Hello all!

I have a question, maybe a rhitoric one:

Why does not ISO publish the standards free of charge? At least the ones concerning management systems.

There is a thing I never could understand: why do they claim that they want the ISO 9000 (a.o.) be promoted as broadly as possible, and at the same time prohobit publishing it on the web. Isn't it illogical?

I know I know!... they also have to make their living. But why should an international organization promoting standards to facilitate international business act as a commerical entity? there must be other ways to finance its activities. Maybe the most logical is - funding from participants.

My view of how it should have been organized is as follows:

There is an international organization established by many countries or many entities in many countries. Its basic goal is convergence of standardization systems in different countries, creation of international standards to facilitate and simplify development of international business.

This organiztion is financed by its members (no matter countries or organizations).

The money is spent for development and promotion of standards.

The standards are published free on the web and sold in paper form (to cover costs). So, companies (or other interested parties) will be able to read the necessary standards and see if they are applicable to their business and could be useful.

Do you think it could be possible or good? theoretically...

Please, vote and comment...

Regards,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Interesting concept...highly unlikely.


Quality carries a price and this is one of them.


GM recently adapted many ISO test methods into their specifications. The only problem was they could not freely distribute those methods without the threat of legal action from ISO. Just another expense to please the customer.


But then again, how many copies of ISO procedures are exchanged freely everyday on the net. Not a problem if you don't get caught.

Free is a good thing...just doesn't happen very often.

I voted "impossible" for the following reason. I may be way off base here (I have no legal background).

If the standard was "free" could not anyone revise it? Years ago (I was not yet a teen), a newspaper guy told me that newspapers do not make money by charging for the paper. They do that only because copyright laws are unenforceable if you don't charge for the publication. If it is free there can be no financial damage. If there is no financial damage, then copyright doesn't apply.

FWIW

db,

Perhaps what you say is true, I'm no lawyer either, but as pointed out earlier the Baldrige criteria are free. Furthermore, if this were the concern could they not just charge $5 or something as opposed to the roughly $100 I think I paid?

I think they are probably so beauracratic and laden with expenses that they need to charge the big bucks. In reality, no company is going to go broke spending $100 on the standards. I'd let any non-profit org. get them for free or at reduced cost if I were in charge, though. Yeah, I'd prefer free for everyone but in the end someone is always going to end-up paying -- the members, taxpayers or users -- and I think the taxpayers should not have to pay on this one. JMHO

Let's see,

The U.S. government, home of capitalism, profit, and greed gives the Baldridge away free.

The E.U. (ISO) home of socialism and human harmony, togetherness, and oneness, charges for an ISO book.

I must be dillusional as I see it should be the other way around!;)

Dear Dave B.,

I would support what Mike and Al say.

Why should we speak of copiright If we take that the standards are disseminated for free? Why should we prohibit free copying them. There must be one official text - indentified as official - to avoid misunderstanding and confusion.
There not less respected and popular models like Baldridge, which ARE free. Nobody bothers of copyright publishing them on the web.

What concerns taxpayers issue, Mike, why should then not pay for the standards. I hold than in ALL countries taxpayers finance things significantly less useful for them. The standards are meant to facilitate industries development and perfection, which can and should also contribute to quality of taxpayers life.

The issue of ISO standards role in the economy is off-topic. it could be discussed in another thread.

Regrads,

Anton

Anton,

I will agree that taxpayers often finance things significantly less useful than the ISO standards, but two wrongs don't make a right. I would still suggest that businesses everywhere should pay their own way on this one. Again, it is only about $100 -- which should not be a burden for any company that needs to use ISO 9001. If it is a burden for some small company, they can still go to a library (at least in the US) and borrow books with the standard in it for reference. But as I said, if I were ISO I would offer discounts for non-profit organizations. Just my opinion.

Why not make certification free ?

Jim,

Feeling cynical today????

Because:

1. Standards cost money to produce, distribute and maintain.
2. Standards have value.

A better question may be:

"Why does ISO not pay for the volunteers to create their standards."

This would allow more participation from the employees of small and middle sized companies.

M Greenaway:

- the certification should be paid (even though it might be not worth the money ;) Jim ) if we want it to be taken serious or kind of serious.
- another reason is that the cost which a company bears is a formal reason for people to feel some responsibility for development and mainenance of a registered QAS

That's how it should be IMHO. How it is?...

John Broomfield wrote:

1. Standards cost money to produce, distribute and maintain.
2. Standards have value.

... I could compare these arguments to what I heard from a lady in St.Petersburg Statistical committee (Russia). She is in her 60's and lived most of her life in Soviet times.
I wanted to get some statistical reports there about social and economic situation in St.Petersburg. They are the only body here to produce OFFICIAL statistics. They publish the reports in 20 copies and sell them at a huge price. I just suggested her that they make 1000 copies and sell them in one day through bookstores for 1/10 of current price. She answered:
- How can we sell these valuable reports for peanuts! our best experts were working to prepare them ...:rolleyes:
Logical?...

regards

Anton

Sorry Anton

I dont think any company over here would warrant operating a QMS effectively 'because it costs them so much to do so'.

Any cost that adds no value would soon be cut off !

OK M Greenaway,

Maybe a wrong argument for an economy of bona fide management and an estblished cost accounting systems. probably I posted it because I am in Russia. ;)

But... why not making football referees work for free?

1. Any auditor doing his job for a particular company should be paid well for it on a legal basis.
2. It is also necessary to attract good experts to auditing.
3. We could make certification free as well, but then we would have to develop a perfect non-profit auditing infrstructure (most probably state), which would require much more resources than development of standards.

regards,

Anton

gpainter said:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I think that say's it all!

CarolX

If I may, I think the original question has to do with paying for the standard itself, not the costs of obtaining and maintaining a certification.

If the ISO 9000:2000 set is so great, why is there already talk of the NEXT revision? Is it because of the ~$100 in revenue raised from each company needing a copy of the new standard?

How many of you have had a 3rd party auditor ask to see a copy of the standard? Anyone hear what happens if they get handed a photocopy? So, what is more important, the ideas behind the standard, or the perpetuation of the standard itself?

ISO TC 176 has in many ways become a self-perpetuating buracracy. In some ways they have improved on their listening skills, but the small organization has a small chance of being heard. In some ways ISO enhances innovation, (by the process emphasis, for example) but IMHO it does at least as much to stifle it, especially for a small, (and should be) agile, concern.

As far as the need for maintaining the integrity of the standard through copyright, refer to a currently active thread here where the page numbers for copies of ISO 9001:2000 from the same source DO NOT MATCH UP!!! So much for integrity maintenance.

Oops, there's still soap in the box, and its starting to rain. I'd better get down now, before I'm all washed up!

I was once cautioned that material I posted on the web could not be tracked for copyright issues. Just too big a job. That maybe 1 reason. My view/opinion is that the organizations make money of the pubs. In the prototype stamping business we love to see revisions to the product because that is where we make the majority of our money.

I have felt for a long while that the interpretations, updates and new "standards" are just another way of organizations to make money. Most of us should remember the initial push for QS in the states. Companies were begging to get auditors out because the demand was so high. Supply and demand, when the demand dies down, restrict or change what needs to be supplied.

It's feasible but impossible.

