If ever proof were needed as to how non-value adding ISO 9000 is, one need look no further than this forum. To see such a huge expenditure of time and energy spent over the interpretation and application of clauses and requirements, certification issues, approaches and the like - all of which adds little if any value to the customer - shows why acceptance of this standard is now floundering. Pure muda!

Were that it were all that simple. What do you base your comment on? Have you numbers or other evidence to show or is one to accept your opinion?

Why did you register? Why are you here?

:lol:

This should be an interesting discussion!

Hi Damian - welcome to the Cove.

Your point is quite common on this and other threads but we always seem to come back to the same questions on this topic.
1) Is it the Standard which is causing the problem or is it the bureaucracy surrounding it?
2) Isn't there a benefit of a good QMS to both company and customer?
3) Is the acceptance of the Standard really floundering or is the certification process floundering.

Good post and good subject - I await some input from the others on this.

Take a look through some of the other topics - there are some great discussions on this and related topics.

Dave

Were that it were all that simple. What do you base your comment on? Have you numbers or other evidence to show or is one to accept your opinion?

Why did you bother to register? Why are you here?

Sorry, I think it is that simple. All that really counts is the core process that converts the needs of customers into cash in the bank. The organization and its system should all be helping the core process to add value faster (for customers) and prevent losses sooner (for investors). I don't see how demonstrating conformity to requirements, expending energy trying to figure out what clauses or requirements mean to satisfy a certification body, or working to achieve local optimization via a "process approach," in any way shape or form adds value.

1) Is it the Standard which is causing the problem or is it the bureaucracy surrounding it?
2) Isn't there a benefit of a good QMS to both company and customer?
3) Is the acceptance of the Standard really floundering or is the certification process floundering.
Good summary, Dave! There is also the added dimension of Chris Parrish's 'petition' to the ISO folks to do something about falling numbers of 'new' registrations... :notme: Maybe I ought to do a For It - Against It poll...

Good summary, Dave! There is also the added dimension of Chris Parrish's 'petition' to the ISO folks to do something about falling numbers of 'new' registrations... :notme: Maybe I ought to do a For It - Against It poll...


Why are registrations and their numbers even important? What do registrations have to do with value? Why do people even expend energy monitoring ISO 9000 registration trends that as if it were some sort of "seal of approval" on the value of the standard. Is not the only real measure the customer and how well their needs have been met?

Sorry, I think it is that simple. All that really counts is the core process that converts the needs of customers into cash in the bank. The organization and its system should all be helping the core process to add value faster (for customers) and prevent losses sooner (for investors). I don't see how demonstrating conformity to requirements, expending energy trying to figure out what clauses or requirements mean to satisfy a certification body, or working to achieve local optimization via a "process approach," in any way shape or form adds value.
This is an arguement I and many others have made for years - Nothing new here. ISO 9001 is basically just good business practices that most companies already have 'implemented' in some fashion. Most have some form of customer satisfaction barometer even if it's not a documented system, for example.

To deviate from Dave's path, The question becomes: Why is there an ISO 9001?

Why is it you believe ISO 9001 exists and continues to thrive (in my opinion it's doing quite well in world wide acceptance)?

Were that it were all that simple. What do you base your comment on? Have you numbers or other evidence to show or is one to accept your opinion?

Why did you register? Why are you here?

The only data that one really needs to know is that ISO 9000, like most other improvement fads or programs, has failed to significantly transform the majority of companies which have adopted it. ISO 9000 certiifcation would appear to be going through a similar life cycle of initial interest-acceptance-dissatisfaction-decline that most other programs have gone through. In the case of certification, acceptance was primarily driven by customer requirements to conform, not by the inherent value that organizations were deriving from implementing the standard.

