Yesterday I received my third call since January from a major multi-national asking me to develop a supplier evaluation and development program which does not so much as mention ISO 9001 and is applicable to smaller suppliers. Nice for me because I can draw on my previous work, but I'm beginning to wonder.

Marc,

I would say emphatically that the rebellion has started. This ISO thing was just like any other fad, it's time has come and gone. A few more years and it will be replaced by some new re-hashed idea with a new name tag.

JMHO,
CarolX

Marc, I think these are two different issues. First, I think ISO 9001 is at, or close to it's peak. Those who WANT to register probably already are, those who HAVE to register probably are as well. I see this as a mature market (from a consultant's viewpoint). The heyday of having more clients than we can deal with are beyond us now. This can be evidenced by the drop in consultant fees.

The issue of the rebellion will never die! I see an expanded call for self-declaration (thanks in part to ISO 14001). Because the competitive advantage of registration is pretty much gone, I think more companies will say things amounting to they do not see the need to pay a registrar to pay them for something they already know!

If a company has the self-discipline to maintain a QMS without registration, then self-certification/declaration might be useful (Carl’s posts reflect his organization might be a good example). Most companies I work with lack such self-discipline and I see a gradual decay back to 50’s manufacturing.

My belief is that the 2000 standard seems to have had a negative shock on our management. They were able to live with the 94 standard of do what you say, say what you do, blah, blah, blah. Now, when we give them the new standard they see only the Mangement Review section. No longer is it the troops doing all the work for certification by following processes now they have to be over-involved.

I work for a large defense contractor and the company, (high level), has terminated it's contract with the registrar and is banking on getting 2000 cert'd through some government agency no one has heard of.

In the last 2 months we have totally fallen off the dime where we were certified and everyone was actually working together and following processes. Now all CAB's have been cancelled and nothing is happening. The offical word is we are waiting further word from corporate...ha

I see this boat going down for the last time very soon. We might get 2000 certified in the future but it will be a paperwork drill only.

Again, my thinking on this is Top Management, (and the next 3 layers), are too busy keeping companies going these days and they don't have the time or energy to do that much more. Let's leave it where the management is involved at arms length and make the department heads responsible for implementation.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Thanks for the forum as it is a crappy Friday.:bonk:

I'm not as concerned with whether the interest in ISO is declining as I am with the loss of interest in quality. It is hard to find anyone or any organization that is really quality focused.

I hope that the next quality initiative that comes along is something that management supports.

Hank Fowler

In my part of the world I don't see any rebellion yet. ISO is still important (not necessarily Quality) purely from business point of view. "self-discipline to maintain a QMS without registration" is almost unthinkable !

Here's one theory I have: Maybe management is rebelling against ISO 9000 in part because some of the things it requires are not viewed as bringing added value to the company, but rather additional work that is considered unnecessary for that particular organization. As just one small example I've heard, management has no problems doing management reviews at intervals they feel are appropriate, but they resent having the standard insist that some type of records be maintained as evidence of the review. "Unnecessary work" in their view, yet it is mandated by ISO. Do it or else....

Another popular complaint seems to be registrars interpreting requirements differently than management and management being threatened with loss of certification if they don't give-in. Do it or else... Most top managers don't take kindly to this kind of thing, especially when business is low and moods are correspondingly low.

It seems to me that one of the "in things" to do right now is to make operations as "lean" as possible, especially in the current marketplace. "Experts" and "regular guys" both think that makes sense. However, there times when the standard handcuffs management and gets in the way of the "leaning" process as they want to do it. When business is down (as it is for my company and a few others with whom I am familiar) it is taken as an especially bitter pill when the standard gets in the way of what they feel are worthwhile changes. It seems the two ideas (ISO and "lean") conflict in some cases.

This is not to suggest that ISO doesn't have parts that these same managers totally agree with. They're not all "anti-quality". They just value more flexibility than ISO offers in some cases.

Just one opinion. I have lots more but I am probably in enough trouble for one week already.

Mike S.:bonk:

Just did a quick check of registrations ot the 2000 standard and found the following:
USA Registration 1044 of 35018
World Registration 3166 of 408631
based on those registered in Dec 00
Is/was ISO a fad???
I think that many are self declaring and will opt out of registration and there will still be a market for registration but less registrars. I even believe that there will be a market for nonregistration 3rd party audits. Anyone want to go in business?? :D

Atul Khandekar said:

"self-discipline to maintain a QMS without registration" is almost unthinkable !
_________________________

This makes me wonder. How in the world did quality products ever get made, and QMS systems exist, before the advent of "registered" quality management systems?

I respectfully submit that it is not unthinkable.

JMHO

Mike S.

Hi all,

In preparation for the impending doom... ooops, :vfunny: I mean transition to ISO 9000:2000, we have been taking a very hard look at just how this whole mess adds value to our organization. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that we are becoming hard pressed to find the answer to that question. We've been "process oriented" for over 3 years now, so all I'm doing in preparation for the upgrade audit is basically making sure that what ISO requires, we have documented somewhere. There have been several instances where I've given things to my boss for review prior to implementation and have him ask, "Why are we doing this?" My answer, "For ISO."

I have this sneaking suspicion that if it weren't more of a hassle trying to explain it to our customers, we just might "self declare" or just chuck it all together.

Cheers!

If you ask any of the old NASA folks what set their quality apart back when we "could" put a man on the moon they will say they were proud of what they were doing. Also, they looked at it from a standpoint that their kid might use that product so they made sure it was right the first time. Same with WW II for the most part when women were in the factories. They new their men would use that equipment and sending them something that would not work, (or might not, or only 95% of the time), just was not an option.

Today we say that 60% is passing and that we can accept losses and it is wrong. Because of that people die and we can't believe it on the news when reported. We ask "how did it happen?", knowing that it all came down to pushing a product out the door before it was ready in most cases. It is happening more and more and we will pay for it in blood, sweat, and tears for years to come. Look at the pharmacutical industry to see all the drugs that were pushed through and are now recalled.

Just my thought on quality, or lack of.

Michael T said:

In preparation for the impending doom... ooops, :vfunny: I mean transition to ISO 9000:2000, we have been taking a very hard look at just how this whole mess adds value to our organization. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that we are becoming hard pressed to find the answer to that question. We've been "process oriented" for over 3 years now, so all I'm doing in preparation for the upgrade audit is basically making sure that what ISO requires, we have documented somewhere. There have been several instances where I've given things to my boss for review prior to implementation and have him ask, "Why are we doing this?" My answer, "For ISO."

I have this sneaking suspicion that if it weren't more of a hassle trying to explain it to our customers, we just might "self declare" or just chuck it all together.

Most of my former implementation clients are saying this as well. "OK - so where's the value?" is what I'm hearing. Of course, each must maintain their certification because every one did it to begin with as a customer requirement. Few had a problematic past with respect to producing quality parts - the issue was the customer (or their sales / marketing department) saying we think you should be doing this.

Ahh,
This thread is music to my mid life crisis senses:rolleyes:

I read an excellent book by Allan J Sayle a few years ago called "Management audits", Allan discusses issues simillar to what is being thrown around this thread, I believe that my book review is still at the book review forum at the Cove.
Well it doesn't surprise me that there is some kind of rebellion away from the registrars control of quality standards, maybe the fallout from Enron is causing management globaly to re- assess the need for quality management systems/standards and auditing standards that may become part of the next Enron fiasco (Oh yes it'll happen again).
Question: Why implement the standard when the value added aspect of process standardization, control and improvement are seen to be the most costly aspect of standard implementation to business management?
Wallace.

Whenever I hear ISO linked with improvement I immediately have to chuckle. It's as if a company only improves if it has ISO 9001 certification - as if ISO 9001 makes the difference.

I believe that in its self is a false assertion. I know too may companies which were doing fine before ISO.

Dear Marc,
I have just joined the forum today though I have been visiting your site and reviewing the comments for the last couple of years.
In India where I live and work ISO 9001:2000 I believe will if implemented properly, help most manufacturers to move beyond just meeting requirements and look to providing some value addition to their customers by achieving continual improvement.
Regards
SaroshT

If you look at ISO's numbers and read between the lines of individual countries comments on direction, growth will continue for a while yet.

I might suggest that Americans like to dump on ISO. Ten years ago most hadn't heard of it. Seven years ago (approx?) Time (or was that BRW?) wrote that TQM was the way to go and ISO was bad. The next seven years saw USA ISO 9001 registration/certification numbers balloon at an amazing rate.

May be you see it like a communist threat, and have to run around dobbing in someone you don't like - "he supports ISO - just read that forum on the web".

In the Asia Pacific region more than 6 years ago Hewlett Packard decided to scale back their ISO 9001 costs and run it at a minimum. They figured they had higher standards than ISO, but still needed the certificate for some customers. So, as Marc may be seeing, some larger companies are starting to establish sufficient maturity to go it alone. This will be an interesting test as to the actual level of maturity of the company. It may be far lower than perceived by the company. Time will tell, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet!

Dave wrote.
I might suggest that Americans like to dump on ISO
Well yeah and the anti christ is in charge overseeing the global implementation of the standardization.
You're good Aussie bloke, I like the cut of your jib.
Wallace.

I would like to add a new twist to this thread. This is an interesting discussion and an important one, but part of it makes me wonder...

Many of us (Myself included sometimes) point out the cracks in the ISO 9000 structure and even forsee its fall. We frequently tell each other how bad it is. Where does this lead? Well, maybe we are starting to believe it. Piece by piece we come to regard it as a load of croc that we don't need.

After a while we start spreading the message in our organisations (not actively but you can't really hide things like that), because believe me: Even if we keep complaining about how hard it is to get peoples attention they will get that message. Then we have a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now then: Where is the alternative? With all its faults I still consider the ISO 9000 series worth using. The mere fact that it's spread worldwide should be worth something. I for one would not like to handle a lot of different systems created by various suppliers when there is one internationally recognised standard. Ok, it's not perfect, but it's not all that bad either, is it?

/Claes

That's it...

I should have said that... Thank's.

/Claes

Good comment Claes.

Is ISO9001 all that bad ? Hasnt it done some good ?

Is all the bad press really down to bad implementation, rather than the standard itself.

Jim Wade has demonstrated that almost any way a company chooses to operate can be made fit the ISO9001 model, so long as you can get your registrar on board with your ideas. Jim also suggests that ISO9001 is no longer a standard. In light of this can we really blame the standard itself ?

this argument resurfaces every 174 days....ever notice that?

I STILL say ISO is a common sence thing..........those that do it best, never really needed it. Those that implemented it correctly, as it was intended to be ..abeit not stated...have it going for them and the new standard isn't really new/difficult for them. The ones that have the MOST difficulty are the ones that only "do it cause ISO says to..lipservice". The rest of the poor souls are somewhere in the middle, listening to both ends rant and saying "what do I do now???"

Its here, its gonna stay..so educate yourself and make it work for you and your company. I predicted way back when it was a novelty and a tool to make a company appear " on the cutting edge... unique and a reason for selection" that soon it would be a tool to be the exception, without it you are unique......and the reason for exclusion. I actually think that is where we are going now (in some industries anyway).

So are we peaking? whats peaking?

Bad press? Yes ....poor implementation (consultants, auditors, trainers, managers alike)

[QUOTE] Claes Gefvenberg said:
Now then: Where is the alternative? With all its faults I still consider the ISO 9000 series worth using. The mere fact that it's spread worldwide should be worth something. I for one would not like to handle a lot of different systems created by various suppliers when there is one internationally recognised standard. Ok, it's not perfect, but it's not all that bad either, is it?

______________
Some say the ISO9000 series is the greatest; some say it completely stinks. As is often the case, I personally think the truth is in the middle.

There are parts I just don't like and there are interpretations that baffle and confuse me. There are "bad apples" out there who "buy" their certification from other "bad apples" without compliance. There are fairly high expenses involved in "getting the certificate", but a stigma against those who don't have it, regardless of how good their product and/or service quality is and how financially sound they are.

I think one sensible option is for purchasers to focus more on actual product/service performance and not so much on whether the seller has the certificate. I think the sellers should focus on using the parts of the ISO9000 series (1994 or 2000) that they think are the most applicable and giving the most value to their organizations.

Maybe my mind is still in "weekend" mode and I'm not entirely back into the real world yet, but I can't help but remember that there were quality goods and services produced long before the ISO 9000 "standards" came about and there are bad products and services being produced by ISO registered companies. Can it be all bad to choose the choice cuts of ISO and reject the fat? Or do I need to wake up more this Monday morning?

Mike S.

barb butrym said:

this argument resurfaces every 174 days....ever notice that?

*snip
..........those that do it best, never really needed it. *snip*

Okay... I am taking "it" to mean ISO. If I'm wrong, forgive me I misinterpreted.

So.. if a company is doing it best, they never needed it. If they never needed it, why get it? What value does it offer them? If a company already has a functioning QMS in place that addresses product quality, customer satisfaction, employee relationships, vendor relationships, etc. and this is evidenced by having a high quality product, happy customers, happy employees and vendors that are willing to work with them to continually improve the product - what does ISO provide except a 3rd party (I'll leave "neutral" out of this) that says - "Yeah, they do it"?

Just a thought and a question.

Cheers!

Michael T said:

So.. if a company is doing it best, they never needed it. If they never needed it, why get it? What value does it offer them? If a company already has a functioning QMS in place that addresses product quality, customer satisfaction, employee relationships, vendor relationships, etc. and this is evidenced by having a high quality product, happy customers, happy employees and vendors that are willing to work with them to continually improve the product - what does ISO provide except a 3rd party (I'll leave "neutral" out of this) that says - "Yeah, they do it"?

Just a thought and a question.

Cheers!

Michael,

It's, quite simply, a barrier put there to inhibit US goods from entering the European market, and now, the Southern Hemisphere. The products, one would have you believe, aren't of the highest caliber without this piece of paper. CE Marking for Industrial Electronic Equipment is another one. UL isn't good enough, anymore. I would really like to get on the soapbox and get into it, but we have a lot of acquaintances in the forum from over seas and I do not want to offend anyone. Get ready, because this will surely draw flak. Not too much, I hope. It can get ugly.:ko: :smokin:

energy said:

Michael,

It's, quite simply, a barrier put there to inhibit US goods from entering the European market, and now, the Southern Hemisphere. The products, one would have you believe, aren't of the highest caliber without this piece of paper. CE Marking for Industrial Electronic Equipment is another one. UL isn't good enough, anymore. I would really like to get on the soapbox and get into it, but we have a lot of acquaintances in the forum from over seas and I do not want to offend anyone. Get ready, because this will surely draw flak. Not too much, I hope. It can get ugly.:ko: :smokin:

Baton down the hatches, shipmate - I see heavy swells coming over the bow... :biglaugh: :eek: :smokin:

Me, I'm gettin' below decks and finding a nice comfy spot to ride this one out...

Cheers!

I have said in my classes that ISO is simple lemonade stand business. Most companies can do it!! Its up to you how you want improve on it to make it better. This is where you can become worldclass. When I took several training classes it was touted that TQM was the cornor-stone for ISO 94. The 00 version touts the 8 Quality Management Principles

to collect all the KUDOS you deserve...ie those "overseas" accounts.............

Dont know about this.

There are now a lot of TQM like ideas in the 2000 version of ISO9001, but I never felt, or heard it said, that TQM had any relation to the 1994 version.

It was always considered that ISO9001:1994 dealt with hard issues, such as document control, contract review, etc, whereas TQM dealt with the soft issues of motivation, involvment, leadership, etc.

As long as top management is held subject to Internal /external quality reviews,and as long as they actually need to get involved due to the new standards,the standards will see its nemesis.

I wanted to follow-up with you after my post the other day regarding another round of training toward our management in regard to their responsibilities in the 2000 standard.

Well, we had asked for 1 hour of their time, they showed up 10 minutes late and said they had another meeting in 20 minutes they "had" to be at. At least we new what they thought about the entire issue from the start.

I had created a slide presentation for them which we just flew through. At the end I reiterated once again the "shalls" that are mentioned just in 5.6, and 8.5. They just don't seem to care...said they will review it in a "few weeks" at a staff meeting. Wanted us to "condence the presenation" as 15 slides were to much for the issue".

At this point it proves that this is too much for them and nothing short of the division president showing up is going to change that.

Just don't know what else to say at this poing.

Jim,

All there was to it was quoting the 3 Elements, (and sub-elements), and giving an idea of how we could get there for each.

The worst thing is 99% of the stuff we are asking for are things that each department used to provide when we were having Corrective Action Boards. Of course since "meetings" are no longer required, (that is all they heard from the auditor), the CAB's went by the wayside. This is not to mention the latest in LEAN that we are supposed to be adapting. LEAN is good but does not replace the CAB's. It seems they can only handle one thing at a time.

Like I said, other than just quoting the standard and giving examples there is nothing in the presentation to share.

Thanks.

Jim

I have heard that 'Top Management Commitment' can be demonstrated by the allocation of resources.

Will auditors accept 'oh thats Freds job' as demonstrable Top Management Commitment ?

(Obviously we hope not).

So how is this 'new' top management commitment requirement going to produce anything different from our top management ?

But what are they looking for.

Attendance at reviews always took place, allocation of resources always existed, a quality policy was always created.

Or have I just been lucky to work with commited top management ?

[QUOTE] gpainter said:

I have said in my classes that ISO is simple lemonade stand business.
______________________
As I scanned this quote today for some crazy reason the thought of an ISO9001-2000 compliant lemonade stand flashed thru my mind. I realize that's not what gpainter means. But, can you just imagine it? :vfunny:

I also submit that if ISO was so darn simple there wouldn't be a need for the Cove to exist, nor would there be a need for thousands of consultants to help with implementation and maintenance. Or are there just lots of people like me - dumb?

:confused:

Mike S.

It's the implementation that kills us...

You can't get much easier than a document is well structured with exact details on what you have to do.

The COVE is a great forum to share information and I enjoy the banter if nothing else.

Just like the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but he can still be a Jack *** and not accept it"...or something like that.

Thank goodness there are people out there alot smarter than I am who can help dummies like me (and others with questions) out on this stuff. Hee-haw.

:bonk: Mike S.

Just trying to bring some levity about...not at all insinuating anything else. The Jack A thing was definately not directed toward the site. There are some very knowledgeble folks out here and of course that is why we participate.

