Dear all,

'Lenin planned to build kommunism in one separate country'. Cruel and failing experiment...

I wonder if it is possible to develop an efficient and effective quality assurance system (say... complying to ISO 9001:2000) within one separate company? (while it's suppliers, customers etc. do not bother to do the same)

Are there interrelations between the number (rate) of registered companies in an industry and the total positive (negative) effect of ISO 9001 use? (please, vote in the poll)

The same might go for any other business standards mentioned in these forums.

Yours

Anton

Hey Jim,

You want to say that registration is not at all corresponding with the effictiveness or efficiency of the QAS? Are really so sceptic about that?
:bonk: ;)

regards,

Anton

Nice comments, putting my feet to the ground again.

However, we can look at the problem at a bit different angle )that is actually what I meant posting this.

Whether an organization improves its quality being registered or before registration is a question of a registrar conscience.
At the same time i hold that any organization seeks some benefits taking a decision to get registered (or simply developing a QAS). These benefits may originate from better quality, or from better sales or margin through complying the 'bureaucratic requirements' of clients. It would make a difference from the point of view of quality management and no difference from the point of view of marketing and strategy.
Speaking about positivew effect I meant the latter point of view - the effect for business in general calculated as surplus profit (or loss). Is it somehow dependent on the level of penetration of QA ideas or registrations in the industry? From your point of view...

regards,

Anton

Hi Anton

I guess the simple answer would be yes, if your competitors are also operating an effective QMS then theoretically the impact of improving your own will be less than if they had no QMS.

Note I am not talking about ISO9001 certification, but an effective QMS (hopefully go hand in hand, but not necessarily so).

If customers truly place orders with companies that provide quality products/services then the more companies that offer similar levels of quality product/service the less the QMS makes a difference, it becomes almost necessary for shear survival.

Anton:

I guess I have a different, more cynical, view. As the proliferation of certificates increases, registration becomes more like a commodity. As this occurs, the market does not reward a company for being certified.

At the same time, the price-driven emphasis regains strength, pretty much putting us back where we started. I wish that at least we could say that the lowest total-cost emphasis returns, but IMHO usually that is not the truth.

If increased certification within a vertical industrial sector is due to companies just wanting a certificate to hang, little will improve. If, however, the companies are working toward real improvement, things will, of course, improve.

Craig

Jim Wade said:

Yep.

I guess that's why BSI now offer ISO 9004 certificates.

rgds Jim

Is that so? I didn't think 9004 was auditable how can the offer certificates and what accreditation body is allowing this?

ISO

These 'certificates' to ISO9004 will not be accredited certificates, or a certificate claiming 'compliance'. They are a document for your wall that kinda says that BSi have assessed your company against ISO9004 for business excellence (or words to that effect). There will be no UKAS logo's anywhere - I believe.

I'm only one of two that say weaker. Craig seems to share that view. The more companies that are registered, just waters down the significance of being certified. Particularly, when they still ship junk. I've handled CAR's for at least three suppliers that proudly displayed their ISO badge on all their documentation. It's just the fad of the times. They responded no quicker than those that didn't have the badge and I never saw any attempts at "Proactive" Customer Satisfaction. The common remark that I heard from Shipping & Receiving and the Managers waiting for the ISO Company's product, was "Another example of ISO?". Probably why we failed to get all the personnel on board. They saw no measurable improvement. Nothing they could see, touch or feel. Kind of like religion. You have to believe!:rolleyes: :smokin:

Anton,
I voted no. Reason being that no program, quality or otherwise will work when dictated by someone else. Your opening statement provides a base for this reasoniong.

The main problem I see is that many companies REQUIRE their suppliers to become registered. This makes places the focus on the "flag", not on the benefits. So, the minimum effort to maintain the the registration is all the companies care about.

If ISO/QS/TS/Whatever were strictly voluntary, and every company seeking registration did so for the benefits of an effective QMS, then the more companies registered, the better. However, we live in a real world. There are significant numbers of organizations that achieve registration under false motives/pretenses. The result is the more companies that are registered, the less effect registration has.