Even the ISO 9000 variant QS-9000/TS 16949 is not immune. I have seen so many suppliers in automotive with QS certification that continue to operate with the 1920 techniques of mass production. These companies are perfectly compliant to QS even though their dpm ratings hit 75,000 each qtr at their customer (that's 7.5% for those not familiar with dpm). ISO/TS 16949 makes small strides towards a lean-based production paradigm but there is still no guidance to the reduction of muda or the addition of value in the supply chain. It's no wonder Toyota is now number two - and they don't use ISO 9000.

Hi Damian and welcome to the Cove :bigwave:

To see such a huge expenditure of time and energy spent over the interpretation and application of clauses and requirements, certification issues, approaches and the like Not quite true imo: Yes, we do discuss those subjects, but we are also adressing issues we would have had to deal with even if the ISO9000 series had never been released.

- all of which adds little if any value to the customer - shows why acceptance of this standard is now floundering. Pure muda! Also not true imo: We all know that ISO9001 is far from perfect, and I would happily throw it out if (and here is the catch) you can show me a better alternative... No Sir, I will not let you off that easily. Slinging mud at ISO 9001 is a very popular pastime these days, but unless you can provide an alternative, I will not pay all that much attention to your claim.

I keep asking people for an alternative, but thus far I have seen very few ansvers to that question. So what do you suggest?

/Claes

Damian,

I do not like the "letter" of the standard. . . but I do like the "intent" of the standard.

With the right interpretation, it does form a blueprint based on sound principles.

I do not know what industry you are in, but I am sure that there are quite a few countries and companies that do not require ISO or TS certification.

The certifications are nothing more than a HS or college diploma that says "You paid the tuition and passed the tests"

The real proof is in how well your system can tolerate change and how robust it is. Informal systems are not usually robust enough to tolerate change. You sould like you prefer the Tribal Knowledge approach. I may be wrong.

Hi Damian and welcome to the Cove :bigwave:

Not quite true imo: Yes, we do discuss those subjects, but we are also adressing issues we would have had to deal with even if the ISO9000 series had never been released.

Also not true imo: We all know that ISO9001 is far from perfect, and I would happily throw it out if (and here is the catch) you can show me a better alternative... No Sir, I will not let you off that easily. Slinging mud at ISO 9001 is a very popular pastime these days, but unless you can provide an alternative, I will not pay all that much attention to your claim.

I keep asking people for an alternative, but thus far I have seen very few ansvers to that question. So what do you suggest?

/Claes

The alternative is simple: identify all the value-adding steps and continually eliminate/improve those which are non-value adding (muda). This is all Toyota does. I know - I work here.

I believe there's a thread or two and some basic info on 'Toyotaism' here in the forums. It has the same basic guts, it's just not called ISO 9001. I bet your supplier requirements are pretty well equivalent as well. I comes back to the same thing. Good, basic business practices.

The alternative is simple: identify all the value-adding steps and continually eliminate/improve those which are non-value adding. This is all Toyota does. I know - I work here.

Damian

It depends on the overall objectives. If you want to improve your business, do what you say (ie improve your processes). If you want a way to avoid incessant second party inspections (as in the North Sea oil industry), then select an external standard and use third party inspection.

Unfortunately, the end result does not always meet the original objectives of the latter (ie when you can't rely on the quality of the product since certification is about the quality of the "management system" rather than of the product, and you end up going back to doing your own assessments anyway).

Hello Damian,
I'm the least to say but american quality gurus did a tremendous job in Japan. I understand that you comply to, but are not certified to ISO 9001:2000.

I believe there's a thread or two and some basic info on 'Toyotaism' here in the forums. It has the same basic guts, it's just not called ISO 9001. I bet your supplier requirements are pretty well equivalent as well. I comes back to the same thing. Good, basic business practices.

Sorry, Mark, what Toyota does and what ISO 9000 wants you to do are two completely different things. Toyota's production system (TPS) is designed (and continually improved) to be able to deliver value by eliminating non-value adding waste and making system processes ever more valuable, capable, available, adequate and flexible. ISO 9000 may address the capability of a process (i.e., its ability to produce conforming product) but as far as I can see it does nothing to attack any of the other wastes which are endemic to a production system. This is why Toyota rejected ISO 9000 as non-value adding. TPS starts from a completely different place than ISO 9000 and ends up at a different destination as a result.