ISO is an international organization - an independent non-governmental agency formed in 1947. (http://www.iso.ch/) The members are the national standards bodies of participating countries. There is a charge for membership, but that does not cover all of the expenses. I assume that the situation is similar to that of professional societies such as ASQ - membership dues cannot fund everything, because to do that would make the cost so high nobody could afford to join.
All standards developed and issued by ISO are the intellectual property of ISO. They are all protected by international copyright. In this respect ISO is exactly the same as any other publisher or manufacturer. (Look at it this way -- how much of its intellectual property does your company give away for free?) Copies are available as paper or electronic documents and can be purchased for a comparatively trivial cost from a wide variety of sources. Note: this also applies to all other standards-developing organizations that I am aware of.
Comparing the distribution of ISO standards to that of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) criteria is not a fair comparison. The MBNQA criteria are a work product of the US Government. Federal law mandates that it must be available to the public and it cannot be copyrighted.
A number of posts refer to things that "the government" can or should or might do if they were ... -- Remember, though, that the only way any form of "the government" can do anything is if they have money. "The government" gets its money from TAXES extracted from the population. TANSTAAFL! ("There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!") Also, history has proven again and again that this is an area where having "the government" do it is often the least efficient or effective way.
Realistically, the approximate $120 (US) cost of the set of ISO 9000 standards is trivial when compared to (A) the other business costs that are incurred every day, and (B) the benefits that will be obtained from implementing and conforming to the standard.
ISO (like all standards-writing organizations that I am aware of) has a requirement to review all of the standards on a regular cycle. The review is to ensure that the standard continues to be appropriate and effective, achieves its purpose, and responds to the voice of the customer. The way to participate is to become active in the relevant advisory groups and/or technical committees. I am not sure what the review cycle for the ISO 9000 series is, but based on the dates of previous editions (1994 and 1987) I would expect to see a reviewed - and possibly changed - version come out around 2006.
Craig H. referred to a case where page numbers do not match in quotations made by different people. I have two very simple explanations for this. First, the standard is originally published on size A4 paper (210 x 297 mm) that is commonly used everywhere in the world except the United States. When it is reformatted to fit US standard "Letter" size paper (216 x 279 mm) there will always be a change in page numbering simply because the paper is shorter. Second, the standard is published in two official languages - French and English (the British variety). Translations from these languages can change the number of words on a page and therefore the page count.

I had a company say - "let's scan in the standard and post it on our intranet." Knowing that violated copyright, I checked into it, and a site license for a 25 seat internal company intranet was like 2K/year. Huh? So if I get the $50 .pdf version, then its only good at my work station? No hard copies either? All my companies have a legal original. I guess you could argue that their quality system is the only reference they need.

So one question might be - are quality manuals that repeat the standard a copyright violation?
I know a HS essay would call it plagerism.

Jim Wade said:
----X----
Another question that has always intrigued me is "why repeat the standard in a quality manual; what does that communicate to whom and for what business purpose?"

rgds Jim

Yes, why indeed? The one reason I can think of is that it makes it easy to audit... which is not a good enough reason imo. The system is there for the users, not the auditors.

/Claes

Right thats it !

I cant sit back and watch this trans-european intellectual fondling anymore.

Its all about what you can get away with for the cert on the wall, and before Johnny rears his ugly head can I just say that there is nothing in ISO9001 or AS9100 that says anything about 'motivation for quality'.:bonk: :thedeal: :frust:

Right thats it !

I cant sit back and watch this trans-european intellectual fondling anymore.

Its all about what you can get away with for the cert on the wall, and before Johnny rears his ugly head can I just say that there is nothing in ISO9001 or AS9100 that says anything about 'motivation for quality'.:bonk: :thedeal: :frust:

Where the heck did that come from?

Where the heck did that come from?

Not to worry... It's an old post, and this thread is not complete. Some posts have been deleted, so it's a bit out of sync....

/Claes

All I can add is that someone has to pay for the "standards" to be published and somebody has to pay for the cost. My problem would be with organizations selling them at different prices for different "levels of "participation" Sounds like one group subsidizing the other.


Al...

To add to this old -- but still relevant -- discussion, there is a link to an excellent article that discusses this topic in depth.

The Myth of Free Standards: Giving Away the Farm (http://www.ses-standards.org/library/bank.pdf) (a PDF document)
Andrew N. Bank, September 1998

If you want it in HTML format, then look here (http://www.techstreet.com/essay.html).

An example from the paper:
... By making standards available at no cost, we are effectively saying to users, "An army of volunteers just spent colossal amounts of time and money on developing this standard. It should be an essential part of your product development, one of the important requirements for market acceptance, and the blueprints for the utmost safety and quality of your product. Now, here it is for free." How credible are our statements of value and integrity if we give standards away for free? ...

To add to this old -- but still relevant -- discussion, there is a link to an excellent article that discusses this topic in depth.

The Myth of Free Standards: Giving Away the Farm (http://www.ses-standards.org/library/bank.pdf) (a PDF document)
Andrew N. Bank, September 1998

If you want it in HTML format, then look here (http://www.techstreet.com/essay.html).

An example from the paper:Good post, Graeme. I happen to have that document in my file from when it was first published. Yes. It is still pertinent regarding payment of some kind. The question today is "some Standards organizations and their allies" are charging fees way beyond their direct costs of producing the Standard (including all the soft costs of care and feeding of volunteers) and many fear the fees are merely going to create a burgeoning cadré of paid bureaucrats within the Standards organization. (Viz. ASQ increase of fees for certifications and training.)

IMHO - ISO as an organization dosent "Publish standards" it creates them - although there must be a Master copy laying around somewhere over there..

Then it lets people know which ones are current and it allows folks like ASQ
A "non-profit" :confused: Society (hehehe) :magic: to publish & distribute them.

I dont know where your set of standards came from but mine came from ASQ for a SET publishing price - which As far as I know is not negeotiable :lmao:

IMHO - ISO as an organization dosent "Publish standards" it creates them - although there must be a Master copy laying around somewhere over there..

Then it lets people know which ones are current and it allows folks like ASQ
A "non-profit" :confused: Society (hehehe) :magic: to publish & distribute them.

I dont know where your set of standards came from but mine came from ASQ for a SET publishing price - which As far as I know is not negeotiable :lmao:
Jim,

As the sponsor of an international standard, ISO actually does have some control over the minimum selling price. Since every standard is copyrighted, every organization that republishes it must pay a fee to the copyright holder. It seems logical that the minimum break-even price would then be the copyright fee plus the cost of production and distribution.

ISO standards are normally distributed by the ISO member organization of a country. In the USA, that is ANSI. In the specific case of quality managment system standards, ANSI recognizes ASQ as the appropriate standards developing organization in the US. Both organizations sell copies of the standards. They may or may not have their own covers on them. They may charge different prices -- actually, I have seen a number of cases where it is more expensive to buy it from ANSI.

One way to compare costs of standards is to look up the price on the ISO web site. It is listed in Swiss Francs (CHF) and any curreny-conversion web site will allow you to find the current price in your own currency. That can then be used as a comparison benchmark. For example, ISO 9001:2000 is listed by ISO at CHF 97,00 -- today (2004-06-11) this equates to US$ 77.15. The ASQ price for this standard (print version) is $40.00 for members and $50.00 for others.

Other standards developing organizations - ASTM and IEEE come to mind instantly - sell their own standards and rarely let other organizations do so. The major exception seems to be if the standard is accepted as an American National Standard, in which case you can also purchase it through ANSI.

There are also commercial third parties that are in the business of reselling standards - a major one is headquartered near Denver. They must first purchase reproduction rights to the standard from an appropriate organization, and then resell it to their customers.

