Originally posted by Davey in the thread Is the stampede about to start? (http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6322)
While the discussion has generally been who has and who has not upgraded, I think the next question is who has seen any benefit from the upgrade?

My company upgraded recently with no discernible benefit whatsoever.

Good point. Was it worth it? Speaking for myself: Yes.
We used the opportunity to upgrade the system from an old tired one to something more useful. That is at least what the users say.

How about you? What do you think?

/Claes

Very similar to your experience Claes, we have managed to re-cycle a whole lot of paper & produced a much more user friendly system , one that focusses on business benefits and not just to satisy the old 20 clauses!
;)

I have always felt that my job would be a lot easier if the word "Quality" were replaced with the word "Business" in the standard. The 2000 revision brings more focus to top management in their responsibilities to visibly lead the QMS and communicate organizational goals and progress towards those goals at every level of the organization. Though we have not registered yet (target date July 23, 2003), I am already seeing the benefits of the upgrade. Being required to track performance measurables in productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, etc., and furthermore, being required to react to negative trends, inherently ties the Quality System to the Business System.

Claes,

Good idea for a poll! I do have a question, though: Do you mean "was it worth it" to upgrade to 9001:2000 whether or not you were certified by a registrar, or was your question intent on determining if it was "worth it" to get certified/resistered to 9001:2000? Since there may be a huge difference in cost and maybe hassle between the two, I thought it might make a difference in the responses.

We have not officially made the upgrade yet our audit is in September, however, I don't see any problems should be a pretty smooth transition. Is it worth it, from where I am sitting yes! Why you ask? If we didn't have ISO Certification our clients would pull out, I don't know how many times a client has said we went with you becuase the other companies we were considering were not ISO certified. We are a Medical Company, so we have to do these things for the FDA, yet they still want us to have ISO/EN certification. They know they FDA does not inspect on a regualr basis, while they were here twice last year before that it was 5 years since they last inspected the our system, now what kind of confidence can you put in that?

We have just completed a managment review with our top management with regards to the new standard. The one point that I kept "banging" into their heads was that fact that we now will see if we are meeting the customers requirements. The new standard has brought new focus to our company as far as meeting the expectations of our customers. Before it was if they reorder they must be happy, now we track comments, complaints, and suggestions. I thought it was somewhat comic that it took an outside standard to help us serve our customers better. As far as transition it has been for the most part pretty smooth. We have our first audit by our registar in July so it should be educational.:eek:

Originally posted by Cari Spears
I have always felt that my job would be a lot easier if the word "Quality" were replaced with the word "Business" in the standard.

Totally agree! But since the Standard won't do it (for reasons I understand), that doesn't keep me from doing it within my own system! Our QMS, as part of the transition to ISO 9001:2000, has been renamed the BMS. At first it was just BS, but that caused too many giggles when it came time for for the BS Review. :vfunny:

It is on my timeline for 2003 to start a new project (after we transition) called "5S the BMS". I've told my boss I want a tshirt with that emblazoned on the front! 5S is the newest initiative for our entire organziation in North America with the belief that it will help us become a world class organization. I like to think that 5S can go beyond me ensuring my stapler is back in the same spot all of the time and that I have only 10% (or less) personal stuff on my desk. I think it can be applied to our BMS - to help reduce redundancy, to lessen the paperwork, to streamline the processes.

Already we have started and people are seeing the BMS as being much more user-friendly and approachable. Evolving auditors have gone from asking standard questions to having more like "tea time" conversations.

So was it worth it? Yes. And we haven't even officially done the transition yet.

Countdown clock reads at T-minus 27 days and counting! :smokin:

Originally posted by Cari Spears
I have always felt that my job would be a lot easier if the word "Quality" were replaced with the word "Business" in the standard. ---X---

Yeah, I agree. We call it a Business Management System just like in RCBeyette's example. In our case the BMS covers the combined Quality, Environmental & Safety systems.

Originally posted by Mike S.
Claes,

Good idea for a poll! I do have a question, though: Do you mean "was it worth it" to upgrade to 9001:2000 whether or not you were certified by a registrar, or was your question intent on determining if it was "worth it" to get certified/resistered to 9001:2000? Since there may be a huge difference in cost and maybe hassle between the two, I thought it might make a difference in the responses.

Errrr.... To be perfectly honest I thought about a certified system, but that does not necessarily have to be the case, of course. Let's say a compliant system, whether it is certified or not, shall we?

Originally posted by RCBeyette ---X---At first it was just BS, but that caused too many giggles when it came time for for the BS Review.

It is on my timeline for 2003 to start a new project (after we transition) called "5S the BMS". ---X--- I think it can be applied to our BMS - to help reduce redundancy, to lessen the paperwork, to streamline the processes.
---X---
So was it worth it? Yes. And we haven't even officially done the transition yet.