The alternative is simple: identify all the value-adding steps and continually eliminate/improve those which are non-value adding (muda). This is all Toyota does. I know - I work here.The alternative? The one alternative? So copying your moves would make the rest of us world leaders in our respective fields? Perhaps you would care to have a look at what I said about Toyota in the thread Does Lean hold the key to success? Is Lean the ideal vehicle for moving forward? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8295&highlight=sensei) :

Why on earth should we build a copy of Toyotas system (even though it is great), when they work under conditions different from ours? None of us will be the leader as long as we try to follow in somebody else's footsteps. Sure, let's learn from the good ideas, but we must build something that is adapted to our conditions and needs.
In order to be Sensei we need create something of our own... http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/soapbox.gif
Now: One good thing does not have to exclude another. Toyotas way is obviously good for Toyota, but the rest of us may have other ideas. O, btw: I drive one of your products...

/Claes

The alternative? The one alternative? So copying your moves would make the rest of us world leaders in our respective fields? Perhaps you would care to have a look at what I said about Toyota in the thread Does Lean hold the key to success? Is Lean the ideal vehicle for moving forward? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8295&highlight=sensei) :

Now: One good thing does not have to exclude another. Toyotas way is obviously good for Toyota, but the rest of us may have other ideas.

/Claes

You don't copy systems, you copy the principles on which they are based. Only a fool would try to copy Toyota's system and implement it rigidly in their own business. However, an enlightened person would attempt to understand and apply the fundamental principles on which the system is based. There's a world of difference.

In any event, Claes, you have missed the point. The point is not to copy Toyota's or whoever's system, or even to have an alternative to ISO 9000 - it is to understand what constitutes value and how best to create and deliver it. TPS is only one way to do that. ISO 9000 may be another, but as I said in my orginal post, I don't see where the focus on value is, much less how to achieve it.

However, an enlightened person would attempt to understand and apply the fundamental principles on which the system is based. Which is more or less what I said... Don't get me wrong, I think Toyotas way is great, but that does not mean that I agree that ISO9001 is without value.

In any event, Claes, you have missed the point. ..and you definitely missed one of mine: There are lots of issues being discussed here besides ISO9001... like adding value and improving...

/Claes

Which is more or less what I said... Don't get me wrong, I think Toyotas way is great, but that does not mean that I agree that ISO9001 is without value.

/Claes
Nor is Toyota without failure modes in it's systems. I mean, give me a break - Toyota's systems work for them but who's to say they are the best, or in many businesses, all that relevant.

Damian, if you're here to tell us the the Toyota system is perfect - the best - you've done so. 'Nuff said. You really should be discussing the merits of TS 16949 as it's automotive.

Nor is Toyota without failure modes in it's systems. I mean, give me a break - Toyota's systems work for them but who's to say they are the best, or in many businesses, all that relevant.

If you're here to tell us the the Toyota system is perfect - the best - you've done so. 'Nuff said. You really should be discussing the merits of TS 16949 as it's automotive.

TPS is hardly perfect - the system is improved every day. It's not about being the best. Toyota doesn't try to be the best. It doesn't even call itself "lean". To fully understand it, you would need to get below the tools and techniques to culture - which is the real foundation of Toyota's success. So I wouldn't get hung up on Toyota.

The focus of any business should be on creating and delivering the value that customers need, when they need it, in the form they need it. Maybe you can do it with ISO 9000, but I don't see the evidence of it.

The focus of any business should be on creating and delivering the value that customers need, when they need it, in the form they need it.Yes. I agree and cannot remember ever having said otherwise. :agree:

Maybe you can do it with ISO 9000, but I don't see the evidence of it.Of course you can. It's not a question of what you've got, it's what you do with it...