There are also retailers that sell copies of standards as books - a popular internet-based bookseller, for example. When a customer buys through them, the bookseller must first purchase the standard from the publisher (ASQ for example). While they may be able to purchase copies at a "wholesale" price, that is not guaranteed and is not always passed on to their retail customers. And then they add a markup to cover their expenses, plus a "shipping and handling" fee.

Yes, organizations such as ASQ and ANSI make a profit (show an operating surplus). They must, in order to survive. There's nothing wrong with that. After all, an objective of your own organization is to make a profit as well. Otherwise, it will not survive. (Deming, The new economics [I think])

ISO does not publish the standard. The Member Bodies of ISO publish the standard. The costs are determined by the individual Member Bodies of ISO so they can cover their costs of publication and distribution. Make sure you have all the facts before criticizing anything. In the US, the ASQ publishes ISO 9001:2000 under the watchful eye of ANSI (a governemntal body). I can assure you that the ASQ is NOT making lots of money off of the sale of ISO 9001:2000. Consultants and registrars are making the money.

Also, if you do not like the process, please join your member body so your voice can be heard. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Thank you, Dirk van Putten

I've been thinking abut this thread. Why aren't all published materials free? Why do we pay for published material? Why would a standard be free but most other published material have a cost? Is there a reason we accept that we have to pay for a book but a standard should be free? What is the difference? I have to pay for a Deming book but the ISO 9001:2000 standard should be free? Why?

Wondering, Dirk van Putten

I've been thinking abut this thread. Why aren't all published materials free? Why do we pay for published material? Why would a standard be free but most other published material have a cost? Is there a reason we accept that we have to pay for a book but a standard should be free? What is the difference? I have to pay for a Deming book but the ISO 9001:2000 standard should be free? Why?

Wondering, Dirk van Putten
Now that you mention it...

Before I started working in Quality I was involved in Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). EDI is the computer to computer exchange of business documents (transaction sets). The EDI standards come from ANSI's accredited standards committee called ASC X12. ASC X12 (http://www.x12.org/x12org/index.cfm) releases a new EDI standard (for hundreds of transaction sets like purchase orders, invoices, acknowledgments, etc.) every year. Each new standard costs around $500 last time I had to purchase one.

I say that a quality standard released every 6 years at $90 is not bad.

Jaime

Just to turn this discussion on its head.


Why not make ISO/QS/TS standards really expensive?


All automobiles do the same basic function. Why is a Bentley perceived to be of more value than a Hyundai?

What if we made the standards cost approximately $US 10,000.00 or about the going rate for 1 day of high priced business/financial consulting help.

Why not make them unavailable to anyone but the highest ranking company official?

Why not have them only available only to executives during a 1 week closed door awareness session, held in a glamorous resort/golf destination like Hawaii?

Imagine what would happen.

High cost and exclusivity! It must be good, look how much it cost!

How nice would it be to have the boss come back from the resort demanding we implement ISO/QS/TS.

Seriously, I call ISO/QS/TS the cheapest consultant money can buy.

I pick real examples of failures that have happened and show where ISO/QS/TS had anticipated the problem. The problem may have been prevented if only we had implemented and followed some common sense business ideas.

Standards should be free because they principly solicit a good practice, fruitful for all in the ultimate long run. To promote such good practices people must be exhorted and enthused to contribute or participate.

But good advice if free is never valued!
So making standards free is good but not likely to happen.

savda

Standards should be free because they principly solicit a good practice, fruitful for all in the ultimate long run. To promote such good practices people must be exhorted and enthused to contribute or participate.

But good advice if free is never valued!
So making standards free is good but not likely to happen.

savdaJust a simple question - if the Standards were free, who would pay for bringing together a group of experts to establish the Standards? Who would pay to maintain the clearinghouse to distribute copies? Who would maintain a system to offer interpretation of Standards when questions arise?

When the United States of America maintained a set of Standards, they were free to users, but were subsidized by the US taxpayers. Subsequently, the US government went out of the Standards business and turned it over to agencies and nonprofit organizations which charge fees to cover costs, overhead, and establish a reserve for future additions and changes to the catalog of Standards.

Just think about the costs of maintaining the physical Standards and certified copies used for so long (meter bar, kilogram weights, etc.) - I'm pretty sure it wasn't free!

Some folks err in thinking only about their own small sphere of activities instead of thinking about the interconnected activities and the costs pertaining to them which enable the individual to carry out his small sphere of activity. Take any small activity and start to write down all the interconnected activities necessary to perform the simple task.

Telephone call:

designer and manufacturer of phone
maintain switching center
maintain wires or radio towers
pay for land or rights of way for towers and wires to run
governments to manage radio waves
satellites, rockets, fuel, design, manufacture, repair, replacement
smelters to make the metals used in wires and components
miners to mine the raw materials
plastics molders, chemical companies, oil companies
Standards organizations to make sure one phone works with another
Designers, engineers, marketing folk
electricity generation (coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind?)
and so on, ad nauseum.
So, now, tell us why a phone call should be free.

Great thread,
The bottom line for many who have purchased the so called standards is: are the ISO 9000 standards and benchmarks useful to my business setup?
The answer may vary according to the successful use and implementation of the standards into existing and measured business processes.
I am intrigued regarding the almost wholesale rejection in some business quarters of the ISO standards.
It just doesn't work for some business setup's, to use and implement the ISO 9000 standards. I have witnessed this enigma myself and, I have to say, it is more common these days to see organizations reject the ISO 9000 standards and benchmarks for the development, use and process improvement of internally developed business process systems that in general exceed the requirements and benchmarks of the IOS.
The problem may be the fact that, organizations are fast tracking their internal business systems in a manner and format that, would be hindered by the ISO standard.
JMO, FWIW.
Wallace.

I've never thought that they should be free. Creating and maintaining standards costs money. It's that simple.

ISO is an international organization so their documents cannot be compared to the documents put out by a single government. Ultimately taxes pay for "free" US government documents, so unless someone's suggesting an equivalent internation tax collection agency (egad!) it's illogical to assume that the ISO documents should be "free" in the same sense.

I've got no problem with the way the standards are written, revised, controlled or issued. I don't think they can, or should, be free, for the reasons many people have outlined above.

My question would be - wouldn't it be a win-win situation if the standards cost less than they do currently? For example, if the prices were cut to, say, a fifth what they are now, wouldn't they sell more than 5 times as many copies? (I know these economics don't take into account fixed/variable costs etc. but you get the idea).

If a company has paid, say, $100 for a document, and other people in that company would like a copy, at that price people are simply going to photocopy it. After all, so long as you're careful, what realistically are the chances of getting caught? If those copies cost $20 each, wouldn't companies be more likely to order 10 copies to begin with?

I am absolutely not advocating that people copy standards illegally :nope: I'm just saying that is the reality. I've worked for and visited companies where it is clear that people know the copyright laws, they just don't care because photocopying is free and they know they won't get caught.

Make the standards cheaper, advertise it well, and I think you'd sell a lot more copies. As for offending the great experts who invested their time and effort painstakingly preparing the standard...how offended would they be to know how many people have contributed NOTHING for their work?

Does anyone have any knowledge of instances where a company has been caught for this? I heard a few years ago that a huge computer manufacturer (name withheld) was fined around $40,000 after an auditor found a photocopied standard. Apparently the fine is calculated based not on how many copies were actually FOUND but how many copies a company of that size could reasonably be expected to have, given that there is evidence that copyright theft is going on.

Its all a big scam. The man who came up with this whole thing was/is a genius. Anyway, free will never be an option.

Hello Justin:

How do you know it was a man? And how do you know it was a single person?