You can read into my posts what you will. It is just like the TV, if you don't like what is on it, change channels.

Have a great Day!

Scott said:

You can read into my posts what you will. It is just like the TV, if you don't like what is on it, change channels.

Have a great Day!

Okay Okay...Sometimes I'm like that, especially when there ain't no smilies. You know, those little dudes on the left when you're posting?

As for changing channels, I have only one!:p

Peace, Bro!:agree:

:ko: :smokin:

gpainter said:

When I took several training classes it was touted that TQM was the cornor-stone for ISO 94. The 00 version touts the 8 Quality Management Principles

The first step in TQM is standardisation - ISO 9001:1987 provides thistandardisation. 9001:1994 introduced customer focus and improvement. 9001:2000 has increased the scope on customer focus and improvement.

HOWEVER......

9001 is the baseline for TQM!

M Greenaway said:

There are now a lot of TQM like ideas in the 2000 version of ISO9001, but I never felt, or heard it said, that TQM had any relation to the 1994 version.

It was always considered that ISO9001:1994 dealt with hard issues, such as document control, contract review, etc, whereas TQM dealt with the soft issues of motivation, involvment, leadership, etc.

MG,
Please refer to my response to GP.

If different models for quality (or anything other specific topic for that matter) aren't inter-related, then there is a fundamental flaw.

Scott said:
At this point it proves that this is too much for them and nothing short of the division president showing up is going to change that.

Just don't know what else to say at this poing.

Scott,
Software is far less tangible than hardware, and software senior managers are even worse!

The code monkeys will ignore what you're doing if the Snr Management Team is visbily help drive the program.

One approach is to quantify the needs of your customers. Do they requrie compliance with any particular standards (AS/Q/ISO/MIL/CMM/CMMI/SPICE etc.)? Do you have contracts with customers that reference standards or provide lengthy quality related requirements that are better met through adoption of a structured model like ISO 9001.


Did you presentation discuss benefits for employees, stakeholders, the company?

Unfortuneately our customers, (Government), attitude toward ISO is worse than our managements.

The head guy actually told the auditor that there was nothing in ISO for him and he was more concerned with the time this took away from his program.

It is going to be interesting to watch the total breakdown of what we have over the next 6 months and see what happens from corporate and t-90 days and they say we have to be certified.

Got to love life.

Thanks for all the advise.

Scott,
Don't get too down.
The good news is, just about any registrar on the globe will give you your ISO registration.
It's a cold hard fact, as we all know only too well.
Now how are you going to explain that to senior management after all that whinging noise you made to them about commitment - this quality stuff is easy!

Sometimes it is easy to convince yourself that they're right :bonk:

You are right Dave :(

From reading the last several posts, is it any wonder 79% of those polled think ISO is about to peak or is already sliding downhill?

To Jim's quote "And we can make it happen (and no doubt are making it happen) despite the deeply weird registration process!" one might remove the word "despite" and replace it with "without".

Just a Monday rambling thought...

Mike S.

I have had to be out there and earn some money in recent days but have spent the last couple of days getting into the ISO 9000 "cresting" poll debate, I feel I have to give my three penn'orth. (About 5 cents in today's money.)

There is a lot of discussion about ISO in the press and in fora like the Cove, I'd be a bit unhappy if there weren't. I hope that in the shelter we can come up with an agreed approach as professionals that we would all be happy with pointing clients, doubters, government etc. at. Unfortunately it appears that even we "experts" can't agree on whether ISO is a good or bad thing, let alone HOW good (or bad) it is. Is it any surprise that the business leaders are confused?

When BS 5750, the forerunner of ISO 9000, was developed in the seventies it was at the request of industry who wanted some way of demonstrating to customers and other interested parties that they had systems in place to ensure product quality - noble sentiments don't you think?

Someone separately had the idea of independently assessing and registering systems which were seen to meet this quality system standard - I don't see a problem yet, do you?

Then the grubby commercial pressures were applied to this new industry - customers pressurized suppliers to "Go for certification" to get on the approved suppliers list and now the companies putting themselves up for assessment don't really want to be assessed but want a certificate - instant conflict with the certification bodies assured! The certification bodies are now competing for market share and the differentiator is how "customer friendly" (for which you can read easy) their assessment process is. This process is starting to look a little tatty at the edges - there are pockets of excellent third party assessment work out there but it is a little like panning for gold.

So now that the third party certification market is starting to get a bad reputation the people who have always been anti - ISO have the ammunition to knock.

I truly believe that ISO 9000, whether the old 1994 version or the latest (much improved) version is capable of being used as a framework for an organisation's quality system. It is the system that is used by the people inside it to ensure the product continues to meet customer requirements.

This systems standard cannot be prescriptive and cannot guarantee quality on its own but, in the right spirit contributes to it. If we as professionals cannot explain it to our management teams or to customer then I believe it is not the standard that has failed.

Lastly I have to say something about Energy's comment to the effect that this is a European plot to try and prevent US imports - the comment does nothing to move the debate on nor does it do anything for US / EU relations. I had enjoyed reading his comments over the last few months, I can only hope for more reasoned arguments in the future.

Is ISO cresting - I don't really care. I am dealing with customers who want management systems to work for them. If it also meets ISO 9000, so be it

Paul Simpson said:
Lastly I have to say something about Energy's comment to the effect that this is a European plot to try and prevent US imports - the comment does nothing to move the debate on nor does it do anything for US / EU relations. I had enjoyed reading his comments over the last few months, I can only hope for more reasoned arguments in the future.
Is ISO cresting - I don't really care. I am dealing with customers who want management systems to work for them. If it also meets ISO 9000, so be it

Paul.

While researching the WEB for some facts for putting together a presentation, I came up with this. I didn't make it up. First, here is an excerpt:

(AQAP) Quality Assurance Publication..WW11. A series of publications on everything from production efficiency to selection of suppliers.

AQAP Allied Series was adopted by the UK Ministry of Defense for the British Arms Forces.

A trickle down effect was more organizations began to require Quality Assurance Programs from their Suppliers.

1979 British Standard (BS) 5750 adopted based largely on the AQAP Series. The British version addressed the diversity issues emerging in the requirements for different organizations.

BS 5750 was so effective, it was adopted with very little changes by ISO in 1987 as ISO 9000.

The formation of the European Union and the perception that it (ISO) was required in order to do business with Europe, lead to the widespread acceptance of the ISO series.

Since being involved with ISO, over here, it is generally understood that not obtaining certification is a roadblock for selling goods in Europe. That's all. We hear it all the time. You being in the soil where this little beauty popped up wouldn't think such a thing.

Your heading "Sorry I'm Late". Cute. I was just waiting here wondering where you were.:vfunny:

If you took off your blinders you would notice that my post was in response to Michael T.'s post question "Why do it?". It does further the debate and was right in line with a previous post. I also mentioned that I did not want to offend our friends over seas. Obviously, I did. Just you, it appears. If it offended anybody else I will apologize for speaking my mind.

Relations? Surely you jest. My little ole post saying that ISO inhibits selling products in Europe is going to affect our relations? Just yours and mine. Who cares? That goes right along with "Sorry I'm Late".


As for your not caring about the poll about "Is ISO 9001 Cresting", you sure have a lot to say. I am really sorry if you were offended by my remarks. But, we have a saying over here..."If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. :agree: :ko: :smokin:

Jim Wade said:

I'm unsure, but I think the "Europe requires" bit is a myth, generated by another myth promoted by BS 5750/ISO 9000 community,

That myth is that it is good practice (perhaps even required practice) for registered companies to insist that suppliers (of any nationality, not just non-European) are also registered as an indication of their 'quality' standing.

Seems strange, doesn't it, now that we all know that an ISO 9000 certificate bears no necessary relation to 'quality'?

rgds

Jim

Jim,

My original post also alluded that the practice of exclusion of non certified companies selling product and services is emerging in South America. We sell a fair amount of equipment in Honduras, Mexico, etc..We had a representative from Brazil here and he was anxious to know when we would be certified because it's getting harder for him to authorize business to companys sans ISO certification. He loved our product and we sold him, but he re-enforced this requirement before he left. He shrugged his shoulders and basically said "That's how it is." You are right, it had nothing to do with the quality of our product. They have since re-ordered. Just matters how much they want it, the quality built in and the price. That's real.

In regards to Paul's post, I would have thought you or Martin would have creamed me first. Even Michael T. said to batten down the hatches.:vfunny: But it went un-noticed or not worthy of comment until now. Also the material mentions the "perception" that certification was required to do business in Europe. You know the "perception" your customer has of you? It usually is based in some part on facts. No offense intended.:agree: :ko: :smokin:

energy said:
You know the "perception" your customer has of you? It usually is based in some part on facts. No offense intended.:agree: :ko: :smokin:

All too true, shipmate. Unfortunately, perception is reality for both parties involved - no matter whether it is the quality of a product or the trade barriers to a market. :frust:

FWIW, as some anecdotal evidence supporting Energy's claim: We sell about 70% to commercial telecoms, 20% to commercial aircraft subs, and 10% to US military subs. The only customers who have insisted on at least ISO 9001 compliance are two European customers. At the time of the demand, one was a long-time happy customer and we had a 100% quality rating, but they told us they had to drop us if we did not do ISO 9001. The other one would not talk to us without it, regardless of our reputation in the industry. Not proof, but interesting.

Mike S.

Mike S. said:

FWIW, as some anecdotal evidence supporting Energy's claim: We sell about 70% to commercial telecoms, 20% to commercial aircraft subs, and 10% to US military subs. The only customers who have insisted on at least ISO 9001 compliance are two European customers. At the time of the demand, one was a long-time happy customer and we had a 100% quality rating, but they told us they had to drop us if we did not do ISO 9001. The other one would not talk to us without it, regardless of our reputation in the industry. Not proof, but interesting.

Mike S.

Mike S.,

Really not that interesting, is it? Paul says in reference to my post,"it's a plot". I say that it is a scheme crafted by those that think it's something else. Just a way to even the playing field. But, the ostrich never sees anything but the darkness of the little hole that they stick their head in. It is a weapon, yes I'm expecting serious rebuttal, to keep Quality product out of the their market place lest you realize that the word "Quality " really is more than a buzz word. After all, if there is only one chicken in the market place to choose from, it really looks mighty good.:biglaugh: In advance, no offense intended. :agree:
:smokin:

Hey sorry I missed the fight guys.

Eh ah well sorry, perhaps energy is right in that many US companies see ISO9001 being used as a trade barrier for selling to the EU.

But it wasnt (I dont think) set up purely as a barrier to free trade. I would hope that the big knobs in Brussells actually thought it a good idea as it would improve the quality of imported products.

Yes they were sadly very very wrong - but they did try.

But hey didnt ISO9001 derive from some American Navy person - so its all your own fault anyway :vfunny:

M Greenaway said:
But it wasnt (I dont think) set up purely as a barrier to free trade. I would hope that the big knobs in Brussells actually thought it a good idea as it would improve the quality of imported products.

Yes they were sadly very very wrong - but they did try.

But hey didnt ISO9001 derive from some American Navy person - so its all your own fault anyway :vfunny:

Hold the phone folks... If I remember my history lessons, ISO was designed to level the playing field in Europe between countries with different standards. Sorta like getting them all reading from the same sheet music... (pardon all the metaphors). I don't remember it mentioned anywhere that ISO was designed to improve quality. Am I remembering this correctly?

The use of ISO as a trade barrier just happened to be an unexpected dividend(?) of the whole process. Companies discovered that they could use ISO as part of the vendor selection criteria and exclude those with whom they didn't want to do business, with no legal consequences.

Cheers!!

M Greenaway said:

But it wasnt (I dont think) set up purely as a barrier to free trade. I would hope that the big knobs in Brussells actually thought it a good idea as it would improve the quality of imported products.



M.,

I agree it was not intended to be used in that manner. But, some people even use a shovel as a weapon. Clearly not designed to brain someone. I just get a little put out when I see "free" trade. It certainly isn't free, is it? On with the show!:bigwave:
:ko: :smokin:

I obviously didn't make myself clear in my last posting ….

"As for your not caring about the poll about "Cresting", you sure have a lot to say. Sorry if you were offended by my remarks. We have a saying over here..."If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

1. I think the number of posts I have made since I rejoined the cove is an indication that I only say something when I have something to say. In this case I thought there was something to add to correct the impression that this is a European plot. BS 5750 was developed in the U.K. and was then adopted by the European standards body AND the International standards body, ISO which the US was a subscriber to (at least when I last checked).

The subject of trading with Europe and their requirement for ISO 9000 registration, some large organisations may have applied this to their purchasing requirements but it is an international standard and, as with any free market you can choose to join or not, it is the same as UL product approval or FDA approval.

2. My point about not caring as to whether the takeup of ISO registration is cresting was covered in my original post, what matters to me is the effectiveness of the systems I help to implement and how well they solve the organization's problems who pay me good money to assist them. If it then meets ISO, QS, ISO / TS or whatever then so much the better for them.

As for the research Energy has done into the origins and motivation for BS 5750 and ISO 9000, some facts exist on the web but you have to be careful as to their use and interpretation. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinions in these fora but the heat in this particular kitchen will have to be a lot hotter before I feel the need to get out.

So let's understand - ISO is World Wide, it is based in Geneva, which is the capital of Switzerland - not a member of the European Union.

Jim,

I almost went cross eyed reading that one. I really don't care where the bee's nest ended up. It's still there.

Paul,

First, I respect your posts and never intended to suggest that you leave the kitchen. Just a figure of speech. Rejoin the cove? Geez, I, for one am honored. :rolleyes:
As for gathering facts off the internet and using them to any particular advantage based upon loose interpretaion to suit the purpose, I regard your posts as just that. Internet wisdom. Chew it, swallow it or spit it out. Remember what we do here. Your posts have no more credence than Jim's.:p Martin's:eek: or mine!:bigwave: Keep your eye on the ball and not just yours. :ko: :smokin:

Sorry but this really irks me. :mad:

If you want to talk barriers to free trade, how about the US's recent tariff's on imported steel, or the farm bill subsidies going through senate at the moment! Both in direct contrivention of the US's WTO free trade obligations.:frust:

James,

No one has clean hands on this. I speak my mind, you speak yours! Go for it. No argument here.:agree: :ko: :smokin:

Understood:agree:

James,

However, it may just be a reaction rather than an action. We can take it on the chin but have a propensity for going for the gut in return. Sorry, but I just had to say it. :agree: :ko: :smokin:

I'd like to see everyone take things a bit less personal and for some (you know who you are) to put a bit less bite in their posts. The posts where you bandy back and forth brings the words bickering children to mind.<hr>As far as trade barriers, every country has them just as they have products and services which they internally subsidize. No country is without guilt. As far as I'm concerned, one cannot say they are 'clean' because they perceive their tarrifs are less that those of another country. If you have any - which every country does - you are 'guilty'.

As far as ISO being a trade barrier, that issue was raised back when ISO 900x was first released in 1987 by companies in the US - so it's a old claim. Japan and the pacific rim didn't pay much attention. They have a lot of barriers themselves and didn't get too upset over it and still aren't. On the other hand, they - especially Japan - had some good American advice during the late 1940's through the 1970's and didn't need ISO 9001 to tell them the basics of a good quality system. Even today, the pacific rim is just beginning to seriously get in on the act. See http://Elsmar.com/obsolete/isojapan.html

If you do the right thing you go back to the 1960's when the need arose for legal recourse (what else?) across borders as the common market in europe was forming. The end result was a committee in 1978 which released the series in 1987. It did not start out to have anything to do with quality. The vehicle they found (think defining responsibilities and consistency and records, particularly) was through what were 'quality' requirements / 'specifications' existing during that period - 1960ish through 1985.

One can interpret it as a trade barrier if one likes, however that was not the original intent nor do I believe it is significantly used as such per se. None the less, I believe one could apply the definition of trade barrier to it reasonably correctly.

On the other hand, so what if it is? As I said above, what country can claim they have no barriers to trade? People who use the arguement are typically reacting to a new or changed barrier (or what they perceive to be a barrier) by another country. They feel slighted because they perceive a new 'imbalance', yet they are as guilty of having barriers to trade as any other country.

There is not now, nor will there ever be (and I seldom use the word never) 'true' free trade. We all have our real and perceived barriers.

Jim: Good history lesson. Takes me back to my college days.

There has been a lot of reference to just obtaining the badge, if that's all we want to do. I'm curious about this statement from the Secretariat of ISO/TC 176/SC 2...ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Documentation Requirements of ISO 9001:2000.

Chapter 7 . Demonstrating conformity with ISO 9001:2000.

For organizations wishing to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of ISO 9001:2000, for the purpose of certification/registration, contractural, or other reasons ......
To me that implies that striving for the badge is perfectly acceptable.
The badge comes with the certification/registration
The badge may be a contractural requirement
Other reasons may be to just obtain the badge. No?
:smokin:

Marc said:

I'd like to see everyone take things a bit less personal and for some (you know who you are) to put a bit less bite in their posts.

Whatchu talkin bout, Willis? Understood!:agree: :ko: :smokin:

Having been in this mess for 13 years, something has occured to me. Every company is paying someone, (plant manager, VP, etc) who is responsible for ensuring people follow procedures. Conceptually, it makes no sense to pay someone else to come in and look over the main mans shoulder. I believe you must have a system to follow, I just think if a company pays 6 figure salaries to a manager, he should be the guide making sure everyone does their job.

By using this screwed up system, managers are abdicating responsibilities. Look at it this way, we long ago in quality decided that every operator should be responsible for their own work instead of having a qc inspector look over their shoulder. I contend the analogy is the same. :thedeal:



Make a bet every day, you may be walking around lucky and not know it.

Yes, it really is that simple. Utilize redundancy only to the appropriate extent. A company that needs internal audits to improve and/or to make sure people are doing what they're supposed to has deeper problems that internal audits will control anyway. I won't start on third party audits.

