and likes to work in his office infront of his PC and not deal with all those nasty people who don't want to follow what he says,

4. The documentd procedures are those which are not customized to the people's needs...meaning a QA dude sat in his office all day writing down what other people should and shouldn't do, without consulting them at all throughout the process and them trying to impose such procedures on them

Let me be very honest with you, at first when i was starting off, trying to get people to do what i wanted, i used to get so frustrated, but then i learnt that i should see things from their perspective, use their terms and definitions and tailor the procedures so that in works in the company's favour not that of the auditor.

My advice is that you need to sit with all the departments and write down the procedures with them not against them, break this fear barrier and approach the poeple and talk to them, win them over on their side, the way you made it sound in your first post, was like top management is the parent and he has to punish the neighbor's kid for not being nice to you, you have to consider what negative effect this has on the whole company, now that 3 people before you have occupied this job, this already means there's somethig wrong, but not necessarily with the people or Top Management!

...
If that owner or manager follows up on that inkling and hires a top notch consultant on change management (as opposed to a consultant who is focused on meeting ISO Standards), he (maybe she?) will be able to help ALL the employees (managers and staff) recognize a benefit to themselves (the old "What's In It For Me? syndrome) in implementing an ISO compliant QMS. Once they understand and agree a COMPLIANT system is worthwhile, it is only a short step to actual registration to the Standard.
...

Wes -- this statement of yours is the one I most agree with in this thread. And I also feel we as quality professionals can and need to get better at selling the benefits.

The paradigm I see most often from strings like this one goes something like the following:
"If the MR is not given the authority by top management or does not support them, then they are doomed and there is nothing they can do."

The big question I see is what is the best way to sell upper management on the benefits of the QMS? How do you do it?

I wish I could say I knew the answer and I could write it out in a few sentences, but the truth is I don't know. I only know what has worked for me in the past.

I'm not a member of management, I don't have any authority over other departments, and our business is spread out over four locations several hours apart. After helping Production implement a basis QMS, I am now being invited by other departments (like Purchasing, Warranty, App Engineering) to come and help them implement their processes.

The only consistency I have with each group is that I always started the same way, with data collection and reporting of nonconformances. It seemed the facts and data were always on my side. The important step is to group the data into general categories, then Pareto and ask the group how they want to tackle the top issue each month.

I remember a few years ago, I helped (as a Consultant) a steel slitting company with their ISO 9000.

We were just finishing up after about 9 months and the VP of Sales came over to me and said "I don't know if whatever we have been doing for the last little while but our Customer rejects have gone way down." I knew they would since I suggested systems that could benefit the company rather than just meet the requirement.

I know that I could not sell improved quality and cost reduction but ISO 9000 - absolutely.

I agree with the other people here. You need a good Consultant who can help improve your systems and comply with ISO 9000 or other standard.

First of all discusions need to take place with top management, they need to determine whether the company needs a system based on ISO and if so they need to endorse it and in the process ensure that all levels of the organistion understands this. It is also imperative that all staff own the system therefore it is important that you ensure they are consulted in the development, implementation and continuos improvement of the system. This is not going to take 5 minutes, stick with it, persever and you will be rewarded.:)