Seem like a much too simple explination for the history of quality system standards. But maybe it was just a single man?

Thank you, Dirk

Hello Justin:

How do you know it was a man? And how do you know it was a single person?

Seem like a much too simple explination for the history of quality system standards. But maybe it was just a single man?

Thank you, Dirk

I don't. should say "person", my bad.

I don't know it was a single person.

Occam's Razor.

I must have been having a hella day when I was on that rant. :biglaugh:

Anton,

You are absolutely correct. Quality management system standards should be free. If we really cared about quality (as a society) we would ensure that they were widely communicated, accessible and inexpensive. This way they could be used by small non-profit organizations who will never become registered, but could become examples of best quality practices.

A model for how this can be done can be found in Eric S. Raymond's "The Magic Cauldron". You can buy a copy of this article in his copyright book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". Or you can read a copy on-line (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/); because Eric cares about communicating the advanatges of open-source.

Anton,

You are absolutely correct. Quality management system standards should be free. If we really cared about quality (as a society) we would ensure that they were widely communicated, accessible and inexpensive. This way they could be used by small non-profit organizations who will never become registered, but could become examples of best quality practices.

A model for how this can be done can be found in Eric S. Raymond's "The Magic Cauldron". You can buy a copy of this article in his copyright book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". Or you can read a copy on-line (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/); because Eric cares about communicating the advanatges of open-source.
What is the big deal about spending $50 for a copy of an ISO standard?
My experience with non-profit organizations (Manufacturing Extension Partnership) is that they can afford to buy a copy of standards. But in my opinion quality isn't really as important to them as you may think.

According to this book quality is free. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0451625854/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-5532271-7014345#reader-link

What is the big deal about spending $50 for a copy of an ISO standard?
My experience with non-profit organizations (Manufacturing Extension Partnership) is that they can afford to buy a copy of standards. But in my opinion quality isn't really as important to them as you may think.

According to this book quality is free. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0451625854/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-5532271-7014345#reader-link
Actually, by the time one gets through adding all the associated documents to a Standard, the bill often runs far beyond $50. The point is that folks in charge (top management) ALWAYS are faced with decisions. The mark of the good leaders is how well they assess the risk/reward of each decision to get the best bang for their bucks.

Phil Crosby was a great populist for Quality, certainly much more accessible (call that "readable") to the average Joe than either Deming or Juran. Phil was the most blatant in his hype, but all three essentially said that implementation of GOOD quality methods would save more than the initial or maintaining costs.

standards for free?.....sounds good.....it is possible.

i would like to have a copy of my own, particularly the Statistical Process Control Standard but i'm just an ordinary employee of the company i worked for and i can't afford to buy one.

the reason is that i'm a member of the company's SPC team and i need to study about SPC, and the only time i have is very limited so i need to study at home. i think there is a rule that youcannot photocopy such documents and i can't borrow the Standard here and bring it home because it is company property.

more power to you all!

standards for free?.....sounds good.....it is possible.

i would like to have a copy of my own, particularly the Statistical Process Control Standard but i'm just an ordinary employee of the company i worked for and i can't afford to buy one.

the reason is that i'm a member of the company's SPC team and i need to study about SPC, and the only time i have is very limited so i need to study at home. i think there is a rule that youcannot photocopy such documents and i can't borrow the Standard here and bring it home because it is company property.

more power to you all!

Welcome to the Cove, Kid :bigwave:

Here is an excellent free resource from NIST: NIST Statistics Handbook (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/).

Welcome to the Cove, Kid :bigwave:

Here is an excellent free resource from NIST: NIST Statistics Handbook (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/).

many thanks for the resource especially the warm welcome...more power to you all..:agree1: :cool:

Until a better mousetrap is invented, not likely to occur. I think the USP model is the best one.

In fact, standards could be free.
All standards/directives made by the European Union are completely free. As ISO receives money from several countries, this is not utopic...
;)

People will buy anything if they are convinced they need it. And obviously the standards are necessary. The custodians of the standards charge what they can get; thus ASQ can charge $100 for a standard while the Bureau of Indian Standards will sell their version for a couple dollars. It's always been all about making money!

"Somebody's gotta go back and get a s**tload of dimes!" - Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles

Madawab:

You are right. You wouldn't believe how much money is pouring into the ASQ for the sale of standards. It is such a simple issue and it all boils down to what the market will bear.

Just last week at the US Standards Group meeting we even had mints on the table in addition to the ice water. It was awesome!

Regards,

Dirk

I wish the standards should be freely available just a click away and in this way, the Quality concepts can be promoted and practised on a much larger scale.

'cos the ISO 13485 was a copyrighted material, US FDA thought of going a different way by maintaining 21 CFR Part 820 (for Quality systems for Medical Devices) and not making it obsolete even though its similar to ISO 13485. These federal regulations are freely available for public information.

Can we see free ISO standards sometime in future ??? :(

I wish the standards should be freely available just a click away and in this way, the Quality concepts can be promoted and practised on a much larger scale.

'cos the ISO 13485 was a copyrighted material, US FDA thought of going a different way by maintaining 21 CFR Part 820 (for Quality systems for Medical Devices) and not making it obsolete even though its similar to ISO 13485. These federal regulations are freely available for public information.

Can we see free ISO standards sometime in future ??? :(No, since it takes resources to maintain them. The maintenance of FDA regulations have been funded indirectly through US taxpayers. Recently the FDA has imposed user fees for Pre Market Approval applications and 510(k) Pre Market notifcation applications. Who knows if there will be fees imposed for other services in the future. But, regulations are laws and they will probably remain free of charge

:bigwave: I would put the standards as free for view, in order to learn due to there are so many standards that sometimes the companies do not buy all, for the continues changing of standards is a nightmare

I would issue the standards as free view, and after that if the company apply them of course they have the responsibility to have it.

Bear in mind that Regulatory Laws and Directives are for free, but obviously the focus is different due to they put task to cizitizen and the positive law concept must apply.

:biglaugh:

Long post - I have spent quite a time digesting all the views and comments.

Now, I dont have all the answers but how about this as a concept....

Apart from individual companies manufacturing goods or providing services, there are customers and suppliers to these companies. All of these customers and supliers in turn have their customers and suppliers and so on. Now all of the good people involved in this chain (a) pay taxes, (b) are customers.
As customers they want value for money. As a government, income comes thru taxes - which comes from people who have jobs at successful businesses, as well as those bussinesses themselves.
So, it is the interest of the government to have good quality products or services in their countries. It would also be beneficial for their trading partners. So, if everyone stands to benefit from a good quality system implemented, why not get governments to fork out to support the free issue of standards to firms in their country. The cost will be recovered from taxes, which is paid by everyone - except those shady characters who dodge paying tax. Now, an employee should have a vested intrest in the standard because indirectly, he or she is paying towards it. Further, the govenment can promote quality because it is involved. Further more we can heed Juran "Quality is free, but not a gift".

Just an idea ......

Long post - I have spent quite a time digesting all the views and comments.

Now, I dont have all the answers but how about this as a concept....

Apart from individual companies manufacturing goods or providing services, there are customers and suppliers to these companies. All of these customers and supliers in turn have their customers and suppliers and so on. Now all of the good people involved in this chain (a) pay taxes, (b) are customers.
As customers they want value for money. As a government, income comes thru taxes - which comes from people who have jobs at successful businesses, as well as those bussinesses themselves.
So, it is the interest of the government to have good quality products or services in their countries. It would also be beneficial for their trading partners. So, if everyone stands to benefit from a good quality system implemented, why not get governments to fork out to support the free issue of standards to firms in their country. The cost will be recovered from taxes, which is paid by everyone - except those shady characters who dodge paying tax. Now, an employee should have a vested intrest in the standard because indirectly, he or she is paying towards it. Further, the govenment can promote quality because it is involved. Further more we can heed Juran "Quality is free, but not a gift".