/Claes

Yes. I agree and cannot remember ever having said otherwise. :agree:

Of course you can. It's not a question of what you've got, it's what you do with it...

/Claes

And most companies would appear not to do much more than pursue a certificate, and then do little else, except what is necessary to maintain their certification status. I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified.

And most companies would appear not to do much more than pursue a certificate, and then do little else, except what is necessary to maintain their certification status. I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified.

I'm sure you clicked your heals 3 times and repeated "There's no place like home. . . There's no place like home"

Not to miss the wood for the trees..............some relevant objective evidence
Quoting EN ISO 9001:2000
0.3 Relationship with ISO 9004

ISO 9001 specifies requirments for a quality management system that can be used for internal application by organizations, or for certification, or contractual purposes. It focuses on the effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting customer requirements.

Quoting ISO/TS 16949

0.5 Goal of this Technical Specification
The goal of this Technical Specification is the developement of a quality management system that provides for continual improvement, emphasizing defect prevention and the reduction of variation and waste in the supply chain.
This Technucal Specification coupled with applicable customer-specific requirements, defines the fundamental quality management system requirements for those subscribing to this document.

this Technical Specification is intended to avoid multiple certification audits and provide a common approach to a quality management system for automotive production, and relevant service part organizations.
1Scope
1.1 General
This Technical Specification, in conjunction with ISO 9001:2000, defines the quality management system requirements for the developement, production and when relevant, installation and srvice of automotive-related products

TPS is hardly perfect - the system is improved every day. It's not about being the best. Toyota doesn't try to be the best. It doesn't even call itself "lean". To fully understand it, you would need to get below the tools and techniques to culture - which is the real foundation of Toyota's success. So I wouldn't get hung up on Toyota.

The focus of any business should be on creating and delivering the value that customers need, when they need it, in the form they need it. Maybe you can do it with ISO 9000, but I don't see the evidence of it.

damain,

After all of the bashing of ISO, you have finally reached the key. I have stated on this forum in the past that "It is not the standard that matters, as much as it is the culture behind it."

The key to any long-term successful business venture is in the culture of the organization, which is should be driven by the Owner/President/CEO's vision. Although many times today the driving culture is left to lower level "Change Masters" [per RoseBeth Moss Kanter].

I have witnessed organizations that maintained a culture sensitive to both customer needs/requirements and to process improvements (elimination of waste, et al) and based their QMS on Mil-Q-9858a (far more perscriptive than today's version of ISO). I have witnessed others with similar cultures that have QMS's based on ISO (any version), and I have even witnessed some that had no formal QMS (organizations where the culture is communicated effectively without a "formal" QMS - such as W.L. Gore, or Nordstrom's.

If you are not seeing evidence of success where ISO has been implemented, then I would pose that you either need to enlarge your sample size, or remove the tinted glasses.
:tg:

If ever proof were needed as to how non-value adding ISO 9000 is, one need look no further than this forum.

Would you consider the time you are spending NOW discussing this issue MUDA? Is it directly satisfying some customer requirement? There are likely other discussion boards on Lean Manufacturing or the Toyota Production System where "pros and cons" banter takes place.

While I (we) agree there are things about ISO that are not value added, your comment about "copying" TPS is valid here too - The "principle" of ISO is sound whether the entire standard is used verbatim or not. Its true purpose is to operate a business using a well organized and effecient business system, and it emphasizes continual improvement (read, remove waste) throughout.

On the other hand, do you have the following in the TPS (and are they considered value added)?
- company policies (focusing on customer satisfaction)
- document control system (for eliminating non-value added misuse)
- measures of company performance (to gage the meeting of cust. reqmts)
- human resource development (well trained and effective employees)
- control of suppliers
- auditing

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Not to miss the wood for the trees..............some relevant objective evidence
Quoting EN ISO 9001:2000
0.3 Relationship with ISO 9004

ISO 9001 specifies requirments for a quality management system that can be used for internal application by organizations, or for certification, or contractual purposes. It focuses on the effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting customer requirements.

