should the (quality in) organisation evolve coherently with the systems, or the systems are ebeded after the organisation is born?

Pthareja

should the (quality in) organisation evolve coherently with the systems, or the systems are ebeded after the organisation is born?

Pthareja


Pthareja

The way I see it, the organization is the sum of the systems. Ergo, when one evolves, the other(s) evolve as well.

Why try to seperate them?

Craig

Pthareja

The way I see it, the organization is the sum of the systems. Ergo, when one evolves, the other(s) evolve as well.

Why try to seperate them?

CraigGiven the narrow scope of the poll, choosing anything other than the choice about evolving with the organization ["and the systems are laden/ imbibed after its birth"] would mean negating the entire concept of ISO and its evolving Standards.

(Even a wordsmith such as I is unsure about the use of the word "laden" in this context. Normally, I would interpret "laden" as being burdensome. In my view, Systems are for making processes LESS burdensome. However, being an "imbiber" of long standing and some reknown, I certainly approve of imbibed as a verb!;) )

My thoughts go this way. Before you start off on something you have an idea of what you want to accomplish. Therefore you would have some sort of basic plan prior to beginning an organization.
Yes the system would evolve after birth, but the first step is not taken without being somewhat organized.

I would love to reply on this topic. Actually, I was thinking this subject for past One Month. I used to think in my Company who is an ISO 9K, 14K, TS 16949 certified and Implementor of many concepts of WCM (World Class Manufacturing ahead of Lean Manufacturing or Toyota Production System) is still feeling these systems are bit artificial and not in the mainstream topic. I usally hear that people assosiate My name in the company with any activities related to ISO or TS or WCM, They consider it is MR sole accountability.

Hence In the light of above, I am planning to identify the stumbling Blocks and than remove one by one who are responsible for Natural Way of Implementation of SYSTEMS. I Call this approach as BREATHING "APPROACH".
I say without any doubt that the most essential thing in one's life is breathing but nobody treat it as an artificial. What is the reason? I shall try to apply a system based on Breathing. It is a Five Step approach of Breathing, First, I shall identify the problem which my people are facing with any system, ISO or TS2 or WCM or any, Then we shall try to seek alternatives of purpose with a clear validation. and .........

Any taker of BREATHING

I would love to reply on this topic. Actually, I was thinking this subject for past One Month. I used to think in my Company who is an ISO 9K, 14K, TS 16949 certified and Implementor of many concepts of WCM (World Class Manufacturing ahead of Lean Manufacturing or Toyota Production System) is still feeling these systems are bit artificial and not in the mainstream topic. I usally hear that people assosiate My name in the company with any activities related to ISO or TS or WCM, They consider it is MR sole accountability.

Hence In the light of above, I am planning to identify the stumbling Blocks and than remove one by one who are responsible for Natural Way of Implementation of SYSTEMS. I Call this approach as BREATHING "APPROACH".
I say without any doubt that the most essential thing in one's life is breathing but nobody treat it as an artificial. What is the reason? I shall try to apply a system based on Breathing. It is a Five Step approach of Breathing, First, I shall identify the problem which my people are facing with any system, ISO or TS2 or WCM or any, Then we shall try to seek alternatives of purpose with a clear validation. and .........

Any taker of BREATHING
Manoj:

This makes lots of sense. It is kind of like the concept in the book of 5 rings, the Samuri handbook, that says that when fighting you should use your normal walk - not try to adapt some special style that is unnatural. In business, we should not have to stop and think what the procedure says or what the spec is. It is best if we work to the procedure and make good stuff naturally, as a result of a good system and lots of practice.

It all goes to the topic alluded to here in the Cove time and time again. It is not a Quality system, its a Business system.

Good post!

Craig

I would love to reply on this topic. Actually, I was thinking this subject for past One Month. I used to think in my Company who is an ISO 9K, 14K, TS 16949 certified and Implementor of many concepts of WCM (World Class Manufacturing ahead of Lean Manufacturing or Toyota Production System) is still feeling these systems are bit artificial and not in the mainstream topic. I usally hear that people assosiate My name in the company with any activities related to ISO or TS or WCM, They consider it is MR sole accountability.