Just an idea ......Or, how about the companies, that make a profit, spend some money to purchase the standards, so that they can make more money. Don't you think that is a novel idea?

Spend some to make some ....... You're right - works for me. Oh, and appologies - "Quality is Free" is Crosby.

In fact, standards could be free.
All standards/directives made by the European Union are completely free. As ISO receives money from several countries, this is not utopic...
;)

Clearly European Directives are free and on-line since they are framework laws. European Standards are not free anywhere, just like ISO. If the Portuguese government is subsidising the purchase of EN standards let me know and I will form a queue along with thousands of others.

Incidentally did you know that the word 'Directive' which in French has the neutral meaning of framework law is offensive in (UK) English and the cause of much misunderstanding and hostility in the UK press.

Strange results on this thread.
It appears that 68% of people who have polled on this question believe that they should be and could be free, but the majority of people commenting feel that it is either not feasable to have a free issue or have postulated that it is illegal or impossible. :notme:

I had a company say - "let's scan in the standard and post it on our intranet." Knowing that violated copyright, I checked into it, and a site license for a 25 seat internal company intranet was like 2K/year. Huh? So if I get the $50 .pdf version, then its only good at my work station? No hard copies either? All my companies have a legal original. I guess you could argue that their quality system is the only reference they need.

So one question might be - are quality manuals that repeat the standard a copyright violation?
I know a HS essay would call it plagerism.



Hi all,

The first part of this quote really interests me. I was always under the impression that it would not be a copyright violation if our company bought the standard, i.e ISO 9001:2000, and used it for internal purposes only. It could be copied for our own use such as internal auditor training, etc. as long as it is controlled. We do mark the copies as a "working copy" and retain the original. Auditors have never questioned our having copies, either...at least not yet (since 1995).

Posting (scanning) on your company QMS intranet so that the most current version is controlled and available is also "taboo?" Haven't done this yet, but was thinking about it. :notangel: If you have to buy a Standard for each person in a company that needs one, then I think it's a big ripoff and maybe the Standards should be free! :mad:

Viki

Hi all,

The first part of this quote really interests me. I was always under the impression that it would not be a copyright violation if our company bought the standard, i.e ISO 9001:2000, and used it for internal purposes only. It could be copied for our own use such as internal auditor training, etc. as long as it is controlled. We do mark the copies as a "working copy" and retain the original. Auditors have never questioned our having copies, either...at least not yet (since 1995).

Posting (scanning) on your company QMS intranet so that the most current version is controlled and available is also "taboo?" Haven't done this yet, but was thinking about it. :notangel: If you have to buy a Standard for each person in a company that needs one, then I think it's a big ripoff and maybe the Standards should be free! :mad:

Viki

Most copyrights allow for 1 electronic copy (at least the one I bought), but I think that maybe making this available for viewing only (not printing) would not violate the Copyright Law, but I am not a Copyright Attorney.

If your company has any Attorneys, ask them, to be on the safe side.

Clearly European Directives are free and on-line since they are framework laws. European Standards are not free anywhere, just like ISO. If the Portuguese government is subsidising the purchase of EN standards let me know and I will form a queue along with thousands of others.

Incidentally did you know that the word 'Directive' which in French has the neutral meaning of framework law is offensive in (UK) English and the cause of much misunderstanding and hostility in the UK press.


Of course and unfortunately European standards are not free in Portugal.
But lots of customer’s requirements today came from EU Directives, and as they are completely free, we can still save lots of money!
In fact today nothing is free, for having “free” precious information in the EU, we have to pay it from our taxes. I think that if we wanted ISO to do the same, which would be perfectly possible, but it would also come from taxpayer’s money...:(
The word Directive may in fact came from the French, but is very well seen here in Portugal. :agree1:

Most copyrights allow for 1 electronic copy (at least the one I bought), but I think that maybe making this available for viewing only (not printing) would not violate the Copyright Law, but I am not a Copyright Attorney.

If your company has any Attorneys, ask them, to be on the safe side.



Has anyone had any experience/trouble with copyright infringement of ISO Standards by copying or posting intranet within your company after purchasing an ISO Standard? Or doesn't anyone want to admit to anything? :notme:

Viki

Has anyone had any experience/trouble with copyright infringement of ISO Standards by copying or posting intranet within your company after purchasing an ISO Standard? Or doesn't anyone want to admit to anything? :notme:

Viki

I don't think anyone wants to admit it. :caution:

Has anyone had any experience/trouble with copyright infringement of ISO Standards by copying or posting intranet within your company after purchasing an ISO Standard? Or doesn't anyone want to admit to anything? :notme:

Viki

I posted a similar question in this thread (#37) almost exactly a year ago, and it killed the thread for nearly 2 months!!!

IMHO, a large proportion of UK companies commit copyright theft on a regular basis. Why? Because they can, with little or no chance of being caught. I've audited around a hundred companies ranging in size from 3 employees up to 60,000 - and pretty much every one was blatantly breaking copyright law in one way or another.

ISO standards are a good example of this - I regularly see illegal copies of standards. Why do companies do this? Simple - standards are priced at such a level that it will always be a no-brainer for most companies to copy the standard illegally as many times as they want and to save $$$$$$. As I stated back in that post a year ago, I've only heard of one company ever getting caught.

As I also stated in that post - why not make the standards CHEAPER, not FREE??? :confused:

Example - current position:

Copy of ISO9001 = $100 (or whatever) - copies bought by small or medium sized company? 1. Then illegally copied many times as required.

Better position for everybody:

Copy of ISO9001 = $10 - copies bought? As many as we need.

The point? $100 is a lot of money to pay for a 30 page document. But it's OK because we can copy it for free and not get caught. At $10 per copy? GREAT! OK - let's have 20 copies...

As we say in the UK - it's not rocket science. As you say in the US - do the math. As my 7 year old niece would say - DUH!!! :bonk:

Thanks Baldrick and Coury,

I guess I know what we need to do...at least when auditors come around. I'm sure it would only take that one certain auditor to make your life miserable if he felt so inclined.

Viki

I guess I know what we need to do...at least when auditors come around. I'm sure it would only take that one certain auditor to make your life miserable if he felt so inclined.

Viki

How true.

But remember, the Auditor is there to validate/verify that you have Quality Management System in place, and it is effective.

This hits home. I ordered AS9100B the other day and it has DRM (digital rights management = copyright protection) on the PDF file so it locks so only one computer can view it. DRM doesn't deter people from copyright infringement it just makes people angrier and more determined to beat the system (ie, backfires). I ordered it this way because at least you have 2 print outs you can make, if you order the the standard in bound form you only have one reference and it is very difficult to copy. :notme:

So whats my point? The further folks go to charge high costs and protect copyrights the further people will go to defeat them.
Isn't the whole purpose of a standard to proliferate its use?
Maybe they think like the oil companies that by decreasing its supply will drive up demand? :mad:

This hits home. I ordered AS9100B the other day and it has DRM (digital rights management = copyright protection) on the PDF file so it locks so only one computer can view it. DRM doesn't deter people from copyright infringement it just makes people angrier and more determined to beat the system (ie, backfires). I ordered it this way because at least you have 2 print outs you can make, if you order the the standard in bound form you only have one reference and it is very difficult to copy. :notme:

It becomes a great challenge to defeat the system. That is why agree with you.