Quoting ISO/TS 16949

0.5 Goal of this Technical Specification
The goal of this Technical Specification is the developement of a quality management system that provides for continual improvement, emphasizing defect prevention and the reduction of variation and waste in the supply chain.
This Technucal Specification coupled with applicable customer-specific requirements, defines the fundamental quality management system requirements for those subscribing to this document.

this Technical Specification is intended to avoid multiple certification audits and provide a common approach to a quality management system for automotive production, and relevant service part organizations.
1Scope
1.1 General
This Technical Specification, in conjunction with ISO 9001:2000, defines the quality management system requirements for the developement, production and when relevant, installation and srvice of automotive-related products

Objective evidence of what? That because the "rulebook" calls for "emphasizing defect prevention and the reduction of variation and waste in the supply chain," that this is what will happen when the rules are "applied"? If this were working, why do GM, Ford and Chrysler still continue to have huge quality problems in their supply chains, as evidenced [objectively] by the ongoing recalls and the fact they consistently lag in JD Power reports behind the Japanese automakers in first year quality, with a huge gap when you move out to years 4 and 5. And note, we are only talking quality here, not cost, delivery, and health and safety.

"Toyota's production system (TPS) is designed (and continually improved) to be able to deliver value by eliminating non-value adding waste and making system processes ever more valuable, capable, available, adequate and flexible."

I think you are mis-interpreting ISO if you think 9000 doesn't strive for the same thing. This line could be easily applied to the philosophy of continuous improvement of ISO 9000.

"And most companies would appear to do not much more than pursue a certificate, and then do little else, except what is necessary to maintain their certification status. I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified."

Isn't what you are really saying is that individual companies are probably not benefitting from their own QMS? This isn't the fault of the Standard, it falls back to the company that is implementing it. ISO 9000 is a model for a basic quality system. It isn't a miracle pill that transforms a company into a world leader. Toyota may have a good QMS but I'll bet it is only as good as the implementation. It's the development beyond the basics that make it work so well and the same applies to ISO.

I assume Toyota does in fact buy from somebody and I would assume some of their suppliers are ISO certified. Would all these suppliers fall into your "not want to do business with them" class? I feel confident that Toyota has some sort of supplier requirement and that they work with their suppliers to meet their requirements. Is it possible that Toyota would disqualify a supplier because they were certified to ISO? Are you saying you see no process improvement, elimination of waste, etc. outside of the Toyota system? In your view is a company with no QMS a better supplier than one with ISO? If you can truly answer yes, maybe you are justified in saying there is no "value added" by ISO.

Dave

It's not about being the best. Toyota doesn't try to be the best.

I would guess you have some philosophical differences with your supperiors.

"Toyota's production system (TPS) is designed (and continually improved) to be able to deliver value by eliminating non-value adding waste and making system processes ever more valuable, capable, available, adequate and flexible."

I think you are lmis-interpreting ISO if you think 9000 doesn't strive for the same thing. This line could be easily applied to the philosophy of continuous improvement of ISO 9000.

"And most companies would appear to do not much more than pursue a certificate, and then do little else, except what is necessary to maintain their certification status. I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified."

Isn't what you are really saying is that individual companies are probably not benefitting from their own QMS? This isn't the fault of the Standard, it falls back to the company that is implementing it. ISO 9000 is a model for a basic quality system. It isn't a miracle pill that transforms a company into a world leader. Toyota may have a good QMS but I'll bet it is only as good as the implementation. It's the development beyond the basics that make it work so well and the same applies to ISO.