Jim, I'm deleting my previous post because it may have too much "bite" in it. Have to watch that. But, I got an e-mail from a young impressionable new member (Q professional) saying things like, "Oh No, energy, does that mean that I have to scrap my flowcharts now because they are wrong? My whole system is put together already." I have it if you want it, without the name. Why did they ask me? Because they know it would be a straight answer without the embarassment of posting their concern. When I started here, I e-mailed some people for advice off the record, too. What you say and others, in regards to certain issues, is taken as gospel and condemnation of what they may have in place. There is a lot of respect for you intelligent people. I don't know why. Opps, too much bite. My response is simple. "Don't change a thing because this is a discussion forum and you have to look at all the posts. Keep your powder dry and do not take any post to the bank." I'm the same way. I regard your posts and others as "the way". But when I see what is just pie in the sky stuff, I get a little miffed. We would all like things better. But, we have to get through the day eating bread, not pie.

An aside: Tomorrow I'll be in class for 8 hours learning boating safety and getting a "badge" just so I can put a little electric motor on my 8ft duck boat without drowning myself. More state sponsored bull**** so that they can collect revenues. Like, don't tie yourself to the boat. Don't breathe the water. Just like ISO Registration?:truce: :agree: :ko:

Now that you two are done kissing and making up... :rolleyes: Someone sent me this and is trying to find the study cited. Unfortunately (?), I believe it.

> Also just read an interesting study on the implementation
> of ISO 9000 by Hong Kong companies. Admittedly this was
> done prior to the release of 9001:2000 but it does show
> some disturbing things. Fewer than 20% of the surveyed
> companies were motivated to implement ISO 9000 to 'improve
> quality'; the vast majority were motivated by demand from
> their customers. Less than 5% reported any decrease in
> quality costs, while 24% complained that implementation
> was costly & time consuming. Some companies reported that
> operating costs had risen by 2% after implementing ISO.
> These results are similar to previous studies from the UK.

Also see http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4573

Marc said:
Now that you two are done kissing and making up... :rolleyes:

Jim Said:Now, energy, don't you get all touchy-feely, sensitive and PC on us, you hear! You'd lose your appeal!

One day I'm a bickering child and the next day I'm a PC correct, sensitive, touchy feely hand licker (with a guy no less). What's a guy to do? It's not my sand box and I want to play in it. :bonk: I'll just have to try harder to obtain a happy medium. How about alternate days? Like a Jeckyl and Hyde thing. :vfunny:

Well off to safe boating class. Yippee:confused: :ko: :smokin:

Knowing you're a schitzophrenic psychotic, energy, we expect multiple personalities.
I'll just have to try harder to obtain a happy medium.
Try Madam Vespa over on Washington avenue..... :rolleyes:

Well I sat down here on a Saturday morning, Cup-o-Joe by my side and decide to catch up a bit on the Cove.
Next thing I know its 45 minutes later coffee's cold, posts are hot, and I don't know which end is up. :confused: :confused:

Ah well such is life.:frust:

Seriously though,

So many good posts and points. I fear though that our depth of experience may be undermining some fundimental thruths about our tasks.

1) To improve quality we need everyones attention and respect.
2) This won't happen without top Management commitment.
3) Top management won't commit without a: Solid bottom line improvement potential, or b: some kind of customer requirement.
4) ISO (through customer requirements) provides the tool to force top management to look at quality/business systems from a different (non-fiscal) angle.

I wonder if many here have been dealing with ISO/QMS/TQM etc for so long that they have forgotten what it was like in the early days. The days when Quality meant Inspection, Sampling Plans, and sorting, with maybe a few statistics thrown in.

I am dealing with a company of 85 souls, and a very hands on but non-dictatorial owner. This company has many good things going for it. Discipline is not one of them. Our system is not designed, it has evolved. Now we are seeking registration due to a customer requirement.

The most amazing thing to me is the learning that is taking place. Yes it is an expense - Yes it takes time - Yes it would be nice if we didn't need all of this "evidence". But we are learning! And we are improving! People who I thought would be tough to sell are turning into star pupils, while others who were all for it in the beginning are dragging their feet now that they have to actually do something with it.

All of this painful corporate growth is taking place because one customer has FORCED us to gain certification.

Maybe ISO is cresting -- Maybe the system IS all screwed up -- but as others have mentioned here, where is the alternative. My hope is that we can stay the course, and expand on the strengths of the system, and get more quality courses into the schools etc. ......... until our "business systems thinking" no longer need such requirements.

............And now back to our regularly scheduled Saturday..............(and my flowcharts)

James
:truce:

JRKH said:

I am dealing with a company of 85 souls, and a very hands on but non-dictatorial owner. This company has many good things going for it. Discipline is not one of them. Our system is not designed, it has evolved. Now we are seeking registration due to a customer requirement.

James
:truce:

Oh James,
Take this statement, subtract 40 souls and you have described my company to a tee. Discipline.:vfunny: The deal with a new company president fell through, tainted goods-another story, so our CEO now is physically manning the helm. My ex-boss was the GM and he has made a lateral move to another business unit. (Still in the same building). As part of the new emphasis on ISO, I have to speak to all the VP's and other mucky mucks on Monday, Department Heads on Tuesday, Sales on Wednesday, etc.."You now report directly to me", he told me Friday.

Here's my problem. I already did talk to these people. Several times. They nod their heads, mumble words of agreement and snicker on their way out the door. Some of the shop people have even flipped my off with a big grin. They always tell me that it's a pipe dream because nobody takes this **** seriously except me. In other words, one word from me and they do what they please. We are dead in the water because everybody thinks that it's my job. I have submitted examples of goals and objectives, compliments of the members here in the Cove, audits findings that need responses, requests for training requirements for the people who report to, and all other kinds of requests for help. This was months ago. Not one thing made it back to me in the form of an answer. I went to my boss (GM) and I was told to back off because people are way too busy. So, here we go again. One VP told me that on the day of an outside audit, he would take a vacation day. He wasn't kidding. The President now wants a list of who owes what, just call me King Rat, and at the top of the list is management review and goals and objectives from him. Now that I have support, :vfunny: :vfunny: Life should be easier. Personally, I think it's just another flavor of the week. This is so much fun :ko: :smokin:

Marc said:

Knowing you're a schitzophrenic psychotic, energy,
Try Madam Vespa over on Washington avenue..... :rolleyes:

I'll get back to you when I find out what these fancy words mean. As for Madam Vespa, I had her when she was good. :biglaugh:
:ko: :smokin:

energy said:

Take this statement, subtract 40 souls and you have described my company to a tee. Discipline.:vfunny: The deal with a new company president fell through, tainted goods-another story, so our CEO now is physically manning the helm. As part of the new emphasis on ISO, I have to speak to all the VP's and other mucky mucks on Monday, Department Heads on Tuesday, Sales on Wednesday, etc.."You now report directly to me", he told me Friday.

Here's my problem. I already did talk to these people. Several times. They nod their heads, mumble words of agreement and snicker on their way out the door. Some of the shop people have even flipped my off with a big grin. They always tell me that it's a pipe dream because nobody takes this **** seriously except me. In other words, one word from me and they do what they please. We are dead in the water because everybody thinks that it's my job. I have submitted examples of goals and objectives, compliments of the members here in the Cove, audits findings that need responses, requests for training requirements for the people who report to, and all other kinds of requests for help. This was months ago. Not one thing made it back to me in the form of an answer. I went to my boss (GM) and I was told to back off because people are way too busy. So, here we go again. One VP told me that on the day of an outside audit, he would take a vacation day. He wasn't kidding. The President now wants a list of who owes what, just call me King Rat, and at the top of the list is management review and goals and objectives from him. Now that I have support, :vfunny: :vfunny: Life should be easier. Personally, I think it's just another flavor of the week. This is so much fun :ko: :smokin:

Energy,
Thank you so much. My job looks so much easier now:vfunny:
One thing I did to help out was bring Marc in. (He is right up the road from us) He has helped us all focus better. Of course in my case the Owner is supportive, if not overly enthusiastic.
I wish you luck, my friend. Hang in there. But do be careful. Missionaries are always harrassed, but sometimes they become Martyrs.

James

energy....

james is so right, an outside influence (consultant) has a way to snap that all into place........sad as it seems, cause you may know as much.........and sometimes more....BUT because they are percieved as the expert.......people listen....and then believe...I see it all the time. That and being on the hot seat during an audit with someone from the outside tends to wake up the dead....a vote for the contracted internal audits.

James/Barb,

Maybe you missed it but we do have a consultant. I don't want to repeat the whole story, but he is also ineffective because he comes in once a month, when we let him, and they think it's a joke. He is treated with respect. You know the song "Smiling Faces"? They can't wait until he leaves so they can back to work. He's been paid in full, is committed to stay with us until the end. Whenever that is. He's done all he can. All he gets now is travel/lodging. But, he took $15K, up front. Believe me, he tried. All the home work assignments that he gave us to do in 4 visits over 6-7 months are unfinished, incomplete or ignored. The next time he comes in, he wants to do a mock Management review. There is no sense in bringing him in now. We are not close to ready. He is also not so eager to come back because he sees it. We have had some disagreements because he thinks that I should be pushing the CEO for action. It's like the joke line, you have to be here and see it to enjoy it. There is nobody enforcing. Me? I'm only the Mgt Rep and QA Manager. Someone who is there only when needed. Trust me. I couldn't put all the stuff that goes on in my posts because you would accuse me of fabricating it. Really. While this job is relatively new, almost 2 years, I have worked with most of these people for about 9 years. I know them like the back of my hand. They need a swift and continuous kick in the A**, to get things done. I've seen the fear put in them in the past. But, collectively the point of origin of the fear is dispatched with sooner or later. Maybe it will be different this time. I'm hoping.
In their defense, these people are all experts in the Water Business and we have plenty of satisfied customers with new Customers coming all the time. ISO is just so much Bull**** to them and it's like an anchor around their neck. We could do very well without it. We have. But, the CEO wants it and wants it fast. He can instill the fear if he has the stomach for it. He has backed off before because it slows down business. Well, I make my presentation tomorrow to all the Top Managers. They will all have a copy of management responsibility and I will ask them who do they think that is? We will discuss the need for goals and objectives, supplied by them. The CEO wants me to be firm and has told be that I have his backing 100%. Why don't I have that warm and fuzzy feeling? I've been around too long to get excited. Tomorrow is just another Monday. My guess is that they will want me to work every Saturday and Sunday until we get certified. Not them, though. Guess what? Not me either. I can leave tomorrow, if I have to. I won't like it, but I can. bonk:
:ko: :smokin:

Marc said:

Knowing you're a schitzophrenic psychotic, energy, we expect multiple personalities.
__________
"I'll just have to try harder to obtain a happy medium."
__________
Try Madam Vespa over on Washington avenue.....

Just what I needed to kick-start a dreary Monday morning -- a very bad pun. Thanks Marc!

Mike S.

energy said:
Here's my problem. I already did talk to these people. Several times. They nod their heads, mumble words of agreement and snicker on their way out the door.

Energy - that pretty much sums up the definition of insanity....

Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

Man - I don't envy you!! :(

This really typifies my distaste for ISO. Head honcho wants it... not because it can do anything to improve operations, quality, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, etc., but because someone (perhaps a large customer) has said you should have it. Sheeeeez... :bonk:

energy said:

The CEO wants me to be firm and has told be that I have his backing 100%. Why don't I have that warm and fuzzy feeling? I've been around too long to get excited. Tomorrow is just another Monday. My guess is that they will want me to work every Saturday and Sunday until we get certified. Not them, though. Guess what? Not me either. I can leave tomorrow, if I have to. I won't like it, but I can.
_____________________
Holy Moley, Energy!!! In your last few posts it sounded like you were summarizing parts of the last few years of my career!!! Man, in some places the similarities are uncanny, except for the part about being able to leave tomorrow -- that'd be a real problem for me financially!

The last time we at my last company were to "get certified" the President (my boss) gave "us" 6 months to get 9001 certified, with no outside help (and before I knew of the Cove). There was lots of rah-rah, lots of speeches, etc. from the top. I was "empowered" to make it happen. I got an ISO team together and the Prez attended the first meeting -- more speeches, more rah-rah. Wonderful so far. Goals were set, responsibilities set, assignments given. Oops. Things went downhill from there when, as you say, people realized they had to do WORK for this to happen. So I spent 45 hours a week at work and 5-10 at home on the weekend working on the level 1 and 2 docs. People stopped attending the ISO meetings -- they had to concentrate on production you know. I trudged on, trying to do their work for them and just get their sign-off, but the writing on the wall was clear to me. Soon that President was -- shall we say -- allowed to step down to consulting then out the door as his replacement came on board. The cert effort died a slow death. Soon the same old cycle started again with the new Prez -- eerily the same conversations, same rah-rah, same speeches, same start-off with gusto, same eventual result. We became maybe 70% compliant with all the effort I could give and occasional grudging help from outside QA. The Prez told all our customers, of course, that we were fully compliant. Got lucky on a few customer audits.

The company I'm with now... we won't even go there. Same business, same attitudes. I'll stop there - I hate to get too depressed on a Monday morning. You do what you can, try to effect little changes here and there when the mood is right, and hope someday for a "leader" who will at least walk his talk -- whatever the talk is -- just walk it. I can dream, right?

Hang in there, Energy, you aren't alone by a long shot! Good luck - maybe this time is the one.

And, by the way, son't get too soft on us -- your "edginess" makes for nice variety. JMO.

Mike S.

Mike S. said:

1. Man, in some places the similarities are uncanny, except for the part about being able to leave tomorrow -- that'd be a real problem for me financially!


2. And, by the way, son't get too soft on us -- your "edginess" makes for nice variety. JMO.

Mike S.

1. I said I wouldn't like it. it would be a financial hit for me, too. More like a little less than a lateral move, but I hated it there. I like it here. If it weren't for this friggin ISO crap, I'd be enjoying it.

2. My "edginess" is not acceptable behavior. It may be considered "snippish", coupled with "biteyness":vfunny: Watch!:ko: :smokin:

These statements go the the heart of the situation, Top Management must be involved if it is going to work, maybe not directly but at least supportively.

If the president (or whatever title) does not want to be involved, that is their decision.

In my mind the Management Rep., or whomever is in charge of implementing the system needs the backing of management and the ongoing support of the methods used.

Also, the person in charge of implementing the system needs to have a thick skin and be able to stand up to whomever is not on board. Including the president.

Realize:

-Management/Owners want profit.
-They hire people to make them profit.
-Quality is not usually looked upon as a profit center.
-If it is proven that quality equals profit, no problem.
-If it can't be proven that Quality actually saves in the long run, you are in the wrong company.

Get creative and prove that good quality, in products as well as processes, are not just a break even point but can also be a profit center.

Energy

Ever thought of it this way...

Your customer requires you to deliver "fit for purpose" products and be ISO9000 accredited at the lowest possible cost.

Your company believes it knows how to make fit for purpose products at lowest cost - you have a line of satisfied customers buying from you. However it may well be that the cheapest way to get a 9K certificate, is to get one person (you) to handle all the stuff you have to do to pull the wool over the auditors eyes and get the badge. Go out and find one of Comrade Wades "purchasable" auditors.

It strikes me you've got choices :

1) Go with the flow - implement things in such a way that you do most of it and everyone else has to do the minimum. This seems to be what your colleagues expect.
2) Make the case that a continuous examination of processes can yield bottom line benefit. Then embed ISO, as most of it looks like stuff that has to happen anyway if a customer order is ever to be fulfilled.
3) Make the case to scrap it. In our experience most customers will commercially negotiate the value of an accredited supplier vs the price.
4) Get a customer to identify which bits of ISO9001 are the critical elements to them. That gives you a nice lever.
5) Get a customer to audit you - that'll really get the attention of the big bods.

I don't doubt there are other ways forward...

Cheers, Al :bigwave:

:(

energy...sounds like you have the consultant from ****...sounds like the same people that screwed me out of my "dream job of a lifetime" a couple years back...hind sight...glad they did LOL. Bet the selling factor was that Guarantee thing????????? gets them every time. That and the "name" of the firm..... Too bad the prospective clients don't see the forest for the trees...we all basically guarantee our work and stay till the fat lady sings.......
Shame on them for allowing that to happen, doesn't matter to the consultant he gets paid by the firm anyway...the firm may only get expenses, but he gets paid........so what does he care?

The job i quoted was for 9+ companies within a large corporation on one site (thousands of souls, over 2K under 4K....I forget how many now...), a 9K2K and QS update 1 year target and 14K implementation over 3 years...pilot done in 1 year. I quoted about 90 days, I think (after a one day visit, 4 people/experts collecting info), Included training, consulting, auditing, impact etc etc........they quoted 20 days and guaranteed it. Their day rate was more than twice mine...the9K/2K and QS isn't even done yet, they failed the qs audits, 14K is barely started, the pilot isn't even done, ...........this was over 2 years ago.......2K was still at 1st draft. the guy still comes in........pays a monthly visit and goes away....assignments not done??????????

<splat> sorry that was me falling off the box again!!!!!!

I have no words of wisdom...sorry...what pieces to the puzzle are you missing?

[QUOTE] barb butrym said:

energy...sounds like you have the consultant from ****...sounds like the same people that screwed me out of my "dream job of a lifetime" a couple years back...hind sight...glad they did LOL. Bet the selling factor was that Guarantee thing????????? gets them every time. That and the "name" of the firm..... Too bad the prospective clients don't see the forest for the trees...we all basically guarantee our work and stay till the fat lady sings.......
Shame on them for allowing that to happen, doesn't matter to the consultant he gets paid by the firm anyway...the firm may only get expenses, but he gets paid........so what does he care?
________________________
Barb,

Maybe you know something about Energy's situation that I don't. Why do you say he has a "consultant from he**"? Why are the problems Energy faces the consultant's fault? Energy said " Maybe you missed it but we do have a consultant. I don't want to repeat the whole story, but he is also ineffective because he comes in once a month, when we let him, and they think it's a joke. He is treated with respect. You know the song "Smiling Faces"? They can't wait until he leaves so they can back to work. He's been paid in full, is committed to stay with us until the end. Whenever that is. He's done all he can."

Sounds to me like it is lack of management committment that is the main problem here, not a bad consultant. Am I missing something?

Mike S.

Mike,

You read really good. In additon, I didn't pick him. Top Management did. I happen to think he did a good job, under the circumstances. Some body said it right, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it a Jacka**!"