So whats my point? The further folks go to charge high costs and protect copyrights the further people will go to defeat them.

I understand your point and how true it is.

Isn't the whole purpose of a standard to proliferate its use? Maybe they think like the oil companies that by decreasing its supply will drive up demand? :mad:

Isn't that what the Business world is built on - P&L?

I posted a similar question in this thread (#37) almost exactly a year ago, and it killed the thread for nearly 2 months!!!

IMHO, a large proportion of UK companies commit copyright theft on a regular basis. Why? Because they can, with little or no chance of being caught. I've audited around a hundred companies ranging in size from 3 employees up to 60,000 - and pretty much every one was blatantly breaking copyright law in one way or another.

ISO standards are a good example of this - I regularly see illegal copies of standards. Why do companies do this? Simple - standards are priced at such a level that it will always be a no-brainer for most companies to copy the standard illegally as many times as they want and to save $$$$$$. As I stated back in that post a year ago, I've only heard of one company ever getting caught.

As I also stated in that post - why not make the standards CHEAPER, not FREE??? :confused:

Example - current position:

Copy of ISO9001 = $100 (or whatever) - copies bought by small or medium sized company? 1. Then illegally copied many times as required.

Better position for everybody:

Copy of ISO9001 = $10 - copies bought? As many as we need.

The point? $100 is a lot of money to pay for a 30 page document. But it's OK because we can copy it for free and not get caught. At $10 per copy? GREAT! OK - let's have 20 copies...

As we say in the UK - it's not rocket science. As you say in the US - do the math. As my 7 year old niece would say - DUH!!! :bonk:At $10 it will still be illegally copied. Someone once said, "locks are for honest people". It's the same thing.

Why not make certification free ?

...then making thousands jobless...including me....:mad:


:bonk:

Yep! The whole issue of copyright is based on "trust."
As technology progresses, it is easier and easier to make exact copies at low cost.

15 years ago, the issue was corporate and other purchasers of copyrighted documents using their copy machines to make cheap copies, often not very good quality ones. Today, with scanners and decrypting software combined with super printers, anything from 100 dollar bills to children's books can be copied with good enough quality to fool the casual observer and even some expert ones.

The risk to the "illegal" copier is primarily from whistleblowers turning them in. Some copyright holders (especially Microsoft for its software) are zealous in prosecuting violators and they have been successful in getting favorable laws that allow them to collect treble damages under RICO laws, leaving room to pay rewards to whistleblowers.

So far, ISO has only been zealous in protecting its trademarks (ISO, etc.) from web sites which incorporate those trademarks in the url and have issued many "cease and desist" letters with some success. Who knows when or if ISO and SAE (holder of AS9100) may become aggressive in pursuing copyright violators?

The bigger the company and larger the number of illegal copies, the sweeter the target for a whistleblower (usually an ex-employee with a grudge for being "unfairly" terminated.) So, each potential violator must assess the benefit of violating against the risk of getting caught and prosecuted.

(My experience is the most egregious violators have the highest number of disaffected ex-employees as potential whistleblowers.)

Why not make certification free ?

Wow! What an idea?:cool:

business as usual

Hi Triad,
As you can see, this thread seems to have died and I fear that ISO is maybe heading the same way:nope:.... the demand for ISO has long ago leveled off and may even be on a decline..... at least where I am:2cents:. Is it because ofthe cost or just because everyone has given up on asking the questions that would keep it alive......?:(

... the demand for ISO has long ago leveled off and may even be on a decline..... at least where I am:2cents:.
What evidence is your statement based on? Last time I checked there were more than a million certified organizations in the world, and the number has increased every year since publication. Doesn't that mean that the demand is increasing?

I assume that when you say "ISO" you are talking about ISO 9001, not the International Organization for Standardization... :rolleyes:

What evidence is your statement based on? Last time I checked there were more than a million certified organizations in the world, and the number has increased every year since publication. Doesn't that mean that the demand is increasing?The ISO Survey 2007 (http://www.iso.org/iso/survey2007.pdf) shows a decline in the rate of growth, but still a growth (check charts at the bottom pf page 5). In some countries, e.g. the USA, the survey showed a marked decline in number of certificates. It is unclear if that is due to a real decline in the number of certificates, the previous numbers being inflated or the methodology for the accounting....

In the Maritimes there is a marked decrease in the number of organizations seeking recertification..... not orginal certification:(...All seem to opt to just simply "be in compliance with" ISO 9001.
Reasoning... from what I can determine... seems to be that the costs are to high.... "once we have a system in place, why spend a lot of money having it audited every year when it can be done 'in-house'".:confused:

In the Maritimes Maritimes?:confused: Where/what is the "Maritimes"?Reasoning... from what I can determine... seems to be that the costs are to high.... "once we have a system in place, why spend a lot of money having it audited every year when it can be done 'in-house'".Undoubtedly, the most benefits of an international standard lie with the intrinsic potential gains of properly implementing it. But, in my experience, organizations that don't have an external pressure to demonstrate compliance with a standard, do a lousy job of maintaining systems. When I was a QMS Lead Auditor, many times I went to organizations that would tell me upfront: We are in full compliance with ISO 9001. We just need someone to certify us now. Invariably, during my assessments of such organizations, unquestionable objective evidence was found that major holes/gaps existed. One of the major drawbacks for self declaration of conformity to a management system standard is the lack of robust internal audits.

Ineffective internal auditing is rampant, even in properly certified organizations. In self-declaring organizations, internal auditing is either non-existent or something that resembles a stand-up comedy, with very few exceptions.

Maritimes?:confused: Where/what is the "Maritimes"?
Maritimes
Sort of equivalent to a reference to "the east coast" (or west) in the U.S.

Maritimes???:mg:
Why, .....I thought everyone knows that the Maritimes is Canada's Atlantic Playground:D :agree1:

The best things in life are free, standards are not free, therefore standards are not the best thing.

Are any of you familiar with SA-8000 http://www.sa-intl.org/ ? The standard is free, but you have to purchase the guidance document to be compliant with the standard (section 9.6 of the SA-8000:2008 standard). :biglaugh: Why don't they put the two documents together, charge one price for the whole thing and call it a day?

In fact standards like ISO 9001 should be free!
After red, yellow, green, it's the most known "standard"!

In self-declaring organizations, internal auditing is either non-existent or something that resembles a stand-up comedy, with very few exceptions.

Yes, indeedy. Not worth the paper it's not written on, either.

In self-declaring organizations, internal auditing is either non-existent or something that resembles a stand-up comedy, with very few exceptions.

Yes, indeedy. Not worth the paper it's not written on, either. You left off the important antecedent sentence in Sidney's comment:

Ineffective internal auditing is rampant, even in properly certified organizations.

We seem to be discussing not the superior efficacy of "properly certified" organizations' internal audits, but degrees of impotence of internal audit processes in general.

We seem to be discussing not the superior efficacy of "properly certified" organizations' internal audits, but degrees of impotence of internal audit processes in general.That is correct. According to my statistics, this is only the 187th time we talk about ineffective internal audits (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=294319&postcount=16)...:tg:

That is correct. According to my statistics, this is only the 187th time we talk about ineffective internal audits (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=294319&postcount=16)...:tg:

Great point. Very interesting topic. Do you have the statistics of ineffective third-party certification audit?

Great point. Very interesting topic. Do you have the statistics of ineffective third-party certification audit?Yes, I do. But I only share it with one Apprentice at a time.