Wow... :eek: Great post RCBeyette! :agree: I particularly like the way you just keep going while the momentum is there. Too many of us will be happy with what we have once the ISO9001:2000 badge is on the wall, and that is plain murder on any QMS... (Stagnation). I for one would dearly love to hear how your plans work out, because I'm out there on the improvement war path myself... How about short progress report every now and then?

As for the BS system: :biglaugh:

/Claes

We were informed on Monday that our customer and parent company does not want us to be 9K2K or 16949! Since one of our departments (about 4% of our work) is TE we were told to wait on the re-write. As of March we were 9K2K "compliant".

"5S the BMS".
We renamed ours the BES or Business Enterprise System and have started the same exercise. Great minds really do think alike!:vfunny:

We have operated and audited with the "process approach" for some time now. Our VP of Manufacturing is sold on the Toyota philosophy of Lean Manufacturing. The real benefits of the new standards were already in place.

Originally posted by Claes Gefvenberg
I for one would dearly love to hear how your plans work out, because I'm out there on the improvement war path myself... How about short progress report every now and then?

/Claes [/B]

Plans?!?! I'm supposed to have a plan?!?! Darn, why aren't I informed of these things ahead of time?!?! :ko:

Actually, first step is look at all 769 documents in our system and figure out which ones really need to be there. Already started at the beginning of the year (unofficially) and have rendered around 80 documents obsolete. But some really interesting ones remain.

I've told our QC Department I will work hand-in-hand with them as they own 20% of our company's documentation. They actually have a controlled document showing fraction-to-decimal conversions! Now, Claes, I don't know how it works in Sweden, but over here in North America the fact that 1/4" = 0.25" hasn't changed in at least the last five or ten years! :vfunny:

With our EMS piggy-backing off of the QMS portion of the BMS (ahhh...acronyms...gotta love 'em), I'd like to integrate them even closer together. Especially with 14K and 9K complimenting each other as they do. Using our Chilean sister facility as an example, I will hopefully have a good role model to help me merge the systems; like you, they have combined 9K, 14K, OHSAS 18K into one management system.

I also have plans to work with one of our dept's who owns 1/6 of the company. The plan is work on their heavily text-based documentation into flow charts for their six key processes. From there, supporting documentation will be developed for operational controls and non-routine situations. While their forms will most likely remainin the system, it is estimated they they will go from around 75 work instructions to 30.

Needless to say, stagnation won't be allowed to happen here! :) It would be too easy to just get the certificate and do no more than is necessary to maintain the certificate. But it's not just about that piece paper. We want all of our Stakeholders to be happy...Customers, Employees, Community, Vendors, and Shareholders. We have prided ourselves in the past for going above and beyond the stated "shall's" of the Standard. And to become complacent in how we do business, to accept our Management System the way it is now, is to fall behind...with Stakeholder Satisfaction and in the industry as a whole.

Originally posted by RCBeyette
They actually have a controlled document showing fraction-to-decimal conversions! Now, Claes, I don't know how it works in Sweden, but over here in North America the fact that 1/4" = 0.25" hasn't changed in at least the last five or ten years!

A bit off the subject maybe but - a PJ auditor once tried to write us up for Doc & Data control because we did not control all of the posters/advertisements that suppliers send out that contain metric conversions, std drill sizes, etc. Her logic was that it would be referenced as a work instruction. I told her that was ridiculous, that if one were to follow that logic I would have to control all Machinist Handbooks, course text books that I keep around for reference, even calandars for that matter.

We could not come to an agreement, so rather than argue with her further, I signed "do not confer" on the NCR and put together a business case as to why I would not control documents that do not contain living (revisable) data.

I should mention too that in addition to metric conversion charts and the like, she told me I had to control signs such as "Safety Glasses Required" or "Not for Personal Use".

I have had the good fortune of never having to work with PJ again. (They were already contracted when I was hired to replace their MR)

Originally posted by RCBeyette


I've told our QC Department I will work hand-in-hand with them as they own 20% of our company's documentation. They actually have a controlled document showing fraction-to-decimal conversions! Now, Claes, I don't know how it works in Sweden, but over here in North America the fact that 1/4" = 0.25" hasn't changed in at least the last five or ten years! :vfunny:


May sound pointless to you, but one thing you need to remember just because you know how to do it does not mean everyone else in the company does. You need to look at the skill/education level of employees you are working with. What about a procedure on rounding?? I suggested that where I work and I was laughed at, I work with highly educated people, but when I asked each of them individually they all had different methods, some rounded to 2 places some to 3, some rounded up if the number following was 5 some rounded down if the following number was 5. You need to remember what seems simple to you does not mean it is simple to all. JMHO

Isoguy,

That is an important point, IMO. Write to the audience. Waht might seem basic to you might be rocket science to others or they may not understand the application as well. I once had the rounding issue come up too (requiring me to add it to a procedure) as well as this one:

The thickness spec. was 1.250" +/- .001" on a certain part. Some of the parts were measuring 1.2513" and the Production Manager (a smart guy but part weasel) wanted to ship them since 1.2513" rounds down to 1.251".