Barb,

As I have said before to Marc, he and (possibly you) would have walked because of the lack of cooperation. Or, you may have stayed until you got paid. Like, if you want to pay me and waste your money, hand it over. Would you forego the cash when nobody is blaming you for not getting the job done? One more time, it's not the Consultant's fault. It's ours. :) :ko: :smokin:

:bonk:
I read my frame of mind into the post....sorry!!! You both are right
...I need to buy better soap.....anyone know of a good supplier that warranties the box?

barb butrym said:

:bonk:
I read my frame of mind into the post....sorry!!! You both are right
...I need to buy better soap.....anyone know of a good supplier that warranties the box?

barb,

Not necessary. You called it as you see it. If I had my choice I would have chosen a more dynamic type of consultant. I had to slap myself a couple of times to stay awake. But, whoever was chosen would have a struggle trying to change our company culture. But, there have been some recent new twists to our situation. When I have more time I will post a rather long rendition of what I see is a new ray of light on a, up to now, dark situation. We have a new Sheriff in town!:bigwave:
:ko: :smokin:

I've been away for awhile... so I'm joining in the discussion late.

One thing I have not read is that if ISO performs an internal audit on themselves, would they pass? I mean isn't ISO suppose to continuously improve by publishing new standards every 4 years? (I guess you could call going from 7 years between revisions to 6 year continuous improvement). What about all the controversies that surrounded the draft, DIS, and official release? It certainly speak very highly of their "design" input-output process.

... just a thought.

1. Spaceman: the 2000 edition was on time. The 1994 version was 2 years late! I'm sure ISO can tell you when the next is programmed, but it's not before 2006 I believe (& I think it's 2008). But we must remain flexible like our systems!

Marc, the rebellion started in 2001, has continued to grow and 2004/5 could be a crash and burn for the ISO 9000 scheme. The Automotive Sector may be the exception.

Self Declaration and Un-accreditated Audits is the European direction, so it's just a matter of time.

You can blame the many unqualified Consultants who provided poor services, you can also blame the Registrars who do not provide any value, but I think you need to blame the Quality Industry.

ISO is now a dollars and cents game. Consultants and Registrars seem to be fighting for survival and subsequently face time with the Client has declined and so has the quality of the services.

To bad, I like the ISO 9001:2000. It's a good mix of discipline and performance. Maybe we will continue to use and sell consulting services to ISO 9001:2000, but we will call it something else.

There is another group to add to ISO 9001-2000 registration. The aerospace industry is "strongly encouraging" registration. This will be under AS9100. I do not know how many firms are in the aerospace industry.

I too, agree with a total package approach ( ISO 9000-2000 ).

We have Suppliers who are QS9000 acredited, and we have to 100% their deliveries at goods-Inwards because 65% of it is reject.

Another Supplier (ISO9k2k acredited) asked us to stop sending them customer complaints after the fifth bad delivery! They sent another 23 bad batches before we transferred the work.

Another supplier (QS) sent 24 bad batches over 9 months, the same problems occuring time after time again.

All of the above were suppliers specified to us by our Tier 1 customer.

Being accredited to anything does not help, not unless you have the commitment to use the tools it specifies to improve.

We are just going for ISO9k2k ourselves. Some of the things it asks for will, I believe will help us to improve, because WE have good people who will apply it.

I only wish the same could be said for our suppliers..........

There is another group to add to ISO 9001-2000 registration. The aerospace industry is "strongly encouraging" registration. This will be under AS9100. I do not know how many firms are in the aerospace industry.
AS 9100 is definitely a limited 'market'.

I've also just joined the forum and have found it very interesting. Reading through this thread I've gotta say has been a breath of fresh air. I'm currently implementing 9001-2000 for a new employer and have found that as a smaller company they have been coping fairly well. However since we have begun the process of implementation we have found many aspects of the standard very useful. That's not to say that I believe being ISO registered is going to improve the company's bottom line. Far from it. BUT!!!!! A lot of the modules are helping us to expand the business because we are forced to review review review. It has also forced us to improve our comunication and control over paperwork. I have the QMS online so if an employee is out of town and needs any particular document they can download it from the net and be sure it is the current version. All employee's have access via computer so everyone is guarenteed to be getting the same info.

In conclusion, ISO should have advantages to most businesses but can be a little too much for others. Many company's find it hard to see the benefits of having the system but I'm sure they are there.
One benefit I see is that most of the people in the forum have jobs :vfunny:

I've also just joined the forum and have found it very interesting. Reading through this thread I've gotta say has been a breath of fresh air... Etc. Hi, Mav007 and welcome to the Cove! :bigwave: There's another discussion going on in here about the benefits of ISO 9001:2000 - now if only I could find the link...but it's around here and someone may be kind enough to help me out here.

My own take is that there are benefits to the bottom line, but determining the exact $$$ is difficult...so I report on trends from key processes.

Sounds like you're on the right path, but keep in mind that simply meeting the shall's will only get you that piece of paper on the wall. Taking it to heart, making it part of your daily operations, truly believing in the System and the Standard is what can make the difference! :)

Hullo Mav, and welcome to the Cove. :bigwave: Great first post.


-now if only I could find the link...but it's around here and someone may be kind enough to help me out here.


But of course..

Your Opinion: What are the Benefits of ISO implementation? (http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2582)

Was transitioning to 9001:2000 worth it? (http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6375)

/Claes

Knew you'd help me out, Claes! Thanks! And I promise that one of these days I'll learn to do it for myself. :)

Knew you'd help me out, Claes! Thanks! And I promise that one of these days I'll learn to do it for myself. :)

A pleasure... And if this happens to be one of these days, it's as easy as falling off a log. This is the button in question:

/Claes

We have Suppliers who are QS9000 acredited, and we have to 100% their deliveries at goods-Inwards because 65% of it is reject. Equating 'quality' with ISO 9001 or QS-9000 or TS 16949 registration is a common mistake.

Marc said: "Equating 'quality' with ISO 9001 or QS-9000 or TS 16949 registration is a common mistake."

I agree that there isn't the link between the system the company is registered to and the quality of the product. The thing is there should be a very good link. There is still scope within the best systems to make mistakes, the systems are inhabited by humans after all but with a qms in place we should all be learning by our mistakes and putting improved systems in place to prevent recurrence. If not we should all be packing up and going home.

64 thousand currency of your choice question: Why is the link between the systems we work to and product quality so weak? Is it the companies, quality managers, certification bodies / registrars or the accreditation bodies?

64 thousand currency of your choice question: Why is the link between the systems we work to and product quality so weak? Is it the companies, quality managers, certification bodies / registrars or the accreditation bodies?
I put a little in here...one of the BIG reasons, IMHO, is the requirement to meet the standard EVEN if it makes no sense to your company.

And here is one example. This goes back to the 1994 standard on periodic inspection of stock. Now, we are a just in time sheet metal fabricator. We carry almost no stock that isn't turned around in a week. But because this was in the standard, we had to come up with a procedure and forms. This has not been a value added process to our operation, and takes time away from my schedule.

CarolX

I'm new to this forum but the discussion in the link seems to show all sides of the argument regarding whether having an accreditation actually means you'll provide a 'quality' product to the customer.

The argument as far as I can see is this. All the accreditation tells you is that the company has systems/processes in place as detailed in the standard and that these have been checked by an outside source who states they believe that the company is acceptable.

The accreditation itself does not demonstrate anything to do with product conformity, only that processes are in place to address non-conformance, internal audit etc. Taking the ISO1994 this is all that was demonstrated. You had a procedure and you could demonstrate that you worked to it.

The ISO2000 standard took that one stage further and added the elements of measuring you processes, setting objectives, making sure your staff are competent and demanding more involvement and commitment from the management of the company.

I don't know about you but these are many of the reasons that us quality people struggle in our daily working lives.

If implemented properly and used as the basis for a management system within the business ISO2000 will give a good way of running the business that will also benefit your bottom line. Again this may not demonstrate product conformity but means you are demonstrating your focus on it.

The ISO2000 series may not be for everyone but then again most companies are not capable of generating their own corporate systems such as Toyata et al.

The AS9100 type standards then take that a stage further by incorporating specific industry requirements, and surely that can't be bad thing.

It's good to find a place where these things are talked about.

:bigwave:

64 thousand currency of your choice question: Why is the link between the systems we work to and product quality so weak? Is it the companies, quality managers, certification bodies / registrars or the accreditation bodies?

Because, even in this technical society, we are in business only to make money. Only now is "quality" entering the picture of manufacturing courses (at least in the ones I took not so long ago). And the quality course is still separate from both my manufacturing AND business courses. Only when quality is integrated into the courses, will the "next generation" of business leaders understand that quality can help make money.

As Carol pointed out, a lot of unnecessary documentation was created with the 1994 standard, as well. The phrase "We're only doing this because of ISO" was commonly heard and many of us questioned the value of our systems.

My company, as part of the transition to the 2000 standard, began the justification of all the documentation. Streamlined the documented processes. Revamped our training programme. Introduced new tools that could work within our management system. Began focusing not only on the Customer, but our Employees, the Community, the Suppliers, the Shareholders. In essence we moved well beyond ISO 9001 and have taken ISO 9004 to heart.

This has not been a value added process to our operation,

I agree with the non-value added comment and add that; once the standard has one subclause seen as non-value added the whole relativity is thrown out.
We have focused on making any system to be compliant with the standard as long as we address the "shalls". Even then it is must be "bought off" by the external auditor.
Just look at the rush to get job descriptions in place. Company's had operated for years without them. Some had skill set compiled for positions but not a 'job description'. So what did they do? Put away the skill sets that had been developed based on experience and went to a job description because of what the auditor wanted to see. You just threw a wet blanket on getting most changes put through.
Everyone was looking for the piece of paper to produce for "objective evidence" and not for the approval of the customer.

Last week I met with the President to discuss our plans for 2K upgrade (getting some resistance to some of the changes). And I flat out asked him "Have you seen any improvement because of ISO?". He said he was disappointed at the results, but wants to continue because it may help in getting new business. (FYI - this was the only reason we went for it in the first place). He could not provide one single new customer that mandated ISO certification/registration, nor was he sure if any of our newer customers really needed it. He was also disappointed at the surveliance schemes - only one NC that was addressed before the auditor left. Not that we were hiding a bunch of stuff, or that we don't do what we say...but...again....no value added.

We are going for the 9K2K...but he wants it put off until January 2004. Maybe the end is here!!!!

CarolX

Last week I met with the President to discuss our plans for 2K upgrade (getting some resistance to some of the changes). And I flat out asked him "Have you seen any improvement because of ISO?". He said he was disappointed at the results, but wants to continue because it may help in getting new business. (FYI - this was the only reason we went for it in the first place). He could not provide one single new customer that mandated ISO certification/registration, nor was he sure if any of our newer customers really needed it. He was also disappointed at the surveliance schemes - only one NC that was addressed before the auditor left. Not that we were hiding a bunch of stuff, or that we don't do what we say...but...again....no value added.

We are going for the 9K2K...but he wants it put off until January 2004. Maybe the end is here!!!!

CarolX

Just a thought, sometimes the big fellas at the top of the corporate food chain need to see the actual numbers for them to know/acknowledge the benefits attained.

I had to sell our Sales Departments (one located in Tampa, Florida and the other on the other side of Toronto, Ontario from my location) on the benefits of ISO 9001 and understand why they fell under our scope and provide objective evidence that ISO 9001 really does work (if implemented properly).

I showed numbers - pre-ISO era vs ISO era. Drastic improvement in such areas like production, energy consumption, quality products, quality complaints, internal nonconformances, truck turnaround time, employee turnaround, etc.

Sales, who was traditionally impacted on the smallest of small scales by our ISO programme, had seen service and invoicing/pricing complaints skyrocket. Customers would say horrible things about our service and our sales reps on the surveys. Employee turnover was at an all-time high.

Sales bought it and while they still grumble at some of the paperwork, they are already beginning to see some improvement. Not only is the process consistent so everyone is doing it the right way. They are now learning to make their processes more effective so that their jobs are becoming less stressful. Their morale is improving. They smile more...which means our Customers smile more.

CarolX said: “ We carry almost no stock that isn't turned around in a week. But because this was in the standard, we had to come up with a procedure and forms.”

Where does it say in the standard that you have to carry out periodic checks on stock? I know that you need to have processes in place to ensure that stock hasn’t deteriorated but there is no need to have a procedure if you have records that show the stock is all used up before it has a chance to go off … and steel? I think your auditor has pushed the envelope a bit far.

peterd said: “The accreditation itself does not demonstrate anything to do with product conformity, only that processes are in place to address non-conformance, internal audit etc. Taking the ISO1994 this is all that was demonstrated. You had a procedure and you could demonstrate that you worked to it.” And “The ISO2000 standard took that one stage further and added the elements of measuring you processes, setting objectives, making sure your staff are competent and demanding more involvement and commitment from the management of the company.”

This is my point. If the system doesn’t mean anything in terms of product then surely all the measures in Peter’s post would be going the wrong way and the system would be non ISO 9001.2000 compliant because of failures to corrective and preventive action. So the system should pick up on the product “blips” and fix them if it is to mean anything.

RC Beyette said: “Because, even in this technical society, we are in business only to make money. Only now is "quality" entering the picture of manufacturing courses (at least in the ones I took not so long ago). And the quality course is still separate from both my manufacturing AND business courses. Only when quality is integrated into the courses, will the "next generation" of business leaders understand that quality can help make money.”

Again as I understand ISO the money should follow the system. If you have been having product problems and correct them using systems then the bottom line should improve, or is it me and I am naïve. I agree totally with the education line. The only problem is who is doing the teaching a nd what slant do they put on it, I remember when I was finishing my degree we had lectures on Production and the lecturer was implying that we professional engineers had to beware the systems guys who would document us into submission.

RC Beyette said: ”My company, as part of the transition to the 2000 standard, began the justification of all the documentation. Streamlined the documented processes. Revamped our training programme. Introduced new tools that could work within our management system. Began focusing not only on the Customer, but our Employees, the Community, the Suppliers, the Shareholders. In essence we moved well beyond ISO 9001 and have taken ISO 9004 to heart.”

Again, great news. To my mind this sounds like a proper ISO 9001.2000 system, not written with the standard in mind (and the long list of shalls) but around what the company does and how it wants to describe it.


Randy Stewart said: “ I agree with the non-value added comment and add that; once the standard has one subclause seen as non-value added the whole relativity is thrown out.
We have focused on making any system to be compliant with the standard as long as we address the "shalls". Even then it is must be "bought off" by the external auditor.
Just look at the rush to get job descriptions in place. Company's had operated for years without them. Some had skill set compiled for positions but not a 'job description'. So what did they do? Put away the skill sets that had been developed based on experience and went to a job description because of what the auditor wanted to see. You just threw a wet blanket on getting most changes put through.
Everyone was looking for the piece of paper to produce for "objective evidence" and not for the approval of the customer.”

And this is the problem with the whole process. Systems written for auditors are not the same as systems that work for companies … there I’ve said it! We need to change the whole ethos of registration so that the auditors work for us and not the other way round. The problems are to get them to buy into this and for the senior managers to recognize that to be able to do this we have to spend time on implementing the right systems and not get a quick win of a cert on the wall by addressing the shalls. There are no subcaluses that are non value added, only ones that do not apply.

The problems are to get them to buy into this and for the senior managers to recognize that to be able to do this we have to spend time on implementing the right systems and not get a quick win of a cert on the wall by addressing the shalls. There are no subcaluses that are non value added, only ones that do not apply.

Yes, exactly. It has taken a while for systems and their owners to mature into a useable commodity. For most of us we were given a short deadline to implement a (un)known standard. Today, not only has the standard changed but the coordinators/owners also.

I put a little in here...one of the BIG reasons, IMHO, is the requirement to meet the standard EVEN if it makes no sense to your company.

And here is one example. This goes back to the 1994 standard on periodic inspection of stock. Now, we are a just in time sheet metal fabricator. We carry almost no stock that isn't turned around in a week. But because this was in the standard, we had to come up with a procedure and forms. This has not been a value added process to our operation, and takes time away from my schedule.

CarolX We do this when we take our physical inventory and have added a comment area to the inventory tag. If someone notes a possible nonconforming material its location is noted on the PIT ( Physical Inventory Ticket).

CarolX said: “ We carry almost no stock that isn't turned around in a week. But because this was in the standard, we had to come up with a procedure and forms.”

Where does it say in the standard that you have to carry out periodic checks on stock? I know that you need to have processes in place to ensure that stock hasn’t deteriorated but there is no need to have a procedure if you have records that show the stock is all used up before it has a chance to go off … and steel? I think your auditor has pushed the envelope a bit far.


No argument from me on this...but they weren't going to budge....and it was one of those "let them have that one". Right or wrong..it doesn't matter.


Roxanne,

My whole resistance to the ISO registration was...what would it do for us..where was the return on investment? And there hasn't been. Have we improved, of course. Would we have without the ISO badge, of course. We already had a system that was well developed and fully functional...made life real easy making the jump...did it in less than 6 months...but did we benefit from it....no.

CarolX

For those organizations that have a significant part of their customer base requiring ISO certification, you have no choice but to get certified. But for those who don't, deciding on whether an organization should pursue ISO registration should be based only on the top line, not the bottom line. Here's why. ISO registration impacts your revenues by allowing you to sell product to customer's requiring their suppliers to be ISO certified. If you don't have the registration, your market potential may be narrowed.

Regarding determing ISO's value to the bottom line, if you have few if any customers requiring ISO certification, why would you do it when you could implement the system as documented through the ISO 9000:2000 standard at your own discretion and pace? Implementing ISO for organizations with little or no potential impact on their top line, is like someone hiring a personal trainer; why pay someone big bucks to help you get out of bed at 5:30 in the morning to get to the gym and tell you what to do and eat, when if you had the discipline yourself to get out of bed each morning and do a little bit of searching on the Internet or the purchase of a few books, could get the same results?

The other thing that I'm seeing that I think will eventually help lead to the demise of ISO is that organization's are still performing 2-party supplier audits on ISO certified suppliers. Weren't some organizations lead to believe in the early days of ISO, that one of the cost benefits would be that they wouldn't have to support supplier audits with customers if they got ISO certified? So how much weight does the ISO certification carry, if these types of activities are still going on?