Yes, I do. But I only share it with one Apprentice at a time.
I understand that.

Yes, I do. But I only share it with one Apprentice at a time.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

So what if the standard is costing your organization like 100 buck. What's a big deal!:)

Did not read all the replies (apologize in advance for that).

The ISO standards shall be free (and for that matter any standards) for information.
Just made them available for download, in pdf encrypted with a big, diagonal watermark (uncontrolled, reference, etc.).
The ones (individuals, companies) that need them for day to day work would buy the un-marked version.

Quite simple....

Did not read all the replies (apologize in advance for that).

The ISO standards shall be free (and for that matter any standards) for information.
Just made them available for download, in pdf encrypted with a big, diagonal watermark (uncontrolled, reference, etc.).
The ones (individuals, companies) that need them for day to day work would buy the un-marked version.

Quite simple....In homage to Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fart-bin.com%2Fart%2Fomodest.html&ei=L7SbSuKGIanunQfy9fSVCA&rct=j&q=a+modest+proposal+by+jonathan+swift&usg=AFQjCNG1UxPcsICAsWlp1GO3yLphD1pe5g)" - why not make ALL newspapers, books, and Standards free and take away any incentive for authors to write new or updated versions? Soon, all existing reading material (hard copy or electronic) would rot or fade away and we wouldn't have to be bothered with any of that pesky stuff any more. Most especially, students wouldn't have to worry about textbooks or homework any more and all teachers would REALLY be as dumb as I thought they were when I was in sixth grade.

Hi Wes,
I really understand your line of thought and sentiments, however, I still find it rather strange one should have to pay for a set of non-compulsory rules.:rolleyes:
I also understand that these rules, if one should choses to use them as guidance for compiling/generating a system for quality, is a tool/guide to determine and create your own system with, and should thus be paid for.
My feeling is that, where it is not realy a requirement to comply with these rules, why not make it easier on the consumer......Give them the rules and then, should the consumer feel it necessary to validate compliance, charge them for checking their compliance (auditing process)

Hi Wes,
I really understand your line of thought and sentiments, however, I still find it rather strange one should have to pay for a set of non-compulsory rules.:rolleyes:
I also understand that these rules, if one should choses to use them as guidance for compiling/generating a system for quality, is a tool/guide to determine and create your own system with, and should thus be paid for.
My feeling is that, where it is not realy a requirement to comply with these rules, why not make it easier on the consumer......Give them the rules and then, should the consumer feel it necessary to validate compliance, charge them for checking their compliance (auditing process)You missed the point entirely - if you pay for a book to learn accounting (no one FORCES you to learn accounting), why would you not pay for a Standard? Heck - some OEMs have been known to charge suppliers a fee to get a hard copy of their supplier requirements. (Of course,I fired GE when they wanted me to pay $500.00 for a bid package - so you always have the option of not paying and not participating in the game [of registering to a Standard.])

Hi Wes,
I really understand your line of thought and sentiments, however, I still find it rather strange one should have to pay for a set of non-compulsory rules.:rolleyes:
I also understand that these rules, if one should choses to use them as guidance for compiling/generating a system for quality, is a tool/guide to determine and create your own system with, and should thus be paid for.
My feeling is that, where it is not really a requirement to comply with these rules, why not make it easier on the consumer......Give them the rules and then, should the consumer feel it necessary to validate compliance, charge them for checking their compliance (auditing process)

If it is non-compulsory for your organization, you do not have to pay for them, because you do not have to have them (the non-compulsory part). So, the cost is a non-issue. Getting them would be just an academic curiosity for you. See how many books they will give you at Borders or Barnes & Noble for free, just because you are curious.

There is a methodology where you could get the books for "free", but still help cover the costs. "Join" the organization for a cost that - determined by how many other members there are - covers the cost of development, printing or electronic publishing, etc. as an aggregate overhead. Hurts people that only need one standard, helps those that need a bunch. But you can pretend it is free publication.

Wes Bucey and bobdoering.... maybe I did not express myself properly.....

"If it is non-compulsory for your organization, you do not have to pay for them, because you do not have to have them (the non-compulsory part)."

Thank you both for your input, however... I am not looking at it from the consumers point of view. I am trying to establish how one can improve an overall quality awareness within the society..... and I understand that it is for the clients choosing whether he/she wants it....
Also, I know that one cannot create a program, without rewarding those who would create the system and subsequently improve on it.

What is the best way to get anyone hooked on drugs?... you supply them with the first dose free, then you start charging for the follow-up.( I am not suggesting that this should be done, but.....)

We are all trying to create a more "quality aware" society.
It would seem to me a lot eazier to initiate the need by creating the awareness through whatever means (training)..... then freely provide those guidelines for setting up or generating a system, and then... should the organization choose or want to have their system registered and certified, offer, at a basic charge, a systematic process for auditing the system they have put in place. This way, the initial costs would be recovered.

What is the best way to get anyone hooked on drugs?... you supply them with the first dose free, then you start charging for the follow-up.( I am not suggesting that this should be done, but.....)


You are right - I did not pick up on your direction.

You "free sample" notion kind of reminds me of the Video Professor (http://www.videoprofessor.com/) approach:

ANY TWO of the three computer tutorial CD-ROMs are yours free without further obligation, PERIOD. Take 10 days to decide if you want to keep the complete set of CDs. After your 10-day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $189.95. Or simply call our customer care number at 1-800-XXX-XXXX if you decide to return any one of the lessons. You will be charged nothing more and get to keep two computer learning CD-ROMS! You can also return everything within 10 days and receive a full Shipping and Processing refund upon your request. Click here to learn more about this offer.

*Pay up to $6.95 (or $8.51 USD in Canada) for shipping & processing.

In homage to Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fart-bin.com%2Fart%2Fomodest.html&ei=L7SbSuKGIanunQfy9fSVCA&rct=j&q=a+modest+proposal+by+jonathan+swift&usg=AFQjCNG1UxPcsICAsWlp1GO3yLphD1pe5g)" - why not make ALL newspapers, books, and Standards free and take away any incentive for authors to write new or updated versions? Soon, all existing reading material (hard copy or electronic) would rot or fade away and we wouldn't have to be bothered with any of that pesky stuff any more. Most especially, students wouldn't have to worry about textbooks or homework any more and all teachers would REALLY be as dumb as I thought they were when I was in sixth grade.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that you are mixing apples and oranges (standards vs the rest)

Standards are compulsory (for companies). In order to USE them (so that they can comply with customer requirements), the companies buy them.
But for someone who just want to have an idea about what the damn standard is or just (as someone mentioned) for curiosity, they could be free.
Not to mention that for ISO standards (or AS, TS, etc ad nauseam) some would like to see what they are going into without having to pay for.

No harm done...but o/c I forgot to take in account the innate greediness...

Standards, by themsleves, are not compulsary. They are documents. The ISO 9004 document is a "standard" and it is not compulsory unless someone with authority or influence over your organization makes it compulsory. I think the compulsion component of this discussion is independent of the document called a standard. The compulsion comes from an organization's relationship with another organization that has authority or influence.

Anone can use ISO 9001 as a tool for improvement without any customer or anyone requiring its use.

Another question that we could analyze is, "Can standards be free?"

What kind of system would be needed for ISO standards to be free? There are other bodies that publish standards for free. Instead of asking should they be, we might want to ask "Can they be?" Is it possible? How? Resource demands? Impact on the product and the product realization process?

Once we know it is possible, and what it would take to make them free, then we can debate if the should be free.