I assume Toyota does in fact buy from somebody and I would assume some of their suppliers are ISO certified. Would all these suppliers fall into your "not want to do business with them" class? I feel confident that Toyota has some sort of supplier requirement and that they work with their suppliers to meet their requirements. Is it possible that Toyota would disqualify a supplier because they were certified to ISO? Are you saying you see no process improvement, elimination of waste, etc. outside of the Toyota system? In your view is a company with no QMS a better supplier than one with ISO? If you can truly answer yes, maybe you are justified in saying there is no "value added" by ISO.

Dave

Of course some Toyota suppliers are ISO/QS-9000 certified. But Toyota does not look for it nor does it consider it a "warranty for quality" like the Big Three.

Would you consider the time you are spending NOW discussing this issue MUDA? Is it directly satisfying some customer requirement?

You're reading My mind Rob. . .

I would guess you have some philosophical differences with your supperiors.

Read Toyota's internal Toyota Way visioning documents: it doesn't talk about Toyota or what it wants to be, it talks about the company's customers and providing them the value they need.

You're reading My mind Rob. . .

Of course its muda - but I'm on vacation and can afford to indulge myself a little. On another level, it may not be muda if one can obtain valuable insights.

Read Toyota's internal Toyota Way visioning documents: it doesn't talk about Toyota or what it wants to be, it talks about the company's customers and providing them the value they need.

If those "customers" include "other interested parties" such as stock holders. . . I think the business plan does address "where" they need to be.

This is also addressed in ISO and TS. . . I'm out of here. . .

Have pleasant vacation

"Toyota's production system (TPS) is designed (and continually improved) to be able to deliver value by eliminating non-value adding waste and making system processes ever more valuable, capable, available, adequate and flexible."

I think you are lmis-interpreting ISO if you think 9000 doesn't strive for the same thing. This line could be easily applied to the philosophy of continuous improvement of ISO 9000.

"And most companies would appear to do not much more than pursue a certificate, and then do little else, except what is necessary to maintain their certification status. I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified."

Isn't what you are really saying is that individual companies are probably not benefitting from their own QMS? This isn't the fault of the Standard, it falls back to the company that is implementing it. ISO 9000 is a model for a basic quality system. It isn't a miracle pill that transforms a company into a world leader. Toyota may have a good QMS but I'll bet it is only as good as the implementation. It's the development beyond the basics that make it work so well and the same applies to ISO.

I assume Toyota does in fact buy from somebody and I would assume some of their suppliers are ISO certified. Would all these suppliers fall into your "not want to do business with them" class? I feel confident that Toyota has some sort of supplier requirement and that they work with their suppliers to meet their requirements. Is it possible that Toyota would disqualify a supplier because they were certified to ISO? Are you saying you see no process improvement, elimination of waste, etc. outside of the Toyota system? In your view is a company with no QMS a better supplier than one with ISO? If you can truly answer yes, maybe you are justified in saying there is no "value added" by ISO.

Dave

If you are saying that some companies (and by extension, their customers) are failing receive benefit from their ISO 9000 progam because the implementation was not be done well, then I would want to know how they managed to become (and remain) certified. The reality is that ISO 9000 certification has been sold as a warranty for quality in the marketplace. Now we are told that the reason it isn't working is because the implementations weren't done well (your words, "only as good as the implementation.."). But yet these companies are certified. So, if the implementations are flawed, why was certification status granted? This seems a staggering contradiction to me.

Of course there are companies other than Toyota that try to remove waste and build in quality through means other than ISO 9000. And, yes, I have seen companies with no formal QMS who are better than ISO-certified suppliers. Toyota itself may be an example - we don't consider our QMS as such to be something separate and distinct from the production system. It is an inherent part of it - we aim to build quality into processes through techniques such as poka-yoke, jidoka, etc., and you must have defect free quality to support continuous flow in production. However, quality is "programmed" into the system - it is not a separate function we layer on top of it.

. Toyota itself may be an example - we don't consider our QMS as such to be something separate and distinct from the production system. It is an inherent part of it - we aim to build quality into processes through techniques such as poka-yoke, jidoka, etc., and you must have defect free quality to support continuous flow in production. However, quality is "programmed" into the system - it is not a separate function we layer on top of it.