Tom

Your last point, Tom, we experienced just last week. A customer that requires ISO certification also wants to perform a full day audit themselves. I argued with them that since they subscribe to ISO certification, can they not accept the results (our certification) and save everyone time and money?

Then I got to the root cause... They (2 men) are planning the audit for November 13. We are in Michigan. They are going north to perform this audit. Deer season begins November 15. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Tom:

In theory I agree with your point about supplier audits for ISO certified companies, but in practice there is still no equal to a sit-down, "face to face" meeting. Call it an audit, or just a visit, there is value to be found there, IMO.

Craig

Tom:

In theory I agree with your point about supplier audits for ISO certified companies, but in practice there is still no equal to a sit-down, "face to face" meeting. Call it an audit, or just a visit, there is value to be found there, IMO.

Craig

Craig-

You and I are in agreement here, that was my underlying point "so if people still find value in such visits or activities, how does ISO help my bottom line (outside of its impact on the top line)?"

Tom

Craig-

You and I are in agreement here, that was my underlying point "so if people still find value in such visits or activities, how does ISO help my bottom line (outside of its impact on the top line)?"

TomIMO, an audit by a customer goes much quicker and smoother when target is registered or compliant to a Standard. It is relatively easy to confirm basic QMS and concentrate on whether or not the capability and capacity of the target to manufacture product for the customer is sufficient.

It is always so much nicer to conduct a supplier audit when production personnel know answers to questions like:
Who deals with the product before you? after you?

Organizations which comply with a Standard usually have that part covered. I always perform Supplier visit for ANY custom-made product, regardless of registration status of target.

Craig-

You and I are in agreement here, that was my underlying point "so if people still find value in such visits or activities, how does ISO help my bottom line (outside of its impact on the top line)?"
Precisely...

In the aircraft industry ISO or AS9100 registration will not end customer visits. Safety concerns and regulations will still require Product Audits and there will be a sample of companies audited to check on the registrars. In addition the FAA will still be performing their audits.

ISO9001 is just another tool that will help you improve your way of business. The end result will depend on your company's commitment and buying into it. Remember garbage in garbage out.

With my experience in ISO for the last 10 years have been positive. It has been a way of improving our way of business.

It was used at my previous employer with 25 sister companies, 750 million in annual sales. With positive financial results.

With my current employer a 41 million dollars in annual sales, the implementation is positive. Not only financial but there is a practical way of following and implementing processes.

If you want just an ISO9001 certificate then save your money and resources. But if your company is honestly working to improve, then utilize the ISO9001 standard, TQM, or any other tool to improve. If you really believe in it, your company will see results.

Is there anyone who hasn't voted? Shall we start a new poll to see what people are thinking today (in case some folks have changed their mind...)?

Interesting, considering these threads:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4229
and
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8034

Yesterday I received my third call since January from a major multi-national asking me to develop a supplier evaluation and development program which does not so much as mention ISO 9001 and is applicable to smaller suppliers. Nice for me because I can draw on my previous work, but I'm beginning to wonder.

Dear Marc we have the same problem.
Our Customer is AUDI.
We design and assembly small batches of ECU for an enterprise owning to the VW group.

They seems to me they have never seen a small supplier (and they are quite common in Italy, especially in the mechanic sector)!

So i shoul ask a Capability analisys to an artisan who works in a day all the component i need foa an year!

I'm "fighting against" the inspectors, hoping they'll understand, a day, that there some other possibility to work in a good manner.

Here is a small business standard, may be i downloaded it from The Cove some times ago, i can't remember :D

ISO registration impacts your revenues by allowing you to sell product to customer's requiring their suppliers to be ISO certified. If you don't have the registration, your market potential may be narrowed.

Depends on whether your customer can go somewhere else. If a supplier can ship the product at a better price with the same or better quality, the ISO may not be a significant factor.

Implementing ISO for organizations with little or no potential impact on their top line, is like someone hiring a personal trainer; why pay someone big bucks to help you get out of bed at 5:30 in the morning to get to the gym and tell you what to do and eat, when if you had the discipline yourself to get out of bed each morning and do a little bit of searching on the Internet or the purchase of a few books, could get the same results?

Good point but how many people are disciplined enough to go to the gym on their own. Paying money to the trainer gives some people the incentive they need. ISO can be thought of the same way unless you have an executive who is at your door every day wondering how the quality management system is working. Is it :agree1: or :nope: ?

Weren't some organizations lead to believe in the early days of ISO, that one of the cost benefits would be that they wouldn't have to support supplier audits with customers if they got ISO certified? So how much weight does the ISO certification carry, if these types of activities are still going on?

Yep, back in the old days we had x number of days tied up each year with every customer (usually Purchasing who had no clue about quality) visiting the plant to ask the same questions that the other customers asked. I remember sitting in one of the customer audits and after the customers had left telling our operations manager that it was lucky I had not audited them. The BS was getting very deep during the presentation and I don't see how the customer avoided stepping in it. I have noticed from the ISO postings that the number of customer audits seems to be increasing again. The hope was that there would still be visits with each other but would not be used up in a quality audit but would be used to identify new opportunities for the mutual benefit of both.

Just as a side comment, getting rid of ISO could have some unintended consequences. ISO has created jobs for a lot of quality professionals. How many times have we talked about quality being the first to go when times get tough. A non-ISO world may make it an easier decision.

My thought on this subject is that the customers are beginning to realize that registration is often meaningless. Many companies still have no perception of quality, problem solving or process control. They have a certificate because there is a conflict of interest. How can a registrar be completely objective when their customer is trying to be registered. Most companies IMO are not interested in the registration for improvement of their system but because the current business climate mandates it. If it is just good sense to be ISO then the companies would do it (the ones who had sense anyway) naturally, but I doubt very much any would seek registration. Registration is only done out of compulsion. As a result the supply base complies with the letter but not the intent. As a result there is still alot of supplier management that goes on, and a lot of book altering to look compliant.
Just my thoughts, observations, and opinions.
Mark

THE BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER MADE WAS TO EQUATE QUALITY = ISO9001.

Rightly or wrongly, marketing has convinced us that ISO9001 means quality...yet, those who are in the loop knows that this is not the case.....I think many companies are realizing that now....

We used to say that under ISO you can still produce and ship cr*p, but it's extremely well documented cr*p....

We used to say that under ISO you can still produce and ship cr*p, but it's extremely well documented cr*p....Also known as the "concrete life preserver standard." This only works if you ask for cr*p and are happy to accept the duly delivered cr*p. I don't know many customers like that - perhaps you can give me some names I have a pyramid scheme I would like to get off the ground.

THE BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER MADE WAS TO EQUATE QUALITY = ISO9001.Wrong. The problem starts earlier than that. Somewhere along the line the people implementing and assessing quality management systems managed to break the link between assessing the documentation and assessing the system. You only have to look through the cove. Many people their first post is to ask for a checklist - so you don't want to find out for yourself by reading the requirement and then asking questions of people in the cove to improve your understanding - let's go for the checklist, it's so much easier!

Rightly or wrongly, marketing has convinced us that ISO9001 means quality.... Again in the early days the companies that had taken the time and trouble to understand the requirements and had implemented neat, efficient systems were able to get some advantage of telling the market they had systems in place to meet international standards for managing quality, and why not. ...yet, those who are in the loop knows that this is not the case.....I think many companies are realizing that now.The "rush for ISO" brings the people in who have to get the standard and have to cut corners to implement quickly. This means
over documented systems to hide lack of knowledge
off the peg systems not aligned with the business
people desperate for the registration instead of being in tune with the principles

well said, Paul...and here is a different view....btw, we are talking about iso9001..right?

Also known as the "concrete life preserver standard." This only works if you ask for cr*p and are happy to accept the duly delivered cr*p. I don't know many customers like that - perhaps you can give me some names I have a pyramid scheme I would like to get off the ground.

ISO9001 relates to quality management system (yah, i hate to restate something you already know..but we need to establish a benchmark where we can start the discussion)..the implied understanding is...if you have a good QMS, one should make "quality" product....however, how often do you see....iso9001 registered companies on the bottom of supplier performance list...oops, i forgot...all of them are iso 9001 registered.....geez....what does it tell you?....it tells me that they got iso9001 registration without a good QMS..(note, i am not faulting the concept of iso9001.....i am blaming on the process)...btw, i do know the company who accepts cr*p happily althought they did not ask for it...you see them everywhere....have you seen the latest recalls from the automotive companies?......do you equate "recalled" cars to be a quality product?...well, we all bought them!!!!!..how stupid can we be?........kidding

I am not negating the benefits of iso9001...geez, i am implementing one for my company...what i don't agree is the selling job done by the marketing....

btw, Paul, if you are looking for a car, i got one for you at a good price.... :lol:

ISO9001 relates to quality management system The area of scope describes the application of ISO 9001 as being for those who want to be able to demonstrate the ability to consistently produce product that meets customer requirements - not often discussed because it is not in the "shall" sections of iso. So that is the principle behind it.

....however, how often do you see....iso9001 registered companies on the bottom of supplier performance list...oops, i forgot...all of them are iso 9001 registered.....geez....what does it tell you? it tells me that they got iso9001 registration without a good QMS..(note, i am not faulting the concept of iso9001.....i am blaming on the process)?That is my whole point. Somewhere back in the mists of time we managed to allow a good standard to be taken over by a process that allows for mediocrity and that makes things worse by introducing heavy documentation to systems that don't work very well in the first place.

.......btw, i do know the company who accepts cr*p happily althought they did not ask for it...you see them everywhere....have you seen the latest recalls from the automotive companies??One example. I worked in tier 1 to the automotive industry. We did work for Toyota and another (unnamed) manufacturer. Whenever we worked with Toyota we had design information on time, they worked with us on the development project, they reacted to our enquiries and made sure we were working from the same hymn sheet all through development. The products invariably went into production sweetly and we had negligible rejects from them.

Our other customer awarded us business (probably on price), were reluctant to give us design information and it was always late. Their supplier development team were never on site but were demanding paperwork to dot is and cross ts on their internal systems. At launch and thereafter we dealt with all the problems that hadn't been designed out and our "valued" customer flexed their muscles and kicked us around because it was "our" fault.
Tell me now they didn't ask for cr*p.
......do you equate "recalled" cars to be a quality product?...well, we all bought them!!!!!..how stupid can we be?........kidding We have to use the systems that are available to us and complain. Send a letter to the registrar and one to the accreditation body and one to the trading standards people and .....

:agree: ...am glad you agree with me, paul

your example of toyota vs other clearly demonstrates bubbadog56 is right...you can make and ship cr*p.

disclaminer: bubbadog did not say anything about customer accepting it


btw, i hope you were not serious when you said "send a letter to the registrar and one to the accreditation body and one to the trading standards people and...".......it is not about registrar or accrediation body or anyone else

unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world....so, live with it to the best of your ability.....and if it gets too much, get the heck out of there....i remember when i started as a quality engineer, my boss used to tell me........we are no different than toilet papers...when sh_t happens, they want us...he was soooooooooooo right!!!!!!

:agree: ...am glad you agree with me, paul Not so sure about that. We seem to be saying the same thing but from totally different standpoints.


your example of toyota vs other clearly demonstrates bubbadog56 is right...you can make and ship cr*p.Again depends on your point of view. What I was trying to convey is that you can only do as much as the customer will allow. If they don't provide you with all the information then the product is good (as far as the specification allows)


disclaminer: bubbadog did not say anything about customer accepting it If the customer complains and you put the mistakes right then you no longer ship cr*p. Problem solved.



btw, i hope you were not serious when you said "send a letter to the registrar and one to the accreditation body and one to the trading standards people and...".......it is not about registrar or accrediation body or anyone elseDeadly serious. If you want the system to work you have to intervene. As with all these things - if you don't complain then the cr*p keeps coming. The escalation I was describing is only if needed.


unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world....so, live with it to the best of your ability.....and if it gets too much, get the heck out of thereHow many times is this a response to a post. It is depressing. If we, as quality professionals, are not trying to improve the processes we work with and the products that result then what hope is there for the rest? If we don't care about the products and processes enough to stand up for "quality" then maybe we should be doing other jobs.
....i remember when i started as a quality engineer, my boss used to tell me........we are no different than toilet papers...when sh_t happens, they want us...he was soooooooooooo right!!!!!!It doesn't have to be this way.

Also known as the "concrete life preserver standard." This only works if you ask for cr*p and are happy to accept the duly delivered cr*p. I don't know many customers like that - perhaps you can give me some names I have a pyramid scheme I would like to get off the ground.

Paul,

I am in agreement with you, both functionally and philosophically. I was just reiterating qualeety's earlier comment about how it seems so many companies equate quality to simply having ISO procedures rather than what I consider a true 'ISO attitude'. And to reiterate a later comment regarding cr*p, no one wants to accept it, but often 'falls into it' by having to accept sub-standard product due to other demands. And it can become habit, due to lack of resources to survey and qualify acceptable vendors. So the supplier CAR gets written and filed and everyone's happy from a documentation standpoint. And cr*p keeps coming in the door, and the SCAR cycle repeats and repeats and repeats.

The "rush for ISO" brings the people in who have to get the standard and have to cut corners to implement quickly. This means
over documented systems to hide lack of knowledge
off the peg systems not aligned with the business
people desperate for the registration instead of being in tune with the principles

Again, no disagreement here. Again, many a company has a values statement that trumpets quality on paper but doesn't back it with actions - "We need to get that ISO thing because the customer demands it"

And then who gets the short end of the shrift when the system doesn't work? "We have all these ISO procedures written, how come we're still producing cr*p? What the h*ll is quality doing around here?" :mad: They still want the QC/Quality Cops to inspect in the quality, rather than embracing the initially difficult path of true quality management. Penny wise, pound foolish.

So you hunker down and do what you can, pick your battles and try to effect a culture change one convert at a time knowing how good things could be if there was top-down support. :frust:

I'm just expressing some frustrations, and am going to give it a rest. It's Friday and I'm going to be happy, d*mmit! :D

B'Dog

Paul,

I'm just expressing some frustrations, and am going to give it a rest. It's Friday and I'm going to be happy, d*mmit! :D

B'Dog
Too true. I am going to get myself the right side of some good old english ale in a couple of hours time. I agree with all the frustration points but keep trying not to let myself just accept them. If we don't stand for improvement what do we stand for?

Have a good weekend, BubbaDog.

Cove

I worked for a automotive company(Tier 1 supplier) about 9 years ago and got my first exprience of implementing ISO 9000 with one of the four divisions in the company. The process did not take off smoothly because of the emergance of QS 9000 at that time. I later joined a company in the wire industry to implement ISO 9000. The results and benefits were phenomenal in this sense that, this company did not have any formal system of managing quality. When I placed all the kits or requirements of ISO 9000, I got a resounding pat on my back for a job well done, merely on internal considerations and benefits.

Put yourself in this position, if you formed your company would you implement ISO 9000? My answer to this question is yes because ISO 9000 requirements provide a lot of internal benefits alone, probably I would not seek certification by a registrar and pursue the route of self declaration.

Dumisani

Too true. I am going to get myself the right side of some good old english ale in a couple of hours time. I agree with all the frustration points but keep trying not to let myself just accept them. If we don't stand for improvement what do we stand for?

Have a good weekend, BubbaDog.

Paul,

Had an early out on Friday, and got myself into a couple of pints of IPA :D . Two days away, and ready to save the world again :agree1: .

B'Dog

Hi.
I´ve worked in Mexico with ISO the last 9 years. I think is a very good quality tool. But most of companies I know do not agree with me. For them has been a very heavy load, so when :2000 arrived those who had the option of not getting a certificate did not think it twice. The feeling was already here and I have to blame 2 things:
1. Many managers (at least here northern of Mexico) rather not to plan, hate documentation, and do not like to be "controled" by a system that will record (and show) everything that is decided. Poor quality focous.
2. Many consultans and certification companies has not been serious about their responsibility as qualiy culture pomoters and has transformed quality systems to something that any one can get with only money.

For me it is sad, but around, there are few companies trying to do the right thing!!

Regards

Hi.
1. Many managers (at least here northern of Mexico) rather not to plan, hate documentation, and do not like to be "controled" by a system that will record (and show) everything that is decided. Poor quality focous.




If thats the case then they will not be in business for long.

Lastly I have to say something about Energy's comment to the effect that this is a European plot to try and prevent US imports - the comment does nothing to move the debate on nor does it do anything for US / EU relations. I had enjoyed reading his comments over the last few months, I can only hope for more reasoned arguments in the future.



I think energy's comment actually deserves some merit. I have been dealing with the european and asian markets for over 15 years. ISO was the EU requirement for US goods, as well as the asian requirement.

Is ISO peaking? I think not. It has evolved into AS 9100. Which, btw, is another european requirement for US goods.

Intellectually I know it is not a plot to prevent US imports, but it's a good conspiracy theory.

On a side note. I have also visited many european and asian manufacturing facilities. If we (US) want to compete in a world market, we are going to have to implement a solid QMS. If you doubt this, just look at the american motor companies. We are being crushed by our overseas competition.

Rock On Covers :agree1: It's all what you make it.

We all knew, (or someone should have told us), what a thankless job this was going to be. :bonk:

AS was invented by the AAQG.



Please elaborate on a "solid QMS"????

Here's one theory I have: Maybe management is rebelling against ISO 9000 in part because some of the things it requires are not viewed as bringing added value to the company, but rather additional work that is considered unnecessary for that particular organization. As just one small example I've heard, management has no problems doing management reviews at intervals they feel are appropriate, but they resent having the standard insist that some type of records be maintained as evidence of the review. "Unnecessary work" in their view, yet it is mandated by ISO. Do it or else....

Mike S.:bonk:

My Quality Manager and I made the Management review and its record as easy as possible. Our record consists of the PowerPoint presentation that was the central point of the review. Add to that the fact that I sent out a copy of the meeting minutes afterward (in email), and you get easy record keeping. I placed a copy of both the minutes and the PowerPoint presentation on the company server so that no matter which member of management was asked, that person could readily produce the records.

Apparently that was good enough for our auditors as we just recently passed our first certification audit.

From my perspective, part of my job is to make all parts of ISO qualification (and adherance) as painless as possible for management. With the record-keeping approach outlined, that part was pretty painless for me too.