Hence In the light of above, I am planning to identify the stumbling Blocks and than remove one by one who are responsible for Natural Way of Implementation of SYSTEMS. I Call this approach as BREATHING "APPROACH".
I say without any doubt that the most essential thing in one's life is breathing but nobody treat it as an artificial. What is the reason? I shall try to apply a system based on Breathing. It is a Five Step approach of Breathing, First, I shall identify the problem which my people are facing with any system, ISO or TS2 or WCM or any, Then we shall try to seek alternatives of purpose with a clear validation.
I agree. :agree: The system should be seen as a tool to improvements. Not just a piece of paper on the wall. Buy-in to the system is required for the successful use of the system. THe breathing concept is a good one.

Yeah!
Thanks to Craig, Manoj, Wes Bucey, Randy and Tom for your postings and polls.

Akin to breathing the systrms are essential for an organisation's survival.
Breathing as a matter of fact starts soon after the birth of an infant, and some times the Doc has to induce it. ala a jerk. Laden by tapping.
A healthy child should imbibe (?) that without extra-natural impetus.

Rightly said, ISO 9k2k systems are put in place only after the organisation has evolved. But to what extent a lack of planning for a judicious systemic constitution caould be fatal is not a big guess.

So, how essential is it to put the system in place before the birth of an organisation? What aspects of sytems should be in place at the time of birth? And how/ what to top it up after the organisation has shaped up*, ready to be a WCO ( world class organisation). (* even refering to the ISO9K2K clauses)?

Thareja

Yeah!
Thanks to Craig, Manoj, Wes Bucey, Randy and Tom for your postings and polls.

Akin to breathing the systrms are essential for an organisation's survival.
Breathing as a matter of fact starts soon after the birth of an infant, and some times the Doc has to induce it. ala a jerk. Laden by tapping.
A healthy child should imbibe (?) that without extra-natural impetus.

Rightly said, ISO 9k2k systems are put in place only after the organisation has evolved. But to what extent a lack of planning for a judicious systemic constitution caould be fatal is not a big guess.

So, how essential is it to put the system in place before the birth of an organisation? What aspects of sytems should be in place at the time of birth? And how/ what to top it up after the organisation has shaped up*, ready to be a WCO ( world class organisation). (* even refering to the ISO9K2K clauses)?

Thareja
Thareja;

Thanks for what is becoming an interesting thread.

In response to your questions, as far as quality systems go, I believe that when a company is first started (born) there is little thought given to quality, by name. Much like a newborn child, there are parts that the child has, and can "feel" what they do, but don't quite know what they are called yet. The child takes a breath, but it knows not that "breath" is what has been taken.

Also like a newborn, companies may have to be guided to take that breath, or on just how to do it.

Does a new company start out by designing a quality department? No. But, an able leader will see that quality is built into the processes as they are developed.

To me, that is the cause of one of the main obstacles inherent in an ISO 9000 approach - the baby has already been breathing for some time in most cases. Even though many companies have already been doing the quality thing, in many cases they don't call all of their quality systems, quality systems. For example, before ISO few companies thought about how much impact the design function has on quality, IMO. The fact that people were (are) trying to fit an existing system into the ISO 9001 box sometimes results in unneeded work. How many unweildy document systems are out there that were designed just to meet the percieved ISO requirements?

So, some thought must be given to quality at the beginning, but the only way to have a great system is to grow it with the company. After all, who knows what the future brings?

Craig

Rightly said, ISO 9k2k systems are put in place only after the organisation has evolved.
ISO 9K systems are part of the beginnings in any business which succeeds for any length of time. ISO requirements are simply 'good business practices'. No magic. Nothing revolutionary.