In my perfect world, two significant changes would be enacted. First, registration would be absolutely voluntary. Second, registered companies would be prohibited from telling anyone they achieved registration. This way we would be assured, organizations become registered for the right reasons.

edited for spelling -db

Second, registered companies would be prohibited from tell anyone they achieved registration.

Interesting idea db.

A couple years ago I noticed this huge banner hanging on a small business on my way home from work. It proclaimed they were ISO 9001 Registered. You couldn't miss it if you tried.

Now, almost 2 years later, the same banner which once claimed a proud accomplishment hangs tatered and barely readable. I wonder each day I drive by if the people inside feel the same way.

Looking at the situation globally, I voted “weaker”. Not because it is not possible to build an “efficient and effective quality assurance system" compliant to, or based on, ISO9001 as some cynics might suggest. But because of many of the reasons already mentioned (registration becomes more like a commodity; as overall Q improves in companies that take Q seriously each additional improvement is less noticeable; some companies that are ISO certified still ship junk, thus making the badge less valuable/respected; etc.) But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea to be certified, or at least have a Q system compliant to, ISO 9001.

ISO certification of course, as mentioned, doesn’t necessarily mean better quality or effectiveness or profits, but this is not a unique situation. Having a board certified surgeon operate on you does not guarantee the surgeon won’t goof up. Having an ASE certified mechanic work on your car doesn’t guarantee a good repair. But you might up the odds some by seeking these “certified” or “compliant” folks. No rational individual or organization expects 100% effectiveness or efficiency from anything they implement, and most of us realize there are no real guarantees in life. But that cannot, and should not, stop us from trying things.

But, if an organization is serious about quality and business improvement in general they can, and will, get improvements, whether they use ISO 9001-1994 or -2000, ISO 9004, MIL- I- 45208A, Malcolm Baldridge, Six Sigma, TQM, or none of the above. Some folks or organizations who have an agenda will insist their way is the best way or only way, or their list of “most important” things is THE list, but ignore them. Simply having the true desire to seriously improve is over 50% of the battle, IMO, the tools and methods you choose are the other, smaller part, IMO.

Like almost anything, the more people that get involved, the worse it gets. I'm probably a radical here, but I'm one of the few people that think that less people should vote, not more. If a person does not take the time to learn the issues, I don't want some uninformed idiot cancelling out my vote. What does this have to do with ISO you ask, well, the more companies and registrars that get involved with ISO, the more interpretation "creep" occurs. It's only human nature, no matter how black and white something appears (and nobody has ever said ISO was black and white), someone will have a different opinion due to education, experience and mental makeup. If I start demanding my suppliers conform, I am going to try to make sure they conform to my interpretations, even though I might be off base. DB is right, the only way real good can happen from ISO is if a company does it because they want to, not because they have to. The question I always tell people to ask is this; if you were starting a business of your own, which parts of ISO would you incorporate? Those parts are the only parts you should want in your QMS. IMHO :thedeal:

tarheel said:

Like almost anything, the more people that get involved, the worse it gets. I'm probably a radical here, but I'm one of the few people that think that less people should vote, not more. If a person does not take the time to learn the issues, I don't want some uninformed idiot cancelling out my vote.

What's the matter, Tar? Poll not going your way? Okay. If I could, I'd take my vote back. Take one off for watering down the standard because more junk companies are getting registered. Your ability to spot morons is awesome. Obviously, I'm one of those uninformed idiots that cancelled your vote. Like it really means anything. Get a grip. :vfunny: :smokin:

Maybe I'm the moron, but I didn't read this as Tar taking any shots at anyone in the Cove over this particular vote/issue. I read it as him talking about voting as in presedential elections, and with people who have no clue about the issues voting based on good looks, what kind of hat they wear, or what their astrological sign is. So which is it, Tar?

Mike S. said:

Maybe I'm the moron, but I didn't read this as Tar taking any shots at anyone in the Cove over this particular vote/issue. I read it as him talking about voting as in presedential elections, and with people who have no clue about the issues voting based on good looks, what kind of hat they wear, or what their astrological sign is. So which is it, Tar?

Mike S.,

I agree with you, completely. I believe I misread the post. Tar, my apologies. Chalk it up to "Grumpy Old Men". Thanks, Mike. :bonk:
:agree:

Looks like the majority says "Not Connected".