I guess it depends on how you interpret QMS. . .is it a "Quality" management system?? or a "Quality Management" system

I guess it depends on how you interpret QMS. . .is it a "Quality" management system?? or a "Quality Management" system

Or is it simply just a production (or service delivery) system which, among other things, is capable of producing the quality required by the customer.

ISO 9001 is basically just good business practices that most companies already have 'implemented' in some fashion.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

If ever proof were needed as to how non-value adding ISO 9000 is, one need look no further than this forum. To see such a huge expenditure of time and energy spent over the interpretation and application of clauses and requirements, certification issues, approaches and the like - all of which adds little if any value to the customer - shows why acceptance of this standard is now floundering. Pure muda!
Were that it were all that simple. What do you base your comment on? Have you numbers or other evidence to show or is one to accept your opinion?

Why did you register? Why are you here?
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->Actually, in my opinion, (where is Energy when you need him?), this whole thread smacks of the days when a certain character from Great Britain used to visit the Cove and bait the members with barbed comments looking for a little recreation to relieve his own boredom. damian, in all his posts, has only once come close to answering Marc's most pertinent question:
Why are you here?He/she is on vacation and bored.
As Quality mavens, we learn early on to eschew "anecdotal evidence." Aside from citing Toyota's choice of creating its own business and quality system versus following an international Standard, damian has really only presented undocumented anecdotes of his experience (also undocumented.)
I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified.Golly. I've been in the business world for close to 40 years and even I would be hard pressed to say I had been in several hundred shop floors, certainly nowhere near that many which were registered to any Standard. Many of the ones I've been in would have been wonderful places to serve dinner in because they were so clean, neat, and tidy. What must this say about the companies damian's employers were considering as suppliers? (I assume it was the reason for damian's visit - not that he had been employed or considering employment at so many.) If the preselection process had been a good one, damian would have never even seen the inside of a poor shop. Sounds like a lot of "muda" to me.

Folks who read my posts often remark I tell them how to build a watch when they only ask for the time. Here's my
BOTTOM LINE:
Pursuing this thread is only "muda" for the rest of us. (Golly - I detest buzz words, especially foreign ones used by pretentious people who think it makes them look more knowledgeable instead of like a wooden dummy sitting on a ventriloquist's knee!)

:topic: Ever notice how much muda sounds like the French merde?

Pursuing this thread is only "muda" for the rest of us. (Golly - I detest buzz words, especially foreign ones used by pretentious people who think it makes them look more knowledgeable instead of like a wooden dummy sitting on a ventriloquist's knee!)


Yeah, from one of those people who's fine with looking like an :ca: ...
What the he!! is "muda"???

Damian: your quality system is what you make of it. If you don't like ISO, fine. Don't register to it. Don't consider it a prerequisite for your suppliers. If Toyota has a system that works for them, fine...that's great. But understand that ISO can work - has worked - and continues to work - for many companies all around the world. Knocking other people's approaches doesn't make you any more of a superstar...

"If you are saying that some companies (and by extension, their customers) are failing receive benefit from their ISO 9000 progam because the implementation was not be done well, then I would want to know how they managed to become (and remain) certified. The reality is that ISO 9000 certification has been sold as a warranty for quality in the marketplace. Now we are told that the reason it isn't working is because the implementations weren't done well (your words, "only as good as the implementation.."). But yet these companies are certified. So, if the implementations are flawed, why was certification status granted? This seems a staggering contradiction to me."

No, if you got that from my post, I'm sorry. What I said was IMHO any company will benefit from a structured QMS. The extent of the benefit of course depends on the implementation (omitted last post but inferred - and development) of that system. If you put ISO in at the level that passes, you are entitled to certification. The individual company then develops the system to gain benefit to themselves and their customers. The more robust the system, the more benefit derived. Even your own Toyota system would yield little benefit if it were implemented but not dynamic. I hope this clears the contradiction you perceived.