A business is like any other activity. One starts with an idea which is typically a derivative of something current. One looks to systems required for the activity. Some say an MBA will educate a person in basic (at least) business systems. In business there is the profit motive so a business plan is a must whether written or 'understood'. Point is, there is planning. The extent of the planning depends on many, many factors including product and processes, not to mention size (2 employees or 20,000 employees?). A service or other business will have some different systems from an assembly or manufacturing environment. However, there will be many, many 'common' systems. I, for one, have long argued most service companies are design responsible (see http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=712 ).

If one looks at the 1994 standard, as well as the 1987 standard, they required basic systems. In every implementation I was involved in, the company already had a system to address at least the basics of each requirement. Whether or not they were functioning and effective or not is another story.

For example, take nonconforming product. What company has no method (system) to address non-conforming product? Whether it is 'correctly' used and whether it is 'effective' is another matter.

This said, most of a company's ISO systems are, in fact, in place early on and are not, or should not be, dependent upon 'implementation'.

The 2000 standard changed the 'drift' of the standard, but the 'new direction' isn't really new. Is there any company out there that would say they are NOT customer focused (as an example)? Not to mention, who really believes a company will really be forced to 'focus on the customer' if they were not previously doing so?

Just some thoughts.

ISO 9K systems are part of the beginnings in any business which succeeds for any length of time.

A business is like any other activity. One starts with an idea which is typically a derivative of something current.
................

This said, most of a company's ISO systems are, in fact, in place early on and are not, or should not be, dependent upon 'implementation'.

The 2000 standard changed the 'drift' of the standard, but the 'new direction' isn't really new. Is there any company out there that would say they are NOT customer focused (as an example)? Not to mention, who really believes a company will really be forced to 'focus on the customer' if they were not previously doing so?

Just some thoughts.
and also from Craig
Does a new company start out by designing a quality department? No. But, an able leader will see that quality is built into the processes as they are developed.

To me, that is the cause of one of the main obstacles inherent in an ISO 9000 approach - the baby has already been breathing for some time in most cases.
Marc, what's the catch in greened part of text in quote from your post ????? Could you very kindly elaborate!

agreeing with Craig:

In 'Yoga' there are recommendations for correct breathing. Perhaps the child was breathing incorrectly, and unlearning a process will induct limited redundancy for the duration of the wrong act, its identification, and correction thereof. In the case of systems, the act of bringing in a systemic change should entail coherency with the old one?

'Unlearning' in systems is also sometimes recommended. I recollect TUV web site cited that one can expect during implementation of ISO9K2K that processes can go for a fundamental transformation, and altogether new processes can result post implementation.

So Yes! if the beginning is good, it will succeed for any length of time, Marc said.

failing which, call the Doc! (ISO 9K 2K)? who? gynaecologist or paedratician? can we quantify their roles?

p thareja

My point is if you are planning a business, every ISO requirement should be part of the plan because each is a 'good business practice'. That is to say, if ISO 9001 (and the 900x series in general) did not exist, known 'good business practices' would dictate what ISO 9K contains.
Originally Posted by pthareja
Rightly said, ISO 9k2k systems are put in place only after the organisation has evolved.
In my opinion, if a company waits to 'implement' ISO ('put ISO9K in place') they are based upon a flawed foundation to begin with. If a company starts operation without a nonconformance - corrective action system, how long will they last. If a company does not have a document control system, where does that leave them?

Take the ISO 9K requirements 1 by 1 and look closely at each. They are the minimum aspects any long term business needs to survive.

You tell me - Why would a company wait to 'put ISO 9K in place' until they are 'evolved'?

My point is if you are planning a business, every ISO requirement should be part of the plan because each is a 'good business practice'. That is to say, if ISO 9001 (and the 900x series in general) did not exist, known 'good business practices' would dictate what ISO 9K contains.

In my opinion, if a company waits to 'implement' ISO ('put ISO9K in place') they are based upon a flawed foundation to begin with. If a company starts operation without a nonconformance - corrective action system, how long will they last. If a company does not have a document control system, where does that leave them?