What kind of system would be needed for ISO standards to be free? There are other bodies that publish standards for free. Instead of asking should they be, we might want to ask "Can they be?" Is it possible? How? Resource demands? Impact on the product and the product realization process?


Well, we need some income to cover the overhead, storage and distribution. Donations? Then I guess we can have the administrators and committee members all be volunteers, pay for their own travel to get to the international meetings that develop the standards. That helps get to the 'free' cost.

Can the standards be free???
No, they cannot, for that will take away the quality of the stardard.
As long as the standard is being paid for, people/comapnies/organizations will expect it to have some degree of inherent quality.
Example : ASME codes cost a lot of money, and to be certified to the requiremenst of ASME is very expensive, but, if a company wants to build a pressure vessel it has be ASME certified.
In contrast, a company doesn't have to have any specific requirement in order to want to be ISO certified, other than if to improve a relationship with a client or potential client.
So how does one make the ISO standard a quality document? ........by creating a demand for it.
How does one create that demand, .... that is the burning question, seeing as it is not a requirement.

We could really pollute the process by having advertising pay for the standard!

We could really pollute the process by having advertising pay for the standard!Sure - all the registrars would be prime suspects as advertisers. The "sub-prime" suspects would be the software developers of electronic document management systems - after all, for years, the watchword of third party registrars for the Standards was "documentation, documentation!"

after all, for years, the watchword of third party registrars for the Standards was "documentation, documentation!"I am not sure why you are, in a misguided way, singling out CB's for excessive emphasis on command media creation. I challenge you to come up with credible objective evidence that the CB community was to blame for the over-documentation phenomenon you allude to.

In my experience, for the most part, unscrupulous consultants were the ones that benefitted the most from the super-size-it approach to documentation, since they were being compensated for it.

The right-sizing approach to documentation has been promoted for a long time, now. Actually, many organizations have put their documentation through a leaning process as a result of feedback from 3rd party auditors.

Where can I send my http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_14LiyCy04FY/SVUw8MIUA_I/AAAAAAAAAPA/R3OtyarHOu0/s400/Smiley(BSmeter).gif for calibration? :tg:

Hmmm... the Consumer Reports versus the Consumers Digest models....:read:

I wouldn't care if all procedures could be combined into one biggy as long as it did the job:lol:

I am not sure why you are, in a misguided way, singling out CB's for excessive emphasis on command media creation. I challenge you to come up with credible objective evidence that the CB community was to blame for the over-documentation phenomenon you allude to.

Me too. Some of the strongest advocates for less documentation and more effective though shorter docs I've come across have been good auditors from CBs! Indeed, in some clients who've eventually got me in to help, I've noted that they've been recommending this in audit report after audit report.

The poor & mediocre ones? Well, I think some of the mediocre/crappy consultants went there - or perhaps it was the other way around.

But let us not blacken the name of all CBs on the freely admitted mediocrity of the few.

I am not sure why you are, in a misguided way, singling out CB's for excessive emphasis on command media creation. I challenge you to come up with credible objective evidence that the CB community was to blame for the over-documentation phenomenon you allude to.

In my experience, for the most part, unscrupulous consultants were the ones that benefitted the most from the super-size-it approach to documentation, since they were being compensated for it.

The right-sizing approach to documentation has been promoted for a long time, now. Actually, many organizations have put their documentation through a leaning process as a result of feedback from 3rd party auditors.

Where can I send my http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_14LiyCy04FY/SVUw8MIUA_I/AAAAAAAAAPA/R3OtyarHOu0/s400/Smiley%28BSmeter%29.gif for calibration? :tg:

Me too. Some of the strongest advocates for less documentation and more effective though shorter docs I've come across have been good auditors from CBs! Indeed, in some clients who've eventually got me in to help, I've noted that they've been recommending this in audit report after audit report.

The poor & mediocre ones? Well, I think some of the mediocre/crappy consultants went there - or perhaps it was the other way around.

But let us not blacken the name of all CBs on the freely admitted mediocrity of the few.Well, frankly, my "anecdotal evidence" from 2nd and 3rd party auditors (ISO, FAA, FDA) since the 1994 version of ISO 9xxx has always been "the main shortcoming of organizations during our audits is "inadequate documentation" to provide objective evidence the members of the organization do, indeed, carry out the activities they list in their quality manuals."

As Jane has commented in other threads [paraphrasing], much of the reason for the lack of evidence of performing activities listed in the quality manuals is because the manuals were written (copied boilerplate?) by some person who made no attempt to correlate the actual business and activities of the organization with the dreck written in the manual.

My own experience as both a second party auditor of current and prospective suppliers and as a consultant dealing with organizations in crisis jibes with this view. Certainly, I am on record here in the Cove and in the ASQ Forums for years berating the self-designated consultants who provide a pile of generic documents for a price based on the promise the organization buying those documents can achieve "registration to the Standard within 40 days."

Don't confuse "documentation" with the length or weight of the "big honkin' quality manual." By documentation, I refer to whether there is/are


a record of the nature and results of "competence evaluation" of employees
clear documentation of the contract review process
clear documentation of a control plan for a process
clear documentation the control plan is followed and periodically reviewed for adequacy
copies (hard or electronic) of work instructions available at or near the work station where the work is performed
clear documentation of the evaluation process and results when selecting a supply chain
systematic documentation of nonconformances, corrective actions, and adequacy of the corrective action in a follow-up evaluation
documentation of competent internal audits, including follow-up and feedback of action or no action from the management review process
etc. etc. etc.

Well, frankly, my "anecdotal evidence" from 2nd and 3rd party auditors (ISO, FAA, FDA) since the 1994 version of ISO 9xxx has always been "the main shortcoming of organizations during our audits is "inadequate documentation" to provide objective evidence the members of the organization do, indeed, carry out the activities they list in their quality manuals."
Mine has been different, and yes, I've been around at least as long. So has Sidney I imagine.

As Jane has commented in other threads [paraphrasing], much of the reason for the lack of evidence of performing activities listed in the quality manuals is because the manuals were written (copied boilerplate?) by some person who made no attempt to correlate the actual business and activities of the organization with the dreck written in the manual.
:confused: Then why blame certifiers??

Certainly, I am on record here in the Cove and in the ASQ Forums for years berating the self-designated consultants who provide a pile of generic documents for a price based on the promise the organization buying those documents can achieve "registration to the Standard within 40 days."
Ditto.

Don't confuse "documentation" with the length or weight of the "big honkin' quality manual."
I don't. But I dp think it's advisable to use the terms records and documents as per the Standard and guidelines. You are bundling them together willy nilly, and there is definite potential to confuse many people, particularly those new to the quality field or grappling with some of the terminology.

clear documentation of the contract review process
:frust: The phrase 'contract review' doesn't appear in ISO 9001 2008 nor to my recollection in the 2000 version! A '94 hangover.

clear documentation of a control plan for a process. etc
Don't see no 'control plan for a process' in the Standard neither. Perhaps you're only thinking of manufacturing - or is that another '94 hangover?
copies (hard or electronic) of work instructions available at or near the work station where the work is performed
That's not what the standard says either. Not everyone performs work at a 'work station' in my world of quality.

I don't dispute the need to have information available where & when needed. I just prefer the words of the Standard, they're more generic and broadly applicable, which is the point.

Where can I send my http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_14LiyCy04FY/SVUw8MIUA_I/AAAAAAAAAPA/R3OtyarHOu0/s400/Smiley(BSmeter).gif for calibration? :tg:
I dunno, but if you find out, let me know because I'd like to send mine there too, please.