And, some were tapered with about 60% of the thickness area in-spec. and 40% of the area was undersize at approx. 1.246" -- again the Production Manager wanted to ship them since the spec. did not say ALL of the thickness area had to be in spec. and there was no flatness, taper, parallelism spec. etc.

Originally posted by ISO GUY
Is it worth it, from where I am sitting yes! Why you ask? If we didn't have ISO Certification our clients would pull out, I don't know how many times a client has said we went with you becuase the other companies we were considering were not ISO certified.

Another consideration: WHY was it worth it? Is "it" (transitioning to 9001:2000) worth it because without "it" you would lose a large portion of your business, or because it resulted in an improvement to the bottom-line, safety, employee happiness, etc. or both?

Mike- To this day (mind you it has been almost 4 years now)we still do not have a procedure or any guidance on rounding and guess what they are still do it their own way. Do I fight it, nope not a chance I have it documented that on several occasions it has been suggested, I did the old CYA.

Your second question without it we would lose a majority of our business. Our customers are in the Medical Community here in the States and abroad and they want you to be ISO Certified before they will consider using you. Medical is very stringent compared to widget making they want you to have lots and lots of controls in place. I guess that makes sense as they stuff we are dealing with goes in the human body and if not processed properly could cause some serious damage if you know what I mean.

ISO GUY,

You might check ASME Y14.5M - the GD&T standard, I believe that it contains a section on rounding. There may even be a Federal Spec (you could do a Google search and see what you come up with). You could get a copy, and use it to demonstrate that what may have been assumed as tribal knowledge is actually scientifically/mathmatically defined (and may, or may not, agree with tribal knowledge).

Originally posted by RCBeyette
Plans?!?! I'm supposed to have a plan?!?! Darn, why aren't I informed of these things ahead of time?!?! :ko:


Well, from over here it looks to me like you have both a plan and several good points... :agree:

Originally posted by Mike S.
Another consideration: WHY was it worth it? Is "it" (transitioning to 9001:2000) worth it because without "it" you would lose a large portion of your business, or because it resulted in an improvement to the bottom-line, safety, employee happiness, etc. or both?


Anything that you feel makes it worthwhile goes, even if pride is the only reason. Actually, I'm looking forward to see just why you all think it was worth it (or not). My intention was to ignite that very discussion... :p

/Claes

Dear all!

I would oinly like to point out that a transition could be good independently on how good would the new standard be.

It is a perfect opportunity to review your quality system, its efficiency and effectiveness. Anyway system after transition should be at least the second system for all employees. So old mistakes should be corrected due to more experience.
:)
Yours,

Anton

... back again

Our company found this to be a costly excercise in training and changing over to the new standard. The benefits are great. Objectives were a fantastic thing to put in place that the old standard lacked. We have corporate level objectives and department level objectives that contribute to the corporate level objectives. Also, the upgrade to new standard required help from many of the departments and we have created an overall much better QMS that is a company QMS not just my QMS.:bigwave:

Objectives were a fantastic thing to put in place that the old standard lacked. :

The 94 standard also required objectives.

That's nothing new in 00 (except a reminder that they must be measurable).

I've followed this thread and I'm not surprised in some ways. This seems to be a forceful "clean things up" effort which effects some discipline and 'house cleaning' outside of SOP management 'requirements'. Maybe I'll start a new thread with a poll... Is this valuable because it forces upper management to do things which they would otherwise 'ignore'?

What I most often see and hear is it is a 'tool' to force upper management to do some things which upper management otherwise would ignore (read not fund $ wise and/or employee wise). Those who embrace it are mid-level management and below who see it as a force upon upper- and mid-management to do certain things.

Just some thoughts. :thedeal:

What I most often see and hear is it is a 'tool' to force upper management to do some things which upper management otherwise would ignore (read not fund $ wise and/or employee wise). Those who embrace it are mid-level management and below who see it as a force upon upper- and mid-management to do certain things.

That sums up my experiance in a nutshell.

The 94 standard also required objectives.

That's nothing new in 00 (except a reminder that they must be measurable).


The 94 satndard required objectives but in the most basic, generic sense. "we want to be really good and make our customers really happy" is not particularly powerful.

But, there is much, huge difference, if you work out the processes appropriately. It can make all the difference, if done right. It is not just a flow chart. It is defining the citeria for effectiveness for each and every process. For some clients, this is the first time they have defined "good," and the desired outcomes for each process from the (internal and external) customers' point of view. This has dramatically changed how some companies think. I have seen dramatic turnarounds.

In fairness, I have seen some weak transitions too, which were little more than a paperwork exercise, but I definitely try to push them toward a more comprehensive understand of the process approach.