Take the ISO 9K requirements 1 by 1 and look closely at each. They are the minimum aspects any long term business needs to survive.

You tell me - Why would a company wait to 'put ISO 9K in place' until they are 'evolved'?

This is exactly what I was referring to in another post (see link). The practices defined by ISO 9001 are not new. They are in-fact practices that every successful business should already have in place. It is our (the ISO 9001 coordinator, whatever position that falls upon) to interpret what is already a standard within the company against the ISO 9001 requirements so that all can understand the relationship.

Now does that mean that every successful business meets every specific clause? Not necessarily, but there should be very few gaps if a business is truly customer oriented.

http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7483

So Yes! if the beginning is good, it will succeed for any length of time, Marc said.

failing which, call the Doc! (ISO 9K 2K)? who? gynaecologist or paedratician? can we quantify their roles?

p thareja
Interesting!
Gynaecologist takes care of the mother ( and child in her womb), and the pedratician the child after one is born. Since both are essential towards the parenting process, the success of having a child is perhaps more inclined towards the gynaecologist. If their roles are translated into parenting an organisation, then taking help of a gynaecologist may take a 'precedence and preference' to that of a paedratician.

Both are however vital. They both help like a consultant.
But when parents decide to rear a child, is a paedratician needed at that time? Is raising an organisation same as rearing a child?

I am confused?
savda

Yes! that's exactly what I thought about it. However the question is, what is the correlation* between birth of an organisation and a baby?

thareja


* commonalities from the quality System management point of view?

Both have to be nurtured, to continually grow, mature with right systems and inputs. Learning bodies.

What is not common?

pthareja

Yes! that's exactly what I thought about it. However the question is, what is the correlation between birth of an organisation and a baby?

tharejaActually, this is a great analogy!
I would be willing to wager more births are unplanned at the moment of conception than are planned.

The question of what makes good parents is not so much what they do up to the moment of conception as to what they do during gestation and afterward, up to adulthood of the child which makes them a good family [organization.]

Ergo, just as most families evolve after conception, so do most other organizations.

Well! criticaly birth of a is a synchronised action of a pair of opposite sexes. So the probability of planning, and of conception is lower than if a single person would have been able to do it. However a sigle person can plan and evolve an organisation.

Bet you are right in saying that the contribution of both doc's can't be ignored in making a child 'an useful adult'.

It says: 'conceive an organisation, call in system experts, and help them see through the organisation evolve" into a successful one, like a doc does. That was our's (all of us who contributed) unanimous opinion.

Could some one conclude the respective contributions of preplanning, policising, documenting and honing of these quality systems to let the organisation bloom into an adult enviable organisation?

Happy thanks giving till now!

I found this old thread: Understanding Business Organizations (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4515&highlight=lifespan), with a similar discussion. Have a look.


/Claes

A business is like any other activity. One starts with an idea which is typically a derivative of something current. One looks to systems required for the activity. Some say an MBA will educate a person in basic (at least) business systems. In business there is the profit motive so a business plan is a must whether written or 'understood'. Point is, there is planning. The extent of the planning depends on many, many factors including product and processes, not to mention size (2 employees or 20,000 employees?). A service or other business will have some different systems from an assembly or manufacturing environment. However, there will be many, many 'common' systems. I, for one, have long argued most service companies are design responsible (see http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=712 ).


Marc,
Thank you for enlightening me regarding the role of design responsibility. I am beginning to feel that design-ability not only paves the path of success for any organisation taken shape, but rather fail-safe's it from threats ( like using FMEA). As rather said all organisations generically follow the evolutionionary process of life cycle, stronger ones emerging higher on growth rating, better designed and planned organisations sustain longer and stronger.

My question is how do we compare service companies vis-a-vis manufacturing companies in terms of design responsibility? For which design planning were more pressing at the time of incorporation? Do the requirements remain the same during the working life of the two kind of organisations?

I need a bigger help!

thareja