While the future of the ISO 9001:2000 QMS may be uncertain, there will in the future eventually be some "system" where the concepts apply to quality, safety, and environment exist as one. It is my opinion that all three of concepts are about the same thing -changing people’s mindset.

For example: If you engineer a process properly, the end result will be the fact that you will have less of a need for strict procedures, process controls, PPE, etc. You will need these things in place only if the engineering somehow fails, in which case you would go through the normal process of nonconformance and root cause analysis and corrective action to eliminate reoccurrence------continual improvement.

e.g. in Britain – the safety mindset is completely different. If there is a process where ear protection is required, the goal is to engineer the process to eliminate the need for ear protection. You then have people wear ear protection ONLY as a last resort, and as a fail safe method to protect in the event that the engineering somehow fails. In North America we say here - you wear these ear plugs, these safety boots, and these safety glasses because the environment we have provided for you is not safe. When people get injured on the job, it is completely the fault of the organization they work for because the company has not gone the extra mile to engineer and ensure the environment they are working in is safe. These same principles apply to quality.

I would say that in the next 10 years there will systems evolving that encompass all three: quality, safety, and environment. When you think on this level, the result can only be the progressive continual improvement in the pursuit of excellence.

While the future of the ISO 9001:2000 QMS may be uncertain, there will in the future eventually be some "system" where the concepts apply to quality, safety, and environment exist as one. It is my opinion that all three of concepts are about the same thing -changing people’s mindset.

For example: If you engineer a process properly, the end result will be the fact that you will have less of a need for strict procedures, process controls, PPE, etc. You will need these things in place only if the engineering somehow fails, in which case you would go through the normal process of nonconformance and root cause analysis and corrective action to eliminate reoccurrence------continual improvement.

e.g. in Britain – the safety mindset is completely different. If there is a process where ear protection is required, the goal is to engineer the process to eliminate the need for ear protection. You then have people wear ear protection ONLY as a last resort, and as a fail safe method to protect in the event that the engineering somehow fails. In North America we say here - you wear these ear plugs, these safety boots, and these safety glasses because the environment we have provided for you is not safe. When people get injured on the job, it is completely the fault of the organization they work for because the company has not gone the extra mile to engineer and ensure the environment they are working in is safe. These same principles apply to quality.

I would say that in the next 10 years there will systems evolving that encompass all three: quality, safety, and environment. When you think on this level, the result can only be the progressive continual improvement in the pursuit of excellence.
The ISO standards have been moving toward the total quality (TQM) principles, and I'd say that in combining quality with safety and environment, the move toward TQM would be greater still. I'd like to think there will be a combined quality, safety and environmental standard, but I'm afraid I've become too cynical to believe we'll see it in 10 years.

For all the talk about the movement into knowledge management, work is still largely compartmentalized and controlled hierarchally. I do not see a cultural move toward employee empowerment, which can help make ISO systems and quality programs run more smoothly.

I agree with your view on North American safety. Small business (and nonmanufacturing) and its overall less formal process/system development overwhelms the more comprehensive, engineered aproach to processes and systems. Given that businesses have a good deal of input on ISO's end structure, we can expect pressure to keep the standard "less demanding" (as some would call it) even though it is arguably the right approach when considering skyrocketing Workmen Comp insurance rates that stifle growth. I was recently told of a small business that had to let go of its one employee because Workmen's Comp cost them $4K a year. Advancing safety controls and thus lowering statewide injury rates would lower the premiums, but it's a long climb to get there from here.

The U.S. is not characterized with a pragmatic mindset. Our (quick profit turnaround) Wall Street model does not inherently welcome business structures that require much effort to design and maintain. Even though the most successful businesses (Toyota is enjoying a lot of positive press these days) are held up and perhaps used as benchmarks, the resistance to TQM principles is, and I sadly predict will remain strong.

I find it amusing that the practitioners of Quality would believe that ISO is dying, rather than promoting it. You guys complain that Management loses interest and makes this stuff become "the flavor of the day," when you are more guilty of it yourselves. For Shame. You should promote what is one of the most significant Quality movements we have seen to date (18 years and counting). If the system doesn't accomplish all it should at your company, well promote it. If you are the Quality Manager, then be the evangelist. If you don't, who will?

To comment on a few of the specific questions in this thread:

I read a few days ago that there was an estimated 30% increase in global ISO 9001 based certifications in the last year to 630,000+, and ISO 14001 was reaching well into 6 figures as well (if I recall the number correctly). This was based on a survey extrapolation, not the ISO organization database, which is why it is approximate.

As to combining Quality, Environmental and Safety, the first two are already combined at many certified companies, and many companies already include safety into their ISO 14001 systems. Fully integrated systems are not far off. They are the reality at many companies large and small.

Ok, friends...I'll wait for the darts of indignation to start flying...(LOL)

...I've got a light week on my schedule... (seems no one wants to get audited Thanskgiving week, imagine that!).

Have a nice Thanksgiving, all.

I find it amusing that the practitioners of Quality would believe that ISO is dying, rather than promoting it. You guys complain that Management loses interest and makes this stuff become "the flavor of the day," when you are more guilty of it yourselves. For Shame. You should promote what is one of the most significant Quality movements we have seen to date (18 years and counting). If the system doesn't accomplish all it should at your company, well promote it. If you are the Quality Manager, then be the evangelist. If you don't, who will?

I think you're confusing disenchantment with registration with unhappiness with the standard. My own undocumented sense is that there is indeed (for a lot of reasons) the beginnings of a movement away from registration. I agree that when one is working in an ISO-registered company (or one with such aspirations) it's best not to undermine the system, but it is possible to communicate to management the advantages and disadvantages without making a big show of it.

I read a few days ago that there was an estimated 30% increase in global ISO 9001 based certifications in the last year

Citing just an increase without also including available statistics regarding proportion might be misleading. For example, if today the proportion of companies actually registered to all companies eligible for registration is, say, 40%, and in the following 12 months we see an increase in the number of registrations, there might also have been an increase in the number of eligible companies that offsets the increase in registrations.

Have a nice Thanksgiving, all.

Yes--happy Thanksgiving to all:agree1:

I think you're confusing disenchantment with registration with unhappiness with the standard.

Yes, exactly - I am currently going thru my 5th implementation - fortunately I am not the QA manager this time - and we're making the same old mistakes that undermine the effectiveness of a good QMS. We are putting processes in place that make it wasier for auditors but heck on the organization. Unfortunately those in QA are not well versed in ISO and so they must listen to the consultant (whose goal is to get us registered and so he wants to make things easy for the auditor argh!).

On top of the registration & audit game - we have not gotten away from customized customer audits and requirements, in fact it gets worse every year as ISO regististration has sub optimized quality management systems.

I am NOT against a strong and effective QMS - and the standard does describe ONE version of a good QMS. But I am very opposed to how organizations turn managing their QMS into maintaining registration. It's one thing to be an auditor, quite another to live with the consequences of the decisions made to appease the auditor. And with our current 'lean and mean' organizations - we'll never get away from that. (This includes the decison to hire a consultant rather than hire the necessarry expertise full time)

Getting the certification to put on the wall has its merits from another standpoint. If top management wants to keeep the certificate on the wall then they are doing something positive to improve the system. I have seen things happen that got ignored before, and for the better. I think the mere act of a Regisration auditor coming in regularly is making top management proactive in implementation of continual improvement, and preventive actions. Also new lean projects and Kaizen event have taken place that were not happening pre-certification. The management rewviews have taken on a more serious tone and the top manager of the facility has mandated some improvements, and tracking of improvement actions.
So, there are benefits to getting the certification to put on the wall, because top management wants to keep it there.

Please provide an emoticon so I can tell how serious that response was. :confused: ;) :rolleyes: :( :lol:

yes, please do - management that is motivated by keeping a piece of paper on the wall?
that is less than the tail the wagging the dog.

Yes, but at least it gets top management involvement. Don't you think that in and of itself is improvement:rolleyes: (Hows that for gesturing)
They are now part of the improvement system...can't lose that cert. now can we. ;)

not really an improvement: management should be motivated to do teh right thing by wanting to do the right thing. 'Needing' to keep a piece of paper on the wall can - and will and does - drive the wrong, destructive behavior: from doing whatever the auditor wants becasuse it's easier to outright lying adn other unethical behavior ( which I have seen) just to keep the paper on the wall. A bit of supergluw is less harmful to the organization

not really an improvement: management should be motivated to do teh right thing by wanting to do the right thing. 'Needing' to keep a piece of paper on the wall can - and will and does - drive the wrong, destructive behavior: from doing whatever the auditor wants becasuse it's easier to outright lying adn other unethical behavior ( which I have seen) just to keep the paper on the wall. A bit of supergluw is less harmful to the organization

Bev,
I have normally agreed with your comments. However maybe I didn't communicate the previous intent of the post properly. Keeping the cert. on the wall by being proactive and implementing QMS improvements can not be called "driving wrong, destructive behavior". These improvements are not done to appease the CB auditor, but rather make sure we are doing the things the standards require, and continuing to improve the operations measurables. Thus pursuing the improvement of profit. That is what top managers are measured on...profitabillity:)

Ralph, I honestly still cannot tell whether this is parody or not. "...being proactive and implementing QMS improvements" does not require a certificate. A clean slate at internal audit time (or improvement ideas only), low customer complaints / high satisfaction, higher profits, etc. are the motivators for keeping the QMS dynamic. Scotch tape is all that is needed to keep the cert on the wall.

I find it amusing that the practitioners of Quality would believe that ISO is dying, rather than promoting it. You guys complain that Management loses interest and makes this stuff become "the flavor of the day," when you are more guilty of it yourselves. For Shame. You should promote what is one of the most significant Quality movements we have seen to date (18 years and counting). If the system doesn't accomplish all it should at your company, well promote it. If you are the Quality Manager, then be the evangelist. If you don't, who will?

To comment on a few of the specific questions in this thread:

I read a few days ago that there was an estimated 30% increase in global ISO 9001 based certifications in the last year to 630,000+, and ISO 14001 was reaching well into 6 figures as well (if I recall the number correctly). This was based on a survey extrapolation, not the ISO organization database, which is why it is approximate.

As to combining Quality, Environmental and Safety, the first two are already combined at many certified companies, and many companies already include safety into their ISO 14001 systems. Fully integrated systems are not far off. They are the reality at many companies large and small.

Ok, friends...I'll wait for the darts of indignation to start flying...(LOL)

...I've got a light week on my schedule... (seems no one wants to get audited Thanskgiving week, imagine that!).

Have a nice Thanksgiving, all.
So, if my math is correct, using American definition of "billion" (1,000,000,000), there are 6-1/2 billion people on the planet and approximately one ISO-registered company for every 10,000 people. That seems like excellent market penetration. If all the ISO-registered companies were concentrated in the US, that would be one registered company for every 400 people.

So, if every registered company paid ONLY $1,000/year to a registrar to maintain registration, that would make the gross income of the registrar industry $630,000,000 - I imagine registrars collect more than $1,000/year (on average) from each of their registrants. How many registrars are there? What do they REALLY gross?

So, if every registered company paid ONLY $1,000/year to a registrar to maintain registration, that would make the gross income of the registrar industry $630,000,000 - I imagine registrars collect more than $1,000/year (on average) from each of their registrants. How many registrars are there? What do they REALLY gross?I'm grossing so little now that I think I'm in the wrong line of work! :lol:

I can assure you that registration in Maine is not increasing much, if it in fact isn't shrinking. ISO is still a largely manufacturing standard and we have lost most of our manufacturing base. Other industries (like finance and medicine) with a clear need for systems and controls have their own regulatory standards--granted, those standards very often do little to address quality. I more often see them go for Baldrige than ISO.

My quarrel with ISO (no dart throwing intended here) is the pursuit of the certificate and not excellence. The certificate should be acknowledgement of hard work, not reward or a rite of passage. I often read questions asking what would satisfy auditors and not what is right for the organization (but auditors would also accept).

No doubt there are sincere people who pursue the certificate out of a desire for organizational excellence, but an organization can do that wonderfully without ISO, or by conforming to ISO but not registering to it. ISO is good for making people feel comfortable about their suppliers. There's a significant lure in that.

I expect there are many global companies registering to the standard with the intent on making themselves remarkable in the global economy. For example, I am seeing call centers from India and manufacturers from Asian countries posting their questions here. So long as the integrity of registration remains strong, it really is a good thing. But proactive? Not by itself, in my humble view.

Yes, exactly - I am currently going thru my 5th implementation - fortunately I am not the QA manager this time - and we're making the same old mistakes that undermine the effectiveness of a good QMS. We are putting processes in place that make it wasier for auditors but heck on the organization. Unfortunately those in QA are not well versed in ISO and so they must listen to the consultant (whose goal is to get us registered and so he wants to make things easy for the auditor argh!).

On top of the registration & audit game - we have not gotten away from customized customer audits and requirements, in fact it gets worse every year as ISO regististration has sub optimized quality management systems.

I am NOT against a strong and effective QMS - and the standard does describe ONE version of a good QMS. But I am very opposed to how organizations turn managing their QMS into maintaining registration. It's one thing to be an auditor, quite another to live with the consequences of the decisions made to appease the auditor. And with our current 'lean and mean' organizations - we'll never get away from that. (This includes the decison to hire a consultant rather than hire the necessarry expertise full time)


I sympathize, but not every ISO certified company has implemented a poor system, just to get a cert. Admittedly, I am somewhat selective about which clients I select, but most of the companies I have audited have sincerely attempted to put in good systems, and I have supported their efforts by sincerely trying to audit in an approrpaite and value added manner.

But, if managment does not have their heart (or head) in the right place, and still doesn't seek quality and good performance, then geez...they're 20 years behind the curve. They only have to look at our beloved GM and Ford to see where that road leads.

I still say there are three kinds of managers: those who MAKE things happen, those who WATCH things happen, and those who ask, "WHAT happened."

I sympathize, but not every ISO certified company has implemented a poor system, just to get a cert.

I'm not sayign that ALL registrations are badly executed, but a great number are - just read some of the posts on this site...Companies ARE getting frustrated with the registration process AND the fact that registration no longer protects you from the multiple and varied Customer specific audits and requriements.

Please note that a good QMS is a good thing in my mind - but you don't need ISO to get there and too aften companies that get registered to ISO find that all they've done is added a massive bureaucracy on top of their old problems...

Denial is one of the first signs of death

How about this scenario:

Hmm,,, ISO been done to death. Need a NEW impetus/system to keep us employed, make our money.....

(Consultants, Auditing bodies, Registrars etc)

Bazzle :confused:

I'm not sayign that ALL registrations are badly executed, but a great number are - just read some of the posts on this site...Companies ARE getting frustrated with the registration process AND the fact that registration no longer protects you from the multiple and varied Customer specific audits and requriements.

Please note that a good QMS is a good thing in my mind - but you don't need ISO to get there and too aften companies that get registered to ISO find that all they've done is added a massive bureaucracy on top of their old problems...

Denial is one of the first signs of death


I agree with your comments. However, most of the frustration I read on these posts are from quality professionals who are frustrated that their management are supportive of their true efforts. That is not the fault of ISO or any other system or certification. That is the fault of managment who are trying to take a shortcut.

The history of business literature over the last 30 years is littered with the memories of formerly great companies who give lip service to the principles but won't follow them themselves. And the mighty Ford and GM may find their sins catching up to them as well. It is not their suppliers who are causing their problems. They are causing their problems themselves.

Deming told them where their problems were and they fired him. He went to Japan because he needed work. The Japanese quality revolution could have and should have happened in the USA.

PS: I think we I think quality professionals have to do a better job of preaching the gospel, and quit blaming the unbelievers.

I agree with your comments. However, most of the frustration I read on these posts are from quality professionals who are frustrated that their management are supportive of their true efforts. That is not the fault of ISO or any other system or certification. That is the fault of managment who are trying to take a shortcut.

Both ends of the spectrum (lack of true management support and too rigid or too loose registrars) are causal factors to ISO's current Problem. In fact the two factors can and do compound each other. Both are wrong.
The trend toward increasing cutomer audits and unique QMS requirements is a result of the failure of ISO registration to be predictive of good quality - which is what the Customer wants from a QMS.

No ISO implementation can overcome poor management.
Poor registrars cannot create a good QMS.

As for your last comment, I might amend it from preaching the gospel to DOING the gospel. And when I find myself in a company that doesn't care and I cannot get them to see the light (and you can't truly describe the light, you must ignite it and display it for managment to see it and get it) then I move on.

...And when I find myself in a company that doesn't care and I cannot get them to see the light (and you can't truly describe the light, you must ignite it and display it for managment to see it and get it) then I move on.


Me too. There are plenty of companies who want to use these tools to get better. I won't waste much time working with a company who's management doesn't want to work. If they don't want to do it right, they certainly don't want me around.

They will ultimately fail, and I don't want to be on that ship if it does.

Me too. There are plenty of companies who want to use these tools to get better. I won't waste much time working with a company who's management doesn't want to work. If they don't want to do it right, they certainly don't want me around.

They will ultimately fail, and I don't want to be on that ship if it does.
Seems like your registrar is one of the very few who is taking away certificates of registration ... most are fighting for market share and trying to get more customers through the door.

Unless the data doesn't support your case?;)

Also see this discussion thread: ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4229)

Seems like your registrar is one of the very few who is taking away certificates of registration ... most are fighting for market share and trying to get more customers through the door.

Unless the data doesn't support your case?;)

They have actually pulled a few. No registrars are in the business to withdraw certs, but some clients are just not worth taking a risk with.

My reference was actually that as an auditor, I tend to select clients who want to do this stuff right. I won't stay long with a client who justs wants to have a cert. Just not worth it.

this thread is about 4 1/2 years old....

seems to me that the desirability of ISO9001 registration is no different than it was when this thread was started. I'm making my judgement based on what I've seen in experience requirements over this period of time.

Six Sigma has grown like a monster since then, but has it overshadowed ISO9001? Sure has taken up a lot more space in trade mags.
But I think the general public is a lot more clear on ISO than 6s.

this thread is about 4 1/2 years old....

seems to me that the desirability of ISO9001 registration is no different than it was when this thread was started. I'm making my judgement based on what I've seen in experience requirements over this period of time.

