Lucky Al has been asked to pull together some collected learning from the small proportion of the registrations that have actually converted from 1994 to 2000 versions so far. I'm hunting for brief thoughts about the value that people believe (or should that be perceive) they have gained (or not). As an extension I'm also interested in anyone who has decided not to register to the new standard and why.

The group I'm working with has already decided it wants a management system, they just want to try to understand why so few in the world have adopted registration to 9K-2K.

I'm hoping my esteemed colleagues in the Cove can help out...

Cheers, Al.
:)

We'll go for 9k2k... The only reason we are not there yet is that we have been working flat out with our EMS. We're getting close to the certification audit now and next item on the menu is 9k2k...

We intend to merge EMS, QMS and H&S into one system.

/Claes

We are also beginning the process. mainly delayed due to having to retain QS9000 certification, and consider TS16949 certification.

I suspect that most are leaving to the last minute, which kinda hints at the perceived value of it.

We have our first surveillance audit next week that starts our transition. Our delay is also the result of having to deal with retaining QS9000, for now. I'll have to post back here about what problems we face in this particular mix of standards.

I wish anyone luck if they have to retain QS and transition to ISO9K2K. It hasn't been fun so far!

I had put up a post similar to this a while back. I believe Marc was going to respond on his experiences to date of the problems that he has encountered or anyone else for that manner.

Al,
I believe the main ingredient is time.
They've given us 3 years to comply, and by golly we'll take the whole three years !

With the '94 version we got one year and everybody jumped.

Al,

Some good thoughts have already been presented. If you read through some of the other recent threads in the Cove I think you'll find several additional reasons that many companies have not moved to 9001-2000. Just a couple of personal thoughts/opinions FWIW:

One of the "new" (improved?) things about 2000 is that it allegedly requires continuous improvement (there's even some debate on that -- see the other recent thread) . However, any company that doesn't try to continuously improve already is not likely to be swayed by the requirement of the standard and is also not likely to survive to implement 2000. So, some may look at it as not too much of a change, except for more records required to prove improvement.

Also, especially with the poor economy/state of business in many market sectors, money is very tight and personnel are stretched thin. Upgrading to 2000 costs time and money and unless management truly believes that the switch will pay-off for them, why do it now? Like any other business decision, it is based on the perceived cost vs. benefits.

Just MHO.

Mike S.

gpainter said:

I had put up a post similar to this a while back. I believe Marc was going to respond on his experiences to date of the problems that he has encountered or anyone else for that manner.
I've addressed the upgrades in a number of threads. The bottom line is I have done 4, one of which added ISO 14001 at the same time. All were former clients which I worked with during their original implementation. None had to add any systems or such. None took over 5 working days to change documentation and such. But - 2 were very small companies and the other 2 were under 300 people.

I personally believe the biggest change is in the ISO and consultant rhetoric. My opinion is people are reading much too much into the 'changes' - over interpreting. Seeing things they want to see which aren't there (see recent thread on Continuous Improvement).

It is interesting to look back at companies I worked with during their registration. In fact I'm sitting at a desk in the same company I started playing with ISO with 10 years ago. I'm not here for ISO - I'm completing a number of PPAPs and working with several customers in the Corrective Action end of things. But as I think back over the upgrades at other companies I worked with and I think of what they were and what they now are - heck, I can show tons of continuous improvement totally unrelated to ISO. Companies evolve and to survive (compete) they either corner the market (ala Enron), have political ties (ala Carlisle and the military industrial complex) or they continuously improve.

None of the companies are particularly unhappy about their ISO trip, but none any longer sees ISO as a tool. They say ISO 9K was most useful during the implementation phase - new thinking, new set of eyes and all that. But now - it's just a yearly game where you Pay The Man. As one company owner said: "If the auditors would just take the money and not come it would be fine with me."

I will also say all 4 - registered for a number of years now - have entirely classified their registrations as a business expense, although they were initially enthuseastic. It has become another business game.

Each of these companies was making good product when I first was involved with them years back (marketing and/or customer requirement came along) and nothing has changed there. ISO 9K has not improved anything they would not have anyway - or so they say.

(NOTE: Throw rocks now and get it over with folks...) :thedeal:

Okay, I'm not going to throw any rocks. Here is how I present it (kinda like what you were saying Marc). Going for ISO is sorta like getting in shape. If all of the Cove folks decided to get into shape (we are talking about our bodies here). Some of us would see much more improvement than others, simply because some of us are much more out of shape. Those that are in good shape already will see little return, but also will have to spend less energy to get there.

With companies going for ISO (QS, too), it is much the same. I've worked with companies that were already doing things right. The effort needed to achieve registration was minimal, but so was the improvement. In one company, we found enough process improvement to pay for the entire 3-year registration (including my fees) in our first six months!