Six Sigma has grown like a monster since then, but has it overshadowed ISO9001? Sure has taken up a lot more space in trade mags.
But I think the general public is a lot more clear on ISO than 6s.
I beg to differ. Walk into a school, bank or hospital and ask to talk to the chief administrator. Hold up two cards, One printed with "Six Sigma" and the other with "ISO Quality Management Standard."

Which card do you REALLY think that administrator will recognize and be able to make some comment on?

I beg to differ. Walk into a school, bank or hospital and ask to talk to the chief administrator. Hold up two cards, One printed with "Six Sigma" and the other with "ISO Quality Management Standard."

Which card do you REALLY think that administrator will recognize and be able to make some comment on?

Is this a poll? Not sure what the point of this is. If I have to take a view it would be that ISO is still generally better known than 6 sigma. Perhaps Wes has some information he would like to share on his examples ......

Is this a poll? Not sure what the point of this is. If I have to take a view it would be that ISO is still generally better known than 6 sigma. Perhaps Wes has some information he would like to share on his examples ......You have to figure by now, Paul, I don't make a statement I can't support.

The point is ISO is very insular and primarly restricted to manufacturing facilities. Many of the rank and file (not "quality") folks in automotive cannot make a connection between TS16949 and any ISO Standard.

I chose the three types of organizations exactly because their trade journals are awash with Six Sigma buzz. Note the buzz is NOT about 3 ppm, but is entwined with Lean philosophies.

Let's add folks who work in life insurance or retail (even McDonalds burger flippers) and they won't have a clue about either one.

It's easy to infer "everyone" knows when one's everyday circle are immersed in things to do with a particular discipline. It is embarrrassing when folks ask what you do and you say, "I'm a consultant for [insert field of Quality here]" and your interrogators respond, "Never heard of it!"

You have to figure by now, Paul, I don't make a statement I can't support. I have a strong impression of your statements , Wes. Not sure you summarized my feelings too well here, though. ;)

The point is ISO is very insular and primarly restricted to manufacturing facilities. Can't agree with this statement. Far from being insular ISO is by nature International and applied to a whole range of different industries. Your exerience may be of ISO being applied to manufacturing, mine is not. Just Google ISO Service Industry - 24million odd entries!
Many of the rank and file (not "quality") folks in automotive cannot make a connection between TS16949 and any ISO Standard. Again not sure about this. Non "quality" people robably aren't interested in the particular standard, only the requirements they have to work to. Anyone who can't make a connection between ISO TS and ISO hasn't read it. The wording of ISO is reproduced in its entirety in TS.

I chose the three types of organizations exactly because their trade journals are awash with Six Sigma buzz. Note the buzz is NOT about 3 ppm, but is entwined with Lean philosophies.In answer to the two points:
There is a buzz about 6 sigma and that is fine but you don't want to give too much credence to the latest flavour of the month
Mixing up lean and 6 sigma is just trying to create the "next big thing" the philosohies are totally different albeit the tools have a place in any organization - including those that use ISO


Let's add folks who work in life insurance or retail (even McDonalds burger flippers) and they won't have a clue about either one. It is true not all tools and techniques are appropriate to all organizations - I never said that. There are plenty of industries I know nothing about - doesn't mean they have less worth or that I run them down.

It's easy to infer "everyone" knows when one's everyday circle are immersed in things to do with a particular discipline. It is embarrrassing when folks ask what you do and you say, "I'm a consultant for [insert field of Quality here]" and your interrogators respond, "Never heard of it!" Again I don't require or expect that everyone will know about my industry (say ISO) or feel any less about them if they don't. Far less will I feel embaressed about my profession if someone I meet doesn't know it. There are plenty of branches of medicine I don't know about - if a consultant introduces him/herself to me and I have to confess ignorance I wouldn't expect them to feel the need to hang their heads in shame.:lol:

I beg to differ. Walk into a school, bank or hospital and ask to talk to the chief administrator. Hold up two cards, One printed with "Six Sigma" and the other with "ISO Quality Management Standard."

Which card do you REALLY think that administrator will recognize and be able to make some comment on?

I agree with Wes on this 100%. You have a much better chance of people recognizing Six Sigma over ISO. At least in the US.

I agree with Wes on this 100%. You have a much better chance of people recognizing Six Sigma over ISO. At least in the US.

Huh? I would suggest that you should look at the numbers behind each.

I think there are hundreds of thousands more ISO 9001 companies than Six Sigma. I am not opposed to Six Sigma. But, it is a program, not an international standard. Six Sigma fits well on top of an ISO 9001 system, but generally does not take the place of it.

Huh?

The point is ISO is very insular and primarly restricted to manufacturing facilities.

Really cannot accept that as true. Don't know where the 'insular' comes from, and as for manufacturing... the Standard itself contradicts that.
Almost my entire clientele is service businesses!

Why blame the Standard? Isn't that a little like a workman blaming the tool? You can use it properly or drop it on your foot - the choice is yours.

And if someone doesn't understand what I do, I don't really mind. I try to describe it in terms that work for them, but if overall it's still way outside their field of experience, so be it.

If as quality professionals we aren't imbued with a passion for quality and a passion for helping others realise what quality is, and can be, and can do for organisations that work with it, then we're probably better off in another field of work. What about channelling our energy into trying to improve things - like demanding better service from certifiers and auditors?

The more I work with ISO 9001, the more I respect it & why various bits are in it. No, it's not perfect (what ever is?) Yes, it can be improved (what can't?). Six Sigma can do some wonderful things, but no, it isn't a standard. (As for which of 9001 and Six Sigma is "better known", does it really matter? Spare me from 'better known' being a good criteria, there's enough celebrities around famous for being famous as it is... )


And the folks who do it 'just for the certificate'? Yup, they're around. But one has a choice as to whether you will or won't choose to work with or for them. I won't. I'll earn less rather than do that kind of work.

The IT industry has a well known saying: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

No one can or will ever get more from their quality project, their quality system - even their life!! -- than they're prepared to put into it in the first place.

I have not voted in this poll. In my assessment the standard is good. Few practitioners are good. Rest are either dumb, careless, or dont even care two hoots about it. They are happy to have a certificate on the wall. Like JaneB I too dont work with such people. So, QMS consultancy today forms a small fraction of my workload after six years spent working full time as a third party Lead auditor with one of the leading CBs.

The registrars are the worst culprits. They have commercialised the whole issue and turned it into a milch cow. The mentality is "If I dont certify you or if I withdraw your certificate, someone else will certify you and milk you for years to come. Oh, every once in a while you have to come back for an audit. So why someone else, I might as well do it. Rather, I will be a fool to not do it."

Thats why the customers are fast losing their belief in the value of the certificate. And when second party audits start gaining strength, third pary audits will start weakening. Its not a question of "IF" anymore, just "WHEN".

The situation might improve only if the accreditation bodies and the MLAs tighten their act and start disqualifying Accreditation bodies. Frankly, I dont have many hopes to see that day.

Very well said Jane.:applause:

Anyone got a long rope and a low beam? :lol:

Whilst I sympathize with some of the views in the post I, for one, would rather be on the inside of the tent peeing out than outside, peeing in.

I have not voted in this poll. In my assessment the standard is good. Few practitioners are good. Rest are either dumb, careless, or dont even care two hoots about it. I am sure you meant to exclude Covers from this general statement .;).

They are happy to have a certificate on the wall. Like JaneB I too dont work with such people. So, QMS consultancy today forms a small fraction of my workload after six years spent working full time as a third party Lead auditor with one of the leading CBs.

[QUOTE=potdar;167860]The registrars are the worst culprits. They have commercialised the whole issue and turned it into a milch cow. The mentality is "If I dont certify you or if I withdraw your certificate, someone else will certify you and milk you for years to come. Oh, every once in a while you have to come back for an audit. So why someone else, I might as well do it. Rather, I will be a fool to not do it." A highly cynical view. As a representative of a registrar/certification body (albeit part time) I can only say there are some organizations out there who try to do a good job:
Assess organizations who want certification for the right reasons
Certify only those organiszations that deserve it
Work with existing customers to ensure standards are maintained and they continually improve - as required by the standard
Take certification away from those that do not subscibe to the spirit of the standard


Thats why the customers are fast losing their belief in the value of the certificate. And when second party audits start gaining strength, third pary audits will start weakening. Its not a question of "IF" anymore, just "WHEN". I hope you are not advocating a return to second party certification. Not only is it a huge drain on resources (if it is to be done properly) but it is also a duplication across the industries and, from someone who had to work through it many years ago, the quality of the assessment is totally down to the quality of the assessor and at least in third party certification you can complain when the assessment is wrong! :bonk:

The situation might improve only if the accreditation bodies and the MLAs tighten their act and start disqualifying Accreditation bodies. Frankly, I dont have many hopes to see that day. I presume you mean disqualify certification bodies. I can agree with this statement but you only have to look at what has happened with ISO TS 16949 - it is not always the quality of a certification bodies work that decides if they keep the business but the amount of it that counts.

As a representative of a registrar/certification body (albeit part time) I can only say there are some organizations out there who try to do a good job:
Assess organizations who want certification for the right reasons
Certify only those organiszations that deserve it
Work with existing customers to ensure standards are maintained and they continually improve - as required by the standard
Take certification away from those that do not subscibe to the spirit of the standard
.

I am happy you still get to work with such institutions. I only lament the fact that they are getting crowded out by the more commecially minded people.

I may tell you here that many of us auditors here passionately advocated the view that there was a good place in the market for a CB with "reliability and conscientiousness" as its USP. That we should not dilute it and stick to it. The response was "Maybe, but I would rather be alive tomorrow than dead with people saying that guy was a good man."

Net result: Over a period of a year, there was an exodus of long serving and industry respected auditors. They didn't want to work as rubber stamps.

I hope you are not advocating a return to second party certification. Not only is it a huge drain on resources (if it is to be done properly) but it is also a duplication across the industries and, from someone who had to work through it many years ago, the quality of the assessment is totally down to the quality of the assessor and at least in third party certification you can complain when the assessment is wrong! :bonk:

I dont advocate it. I just see it coming back. It is very much on the horizon. And now, people are smart enough not to waste resources on the effort. They outsource it.

I presume you mean disqualify certification bodies. I can agree with this statement but you only have to look at what has happened with ISO TS 16949 - it is not always the quality of a certification bodies work that decides if they keep the business but the amount of it that counts.

Exactly. The volume. The $$$$ that come with it. As someone who still refuses certification, even disqualifies, I would ask for your take on what % of organisations certified for TS would really qualify if they came to an agency like yours.

I am happy you still get to work with such institutions. I only lament the fact that they are getting crowded out by the more commecially minded people.Don't misunderstand me - my organization is as commercially minded as the next. We have just decided that to be in business in the future you have to make sure your product meets market requirements. That means our certification has to say something about how our customers operate their business. Without that you are chasing the cheap and cheerful end of the market.

I may tell you here that many of us auditors here passionately advocated the view that there was a good place in the market for a CB with "reliability and conscientiousness" as its USP. That we should not dilute it and stick to it. The response was "Maybe, but I would rather be alive tomorrow than dead with people saying that guy was a good man." Glad to hear it! Perhaps there is an opening in your market for us to work together:D There is only one way of guaranteeing you have no future and that is to chase the bucks and degrade your product by thinking you can fool the market - Enron anyone?

I dont advocate it. I just see it coming back. It is very much on the horizon. And now, people are smart enough not to waste resources on the effort. They outsource it. Again not sure where this new and improved 2nd party assessment is coming from, and how the users of this service are going to get it better than it was before which was at best patchy and at its worst downright criminal!



Exactly. The volume. The $$$$ that come with it. As someone who still refuses certification, even disqualifies, I would ask for your take on what % of organisations certified for TS would really qualify if they came to an agency like yours. Probably about 100% ;) Seriously the Tier 1 automotive guys will do exactly what is needed to obtain and maintain the "ticket" if I come in and identify significant issues they will move heaven and earth to fix it - they just might prefer an easier ride to carry on supplying. Similarly with the OEMs they would like an effective audit of their supplier base but they also want to carry on using existing suppliers as far as possible. Squaring the circle is a great one for the OEMs and they have ways of bending the rules if they want to keep you on board.

Don't misunderstand me - my organization is as commercially minded as the next. We have just decided that to be in business in the future you have to make sure your product meets market requirements. That means our certification has to say something about how our customers operate their business. Without that you are chasing the cheap and cheerful end of the market. Paul, great to see you back and active here, again.

The conundrum for the 3rd party certification industry has been exposed and debated in oh so many ways and oh so many times. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the certification bodies only perceive their immediate customers as the ones to please. That is why so many undeserving certificates have been awarded and exist. A few CB's realize that the actual users of their certificates are not the certified organizations themselves, but THEIR customers (in case of a quality management system certificate). These few CBs understand that, in order to be sustainable, the process has to add value to the customers of the certified organization. Failure to do that COULD result in a resurgence of second party audits, with all the dysfunctions it brings.

Earlier this summer, I was a lecturer at a Workshop aimed at the US Aerospace Auditors performing audits under the Industry Controlled Other Party process for AS9100 audits. The message coming from the Regulatory Bodies and OEMs to 3rd party aerospace auditors was:

Get tough, no soft grading of NC's!

I have a feeling that if the CB's involved with AS9100/9110/9120 audits don't shape up (collectively), we might see something like in Automotive, where the OEMs stopped relying on the AB's and created an entity to approve the CB's directly - IATF.

The competitive nature of 3rd party certification requires a strong policing and feedback mechanism, in order to keep the system in check. Unfortunately, in my personal opinion, the accreditation bodies are not effective enough in policing the market, and the actual users of the certificates, are ignorant, oblivious or too lazy to demand that the certificates being issued MEAN something.

:applause:

:Get tough, no soft grading of NC's!

I have a feeling that if the CB's involved with AS9100/9110/9120 audits don't shape up (collectively), we might see something like in Automotive, where the OEMs stopped relying on the AB's and created an entity to approve the CB's directly - IATF.

The competitive nature of 3rd party certification requires a strong policing and feedback mechanism, in order to keep the system in check. Unfortunately, in my personal opinion, the accreditation bodies are not effective enough in policing the market, and the actual users of the certificates, are ignorant, oblivious or too lazy to demand that the certificates being issued MEAN something.

:agree1: Only, IAOB and its kin are likely to be equally ineffective till they actually start derecognising some registrars and start setting examples. The CBs need a message in totally uncertain language to :whip: or else.

:topic: Paul

Your CB is welcome to India. I would love to work with them. Except, if they already have an office here, I know I dont hold a very high opinion of them:nope:

Paul, great to see you back and active here, again. Thanks, Sid. We have had a hard few months moving the headquarters of the certification body I work for, thankfully successfully. For my sins I got the IT job among others and it was a lot more involved than at first thought - 'twas ever thus. :bonk: Few other changes including a new website etc., etc. www.cmlsira.com if you want to have a look!

The conundrum for the 3rd party certification industry has been exposed and debated in oh so many ways and oh so many times. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the certification bodies only perceive their immediate customers as the ones to please. That is why so many undeserving certificates have been awarded and exist. A few CB's realize that the actual users of their certificates are not the certified organizations themselves, but THEIR customers (in case of a quality management system certificate). These few CBs understand that, in order to be sustainable, the process has to add value to the customers of the certified organization. Failure to do that COULD result in a resurgence of second party audits, with all the dysfunctions it brings. Absolutely right! There are two tiers of customers - the direct customer and we do have to serve them by providing a quality service and an assessment process that is all clear and above board. Oh and at the right price and with flexibility they need! :lol:

Our customers customers have a different set of demands but they're not that far apart - it's not in their interest to have a potential supplier turned down for registration if they have good quality systems but they don't want to be buying from a supplier with a certificate only to find out that the systems are worthless.

Earlier this summer, I was a lecturer at a Workshop aimed at the US Aerospace Auditors performing audits under the Industry Controlled Other Party process for AS9100 audits. The message coming from the Regulatory Bodies and OEMs to 3rd party aerospace auditors was:

Get tough, no soft grading of NC's!

I have a feeling that if the CB's involved with AS9100/9110/9120 audits don't shape up (collectively), we might see something like in Automotive, where the OEMs stopped relying on the AB's and created an entity to approve the CB's directly - IATF. I accept the purchasers don't want registrars soft peddling on NCRs but by the same token messages like these from the aerosace guys have an unfortunate habit of getting misunderstood by some auditors - next thing you know little details are being raised as NCs, minors become majors and auditor opinion gets sway over factual based decisions. Sounds like how I remember second party audits. :lmao:

The competitive nature of 3rd party certification requires a strong policing and feedback mechanism, in order to keep the system in check. Unfortunately, in my personal opinion, the accreditation bodies are not effective enough in policing the market, and the actual users of the certificates, are ignorant, oblivious or too lazy to demand that the certificates being issued MEAN something. There is an opportunity for all parties in the process to sharpen up their acts. Perhaps there has been too much focus on getting registered and not enough on design of system. The all or nothing asect of assessment to certification doesn't help IMHO.

messages like these from the aerospace guys have an unfortunate habit of getting misunderstood by some auditors - next thing you know little details are being raised as NCs, minors become majors and auditor opinion gets sway over factual based decisions. Sounds like how I remember second party audits.Indeed, we have a risk of that happening. Many 3rd party auditors might misunderstand the message. On the other hand, the ones that uncover substantial management systems pitfalls and write the issue up might be booted out by the customer for making them work hard to keep the certificate. After all, the path-of-least-resistance CRBs are well represented in the Aerospace Sector...:mad: A few influential people in the Aerospace ICOP System are starting to realize that issue. For the time being, they have not yet thought how to solve the dilemma. If only they asked me...:notme:

The registrars are the worst culprits. They have commercialised the whole issue and turned it into a milch cow. The mentality is "If I dont certify you or if I withdraw your certificate, someone else will certify you and milk you for years to come. Oh, every once in a while you have to come back for an audit. So why someone else, I might as well do it. Rather, I will be a fool to not do it."

Thats why the customers are fast losing their belief in the value of the certificate.