What you get out of ISO will depend on where you are now, and how much you put into it.

db,

Good analogy. Taking the analogy further we find the diet/fitness consultants, advice columnists, self-help books, membership clubs, on-line forums, fads, deceptive advertising, good-guys, bad guys, cheating, success stories, failure stories, and paradoxes that are analogous to the same kind of people/issues in the ISO game. But maybe physical fitness is a bit more quantifiable, at a lower cost, than QMS fitness!

Mike S.:smokin:

Yeah, I heard Richard Simmons is doing a video called "Auditing to the Oldies". :biglaugh:

db said:

Okay, I'm not going to throw any rocks. Here is how I present it (kinda like what you were saying Marc). Going for ISO is sorta like getting in shape. If all of the Cove folks decided to get into shape (we are talking about our bodies here). Some of us would see much more improvement than others, simply because some of us are much more out of shape. Those that are in good shape already will see little return, but also will have to spend less energy to get there.

With companies going for ISO (QS, too), it is much the same. I've worked with companies that were already doing things right. The effort needed to achieve registration was minimal, but so was the improvement. In one company, we found enough process improvement to pay for the entire 3-year registration (including my fees) in our first six months!

What you get out of ISO will depend on where you are now, and how much you put into it.
I agree with this 100%.

:bigwave:

I agree too......and some others just need to capture whats already being done.

I just attended a training session, tailored to the company paying for the in house presentation (20 souls) on Internal Auditing for 9000.2000, I was asked to sit in and critique it as an independant party/opinion (under cover...LOL) WOW have I been under the mushroom. The stuff this guy was selling to the company was way off base. This is a highly regulated industry, registered since 1992...proactive, well documented, TQM mentality, doing PPAP, customer focused et al...a walk in the park for 9k2k. he was telling them all the work they need to do, all the procedures they need to write...etc. they always had a continuous improvement plan, a communication plan and customer feedback/satisfaction provisions, process flows etc....he said they were missing all the level 2 procedures.....they have them, but don't call them level2 .....so he suggested as their 1st Ci effort they change the format...DUH .... i could hardly contain myself....actually i did ask where the shalls were a couple of times.....:frust: :frust: :frust: good thing I was getting paid, not paying for it!!!!

Thanks to all those who've posted so far. My current list looks like this :

1) We've done it because it was no different to what we were already doing.
2) We haven't done it because we've been busy dealing with QS9000/other standards.
3) We haven't done it because we may as well use the whole 3 years. (I kinda suspect that David's point covers a large chunk of the 94 registrants).
4) We haven't done it because it requires work that we don't have resources for in the current economic climate.
5) We may do it when we get over the shock of what our consultant/audit body is telling us we have to do to get there !;)

To this list I'll add some of my own :
6) We're still in the transition process offered by our auditors stretching over 4 surveillance audits.
7) We've decided to use the change in standard as a good excuse to stop the registration that held no value for us.
8) We've not done it because our customer hasn't asked for it.

Any more folks ?

Al.

Dunno if this will be of any help since I've been dealing with QS but...

If my read and understand is correct, 9K2K Requires fewer procedures. This allows more flexability in the documented management system. This is particularly true for comapanies who's product is not super critical.

Not even 2c worth

James

alf you can add waiting for the dust to settle, and the auditors are on the same page.

I'd say thats what my clients are doing......that and slowly adding/modifying bits and pieces as they go along.

Barb

I assume you mean that many are waiting to see how the audit game will be played out, before positioning themselves and deciding how to deal with implementation. I guess that's reality, but I find it frustrating that the only reason to do this, is to work out how to get round the system (auditors) in the easiest way, rather than seeking to get value. I've already been reading the posts in the "Is ISO9001 Cresting ?" thread, that suggest many are still seeking to bypass the actual standard by cosy commercial relationship with compliant auditors.

Thanks Barb...

James you wrote :

If my read and understand is correct, 9K2K Requires fewer procedures. This allows more flexability in the documented management system. This is particularly true for comapanies who's product is not super critical.

I'm not sure that I agree about the "super critical" product identification. I think everyone, product or service provider is now given the mandate to build the management system that best helps them to achieve customer satisfaction. Or were you thinking about orgs that have other standards to deal with e.g. automotive sector, pharmaceuticals, etc.

Cheers, Al

James wrote:

I'm not sure that I agree about the "super critical" product identification. I think everyone, product or service provider is now given the mandate to build the management system that best helps them to achieve customer satisfaction. Or were you thinking about orgs that have other standards to deal with e.g. automotive sector, pharmaceuticals, etc.
Al,

Yes Al you read correctly. The new standard seems to me to be pointed more a more mature organization. 9k with its procedural approach has been in place long enough that most companies can see the benefit of written procedures. That way they "Know what they are doing". The new standard, with the process approach, allows greater flexabiblity on what is written down. I see this as a smarter approach that should appeal to a broader range of companies. And be less expensive to maintain.

James

i don't think i meant that they ALL want to get around the standard (although there are always a few)....people i see are trying to meet the new standard as they/we interpret it, but are waiting for the dust to settle so they don't get sent down a garden path of goldenrod only to find they don't need to go there, meanwhile they are testing the water and finding what works for them.