Interesting - this hasn't been my experience at all. In fact, to the contrary. I've been in this field for many years now, and those certifiers/registrars I've come across have cared about working to make a difference, to assist businesses to improve what they were doing, and wanting to contribute. Indeed, some of the people I've met have said that if they could choose to do anything, & had independent income, they'd still do what they're doing now -helping businesses understand quality and do things better.

Commercialise? Well, I don't have a problem with the registrars making money - that's what business is about, and they can't do it for nothing. But I do expect clients to get value for money.

Thus, I've assisted clients to switch to another registrar when they weren't getting competent or valuable audits or the level of service they had a right to expect and demand, and each time the client has been pleased with the results. And I've complained about auditors on behalf of a client (only with client permission of course) on some very rare occasions when the performance of the auditor was quite unacceptable. Again, on every occasion it has improved things for the client.

I usually enjoy seeing auditors at work - and I always enjoy watching, and learn from, a really skilled one! Only recently I had a lengthy & very fruitful encounter with an auditor from a large certifier in this country. And was impressed with his wise approach in a somewhat ticklish situation, as well as his enormous enthusiasm & passion for improvement and for quality, which matched mine. And he's been auditing for many, many years! The client in question has 9001 certification and is also doing Six Sigma - we both saw them as complementary.

I wonder if experiences vary in different countries? Also, of course, we're talking only individual experience here, rather than hard data. :D

There is only one way of guaranteeing you have no future and that is to chase the bucks and degrade your product by thinking you can fool the market - Enron anyone?

Exactly so (and great to see you back, Paul).

When I think of changes to wish for, I wish that clients were better informed of the actual role of the registrar, so that they could, when necessary, demand better service and reject auditors (or certifiers!) of poor standard / over-rigidity / throwbacks to 1994 mode etc, without worrying that this would rebound on them, or that the auditors would get 'em back, etc. And I wish that more people could understand and see how a good auditor can add enormous value to an organisation.

But I do aim for, hope for, look for and work for things to improve. If I couldn't do that and had lost hope of anything ever changing in the field, I wouldn't stay in it. Because how on earth could I promote a Standard including requirements for continuous improvement to my clients if I didn't believe in, and practice that, myself?

When I think of changes to wish for, I wish that clients were better informed of the actual role of the registrar, so that they could, when necessary, demand better service and reject auditors (or certifiers!) of poor standard / over-rigidity / throwbacks to 1994 mode etc, without worrying that this would rebound on them, or that the auditors would get 'em back, etc. And I wish that more people could understand and see how a good auditor can add enormous value to an organisation.Jane, I share your thoughts. I also wish the customers of certified organization would keep their supplier's registrar "accountable" for low performing quality systems. I am sick and tired of listening to registrar reps saying that an audit is just a snapshot in time and there is no connection between the certificate and the performance of certified system.

Thus, I've assisted clients to switch to another registrar when they weren't getting competent or valuable audits or the level of service they had a right to expect and demand, and each time the client has been pleased with the results. And I've complained about auditors on behalf of a client (only with client permission of course) on some very rare occasions when the performance of the auditor was quite unacceptable. Again, on every occasion it has improved things for the client.

So you do meet such guys ;)

I wonder if experiences vary in different countries? Also, of course, we're talking only individual experience here, rather than hard data. :D

Yes they do. The results of this poll should give a fair indication of what most of us encounter.

But I do aim for, hope for, look for and work for things to improve. If I couldn't do that and had lost hope of anything ever changing in the field, I wouldn't stay in it. Because how on earth could I promote a Standard including requirements for continuous improvement to my clients if I didn't believe in, and practice that, myself?

Same here. :agree1: Only, I have stopped being part of a CB three years back. My Lead auditorship has already lapsed. But I am still uptodate (I hope). I am a member here and discuss my views with you all (It helps). Once in a while I do consultancy using ISO 9001 or TS, because it is only once in a while that I meet a client I feel like doing consultancy for. Rest, I politely turn away saying "You have come to the wrong address Sir, I am not in this business any more."

But these are the clients that keep my hope alive. they want to do it for themselves. Not for the customer or for the registrar.

So you do meet such guys ;)

Meet clients who want to get value from doing ISO 9001, not just something to hold up the wall? Yup, sure do.


The results of this poll should give a fair indication of what most of us encounter.

Most of us? Sorry, kimosabe, but I'd have a bit of trouble accepting a poll as vaguely worded as this one, and as open to subjective interpretations, could be taken as the claimed proof of what seems to me a somewhat different issue. :D


GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. Almost the first thing I find out from the client is why they want to do it. And walk away if I don't like the answer.

But you raise some interesting points - I do wish there was more real, objective research on the value of ISO 9001!

However, all other things being equal, better a company that does have it than one with 'no idea'.

Well Jane,

What I find is that both of us see the same things. Meet the same type of people. Act / react to them in the same fashion. Only, I have gone a bit cynical about the whole issue while you continue to be ever hopeful and fiercely protective about the concept.

Good for you that your region seems to have more clients that dont get classified as "Garbage". I am not so lucky here.

But one thing is very true. The CBs and ABs that all of us refer to are absolutely the same. I can give you a long list of CBs (local or global) here that are accreditated to some revered ANZ or european ABs. You wouldnt want to touch them with a long pole. Lets not discuss their customers. Or the hapless customers' customers.

I'm surprised this thread has continued for so long. But what is that really saying? When I was growing up my mom was the Quality Control supervisor for a large glass mfg company. My dad was a Master Carpenter and we were raised (through the 50s and 60s when the USA was #1 in everything) to believe that any job worth doing (ones you got paid for in particular) was worth doing well. We were raised to have pride in what we accomplished. :applause:

It bothers me that we have to be told how to produce a Quality Product. There seems to be an attitude of entitlement, especially amongst American youth, these days that reflects a deeper problem. Us Baby Boomers seem to have created a situation that leads our children to believe they can have what they want, when they want and they don't have to put forth any effort to get it. They call it the "King Baby Syndrome". Nothing is ever good enough but they don't want to do anything about it. My boyfriend (Partner) and I have 6 kids between us and, believe me we try everyday to instill a sense of pride in a job well done. We teach them the right way to do things. And if they don't they are retrained until they get it right and they are rewarded for their efforts. Quality bleeds into every facet of our lives. (I have been accused of being a Quality Nazi):mad:

My experience with many of my clients, especially those in the Oil Patch, is that to do business in a lot of countries you have to be ISO certified. In countries were the government regulates everything, i.e., Mexico, Canada, the UAE, Suadi, Venezuela, etc., you can't work with them without it.:nope:

Maybe people like the good folks of the Cove can figure it out. Maybe there needs to be a revolution. Mentoring programs or something like that would help. In my ISO orientation classes I make an attempt to show the employees how their efforts do contribute to the greater good. Trickle down quality, if you will.

Thanks for letting me stand on my soap box. Keep up the good works.

Qualitygal

I wished I could reference the following comments about the boomers but unfortunately I did not keep it. Regardless, I think it supports Qualitygal's comments.

Boomers have gotten our way ever since we arrived in this world, and the onset of gray hair, bifocals, and arthritis is not going to moderate our unswerving self-indulgence. We are the same people, after all, who forced the lowering of the drinking age when we were young, so we could drink, and forced it back up when we got older, so our kids couldn't. On top of that, we're used to the best of everything, and plenty of it. We weren't dubbed the Me Generation because we neglect our own needs, Junior. If politicians think the current geezers are greedy, they ain't seen nothin' yet. - Source unknown

Bill Pflanz

ISO is still important (not necessarily Quality) purely from business point of view. "self-discipline to maintain a QMS without registration" is almost unthinkable !

Still true in most places, I'd bet... :notme:

So you do meet such guys ...

Once in a while I do consultancy using ISO 9001 or TS, because it is only once in a while that I meet a client I feel like doing consultancy for. Rest, I politely turn away saying "You have come to the wrong address Sir, I am not in this business any more."

But these are the clients that keep my hope alive. they want to do it for themselves. Not for the customer or for the registrar.


There are many good companies that want to do these things the right way for the right reasons. And there are many bad companies who try to take shortcuts. That is how the free enterprise system works. But it does work. Eventually the marketplace decides who is right.

PS: Also, the last ISO stats I read showed global ISO registrations still going strong, so our little straw poll may not show a very clear picture.

That's basically my position. I screen clients these days.

That's basically my position. I screen clients these days.Good for you, Marc. It is always good to be in a position that you can "select and approve" your clients. I remember back in the early 90's doing an ISO 9001 audit of a company that had a "customer screening and approval" process, modelled after the Solectron way. That was impressive. If the potential customer's growth potential and business model did not align with that organization's objectives, they would decline becoming a supplier to them.

It was the first time I saw such a customer screening process. It made sense then.

I think the important thing is not Iso9001 itself,but the attitude to implement.

Marc,

I would say emphatically that the rebellion has started. This ISO thing was just like any other fad, it's time has come and gone. A few more years and it will be replaced by some new re-hashed idea with a new name tag.

JMHO,
CarolX

It is funny how some things change but others remain the same. Back in 2002 we thought that ISO 9000 was a fad. It is interesting how, "The song Remains the Same." Some things never change.

Just a thought.

Poll closed.

Hank mentioned a loss of interest in quality and I agree. The owner of my company wants me to bring the company to a place where we can be "ISO Certified" but he doesn't want to do anything necessary to be and behave like an ISO Certified company. This attitude trickles down to the other employees. A quality system cannot be built by one person. My focus is on compliance with approrpriate regulations and systems rather than certification/registration.

But do you not see an ISO 9001 based system as a tool for helping you to achieve compliance with appropriate regulations? Whether you go forward and obtain external recognition for your efforts is another story.

The downside will include the cost but the upside includes having an external motivator to ensure that you continue to do the right things.

I do see it as a necessary tool. Absolutely. I also agree that having an external motivator is effective but can be very expensive (and time consuming) to a company that hasn't truly adopted the QS Compliant spirit. I like your tagline "If you think training is expensive, try ignorance". That couldn't be more true.

You're right to be wary of trying to obtain certification in an organisation where there is a lack of commitment. There is little worse than trying to establish a meaningful system in that environment - like trying to push wet string uphill:lol:

As for 3rd party certification being expensive - there are plenty of people offering it so that makes it competitive - ask around and you may be surprised at the differences in prices.

You're right to be wary of trying to obtain certification in an organisation where there is a lack of commitment. There is little worse than trying to establish a meaningful system in that environment - like trying to push wet string uphill:lol:
It ain't worth the pain.

Hi Guys,

I am new to this forum and came across this thread. Wow, longest running thread I have ever seen.

I was in QC about 15 years ago and got out because I got tired of being frustrated at the whole, never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over mentality, as well as always being labeled the bad guy who stopped the process or shipment because of some "minor" defect.

Now as life's irony would have it I am back in the QC seat at a small company. I paid for copies of ISO 9001-2000 and ISO 10012-2003. I have read, re-read, and re-read again. Highlighted passages, and made notes to try and wrap my head around all the requirements and concepts.

Here a couple of my humble observations with my now limited experience.

1. Not much has changed from upper managment point of view on quality. Better to take a risk and chance sending out some bad parts than to spend $$$ that would just eat the profits anyway. Given the pionts below I can understand why the mentality has not changed much.

2. ISO has become an industry for profit just like any other. You bite the bullet and pay ISO for a spec and it references another spec that you have to buy, only to find out that the referenced spec either has nothing to do with what you do, or worse references another spec that you have to buy just to see if it is relevant to you. Then every couple of years a revision comes out and you have to start the whole process all over again. You hire consultants to help you understand the requirements. Then the consultants pull your manual from an archive where they do some cut and paste then put the company name in a slot labeled "insert name here", all for nominal fees of course. This may be fine for large companies that have plenty of cash but for small ones it can become just plain unaffordable.

3. ISO has tried to standardize every thing. The all things to all people scenario. The specs criss cross referencing each other back and forth to the point of where you can forget where you started. That seems like asking your doctor to use the same guidelines for making a diagnossis that an accountant uses to make financial decisions.

4. ISO states that there must be a statement of uncertainty on a calibration record. That's fine. But how to determine this uncertianty is up to the company. Great, they gave guidelines! But just to calibrate some simple OD Mics has become an exercise in research and paperwork. I have to sample an attribute take three measurments get a couple of more people to do the same, then see the variation and link other factors. Temp, humidity, etc. and voila, I write a line that says something like the OD Mic has an uncertianty of +/_ XXX. I'm probably the only one here who can read a mic, but I think to myself no problem this has to have been done a million times so I should be able to look up some and get the data I need. I have found dozens of spread sheets that people are willing to share but none of them contain any data. I have an Idea maybe ISO can publish a study that we can all pay for.:bonk:

5. Now probably the most frustrating thing is looking at the boss and trying to explain all this to him is like explaining the laws of gravity to my kids. The eyes are glazed over until I tell him that we have to spend $$ for this and for that. ISO says that "top managment" must be involved and documentation of that involvment is required. Great! These are at least easy. All I have to do is write "Uhm, Aaa, Err, Ahem, What, Hu, Do we really need that?, How much?, I'll get back to you." and the date. Documentation done.

6. I will use the term loosely. But back in the day the customer gave thier guidlines for what they required. And cost was was built into the bid for anything out of the companies capability. Most notably the millitary specs (Free of Charge) gave the requirements. But now they are all canceled or soon to be cancelled in favor of ISO/ANSI all of which cost $$$ that smaller companies simply do not have.

I'm sure that ISO has been a God send for many larger companies. But small companies who do not take on complex projects, or manufacture the tight tolerance complex parts and assemblies, just do not have the resorces that big ones have and i'ts killing them. To be clear I'm not saying small companies should be acceptable to lesser standards of quality. Just simplfy the standards and make the affordable and understandable.

OK, Thanks for letting me rant and rave. Can't wait to see the blasting I get from this.

Hi Guys,

I am new to this forum and came across this thread. Wow, longest running thread I have ever seen.

I was in QC about 15 years ago and got out because I got tired of being frustrated at the whole, never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over mentality, as well as always being labeled the bad guy who stopped the process or shipment because of some "minor" defect.

Now as life's irony would have it I am back in the QC seat at a small company. I paid for copies of ISO 9001-2000 and ISO 10012-2003. I have read, re-read, and re-read again. Highlighted passages, and made notes to try and wrap my head around all the requirements and concepts.

Here a couple of my humble observations with my now limited experience.

1. Not much has changed from upper managment point of view on quality. Better to take a risk and chance sending out some bad parts than to spend $$$ that would just eat the profits anyway. Given the pionts below I can understand why the mentality has not changed much.

2. ISO has become an industry for profit just like any other. You bite the bullet and pay ISO for a spec and it references another spec that you have to buy, only to find out that the referenced spec either has nothing to do with what you do, or worse references another spec that you have to buy just to see if it is relevant to you. Then every couple of years a revision comes out and you have to start the whole process all over again. You hire consultants to help you understand the requirements. Then the consultants pull your manual from an archive where they do some cut and paste then put the company name in a slot labeled "insert name here", all for nominal fees of course. This may be fine for large companies that have plenty of cash but for small ones it can become just plain unaffordable.

3. ISO has tried to standardize every thing. The all things to all people scenario. The specs criss cross referencing each other back and forth to the point of where you can forget where you started. That seems like asking your doctor to use the same guidelines for making a diagnossis that an accountant uses to make financial decisions.

4. ISO states that there must be a statement of uncertainty on a calibration record. That's fine. But how to determine this uncertianty is up to the company. Great, they gave guidelines! But just to calibrate some simple OD Mics has become an exercise in research and paperwork. I have to sample an attribute take three measurments get a couple of more people to do the same, then see the variation and link other factors. Temp, humidity, etc. and voila, I write a line that says something like the OD Mic has an uncertianty of +/_ XXX. I'm probably the only one here who can read a mic, but I think to myself no problem this has to have been done a million times so I should be able to look up some and get the data I need. I have found dozens of spread sheets that people are willing to share but none of them contain any data. I have an Idea maybe ISO can publish a study that we can all pay for.:bonk:

5. Now probably the most frustrating thing is looking at the boss and trying to explain all this to him is like explaining the laws of gravity to my kids. The eyes are glazed over until I tell him that we have to spend $$ for this and for that. ISO says that "top managment" must be involved and documentation of that involvment is required. Great! These are at least easy. All I have to do is write "Uhm, Aaa, Err, Ahem, What, Hu, Do we really need that?, How much?, I'll get back to you." and the date. Documentation done.

6. I will use the term loosely. But back in the day the customer gave thier guidlines for what they required. And cost was was built into the bid for anything out of the companies capability. Most notably the millitary specs (Free of Charge) gave the requirements. But now they are all canceled or soon to be cancelled in favor of ISO/ANSI all of which cost $$$ that smaller companies simply do not have.

I'm sure that ISO has been a God send for many larger companies. But small companies who do not take on complex projects, or manufacture the tight tolerance complex parts and assemblies, just do not have the resorces that big ones have and i'ts killing them. To be clear I'm not saying small companies should be acceptable to lesser standards of quality. Just simplfy the standards and make the affordable and understandable.

OK, Thanks for letting me rant and rave. Can't wait to see the blasting I get from this.Actually, I'm not going to blast you, nor will most others.

Many of the items you raise are a matter of perspective and balance - part of the normal give and take of ANY Business Management System -the organization determines its REAL requirements (no sense holding a nanometer tolerance if the mating part is held to plus or minus 1/4 inch, is there?)

One of the first things is to determine if you are REQUIRED to register to an ISO Standard or merely "comply" with one. There can be a world of difference in the cost!

Some industries (automotive, medical devices, aerospace, etc.) absolutely require some sort of registration just to get a seat at the table [of the supply chain.] Others have a lot more leeway.

After a 15 year absence, many things can seem overwhelming, but we are here to help and we are pretty inexpensive - just need an internet connection and a good web browser to get a seat at OUR table.

You'll find as you read through our various threads that many of us have a strong prejudice against "cut and paste" quality documents offered for sale by self-labeled "consultants" who offer "Registration within forty days!"

A little reading here will point you to much better solutions than a "one size fits all" program offered by a fast buck artist.

There are a lot of us here and in the aggregate, we have all the experience (good and bad) and skill to cover any situation in quality. Try us out with some specific questions!

About the rant - don't worry about it - many folks have found safe harbor here in the Cove and fresh supplies to continue the journey.