Dave

Yeah, from one of those people who's fine with looking like an :ca: ...
What the he!! is "muda"???Exactly my point, Rachel. As an over-educated buffoon, I am happy to oblige:
http://www.users.waitrose.com/~wed/tools/muda.html
Muda
Definition
Any activity that does not add value - i.e. the customer is not prepared to pay for. Originally part of a trilogy of
Mura (Imbalance),
Muri (Overload) and
Muda (Non-value-added) or waste in more popular terminology.

Introduction

Most manufacturing operations today tolerate between 85 and 99% Muda. The best Japanese, namely Toyota, by their own admission still have an average above 30%. Both of these are judged against the purest sense of the interpretation, i.e. compared with Dr. Ohno´s "click" philosophy and without discussing what is necessary or avoidable.

The approach of identifying what is non-value-adding (Muda) usually involves a paradigm shift. Using the onion analogy, continuously peeling the layers of avoidable Muda of, assuming that the true value-adding ("click") is in the core, is at the heart of the continuous improvement philosophy. As this identifies improvement opportunities of a magnitude, it is surprising how many companies have not internalised this concept in their culture as the basis for a continuous improvement program. Instead they continue to pursue "hit-and -miss" quantum leap change programs and usually fail with an equally quantum-crash.

Yeah, from one of those people who's fine with looking like an :ca: ...
What the he!! is "muda"???

Damian: your quality system is what you make of it. If you don't like ISO, fine. Don't register to it. Don't consider it a prerequisite for your suppliers. If Toyota has a system that works for them, fine...that's great. But understand that ISO can work - has worked - and continues to work - for many companies all around the world. Knocking other people's approaches doesn't make you any more of a superstar...

I feel sorry for you that you perceive any attack on ISO 9000 as a hostile one. No one is knocking anyone's approach. If you think ISO 9000 delivers value, fine, use it. However, there are an increasingly growing number of people who are questioning its ability to deliver value. Certainly, the certification process is fundamentally flawed - how can you pass/fail audit a management system? Dr. Juran called it "instutionalized mediocrity" and by and large the evidence I have seen within suppliers I have visited (yes, its anecdotal but the performance of those companies is not) supports that assertion. Of course, there are companies who are in the top tier of performance and who have ISO 9000 systems among other best practices. But I doubt that many of them would have implemented it if the certification phenomenon arising from supply chain coercion hadn't taken hold in the marketplace.

I was wondering about the definition of muda but stayed lurking in the background figuring that SOMEONE would explain. Thank you!

TPS is hardly perfect - To fully understand it, you would need to get below the tools and techniques to culture - which is the real foundation of Toyota's success.

The focus of any business should be on creating and delivering the value that customers need, when they need it, in the form they need it. Maybe you can do it with ISO 9000, but I don't see the evidence of it.

Culture is the key driver -- I agree with you on that! And I agree that certification does not mean that you are great -- or poor for that matter. And I agree that TPS is not perfect. But if you see no evidence that there are great companies who use ISO 9000 as the basis of their QMS then that tells me you don't look. There are great companies who do it w/o ISO 9000 (or the "Toyota way") as well.

This is somewhat :topic: , but what the heck.

What gets me in threads started like this is the person just gives an opinion blast without any facts or numbers to back up the hypothesis. Even the hypothesis is not entirely clear. Reminds me of a drunk guy going into a bar looking for a fight over whose sister or girl friend is uglier or whatever else comes up. It's not the subject so much as the ensuing fight.

Even worse is this is someone who came here, first day, without even taking time to really look and see that his/her complaint has been discussed here in many, many threads and there are a lot of people who do agree with him/her - some completely and some at least to some degree. If damien does come back and say s/he's been lurking and has read a lot of what is here, s/he must have reading and/or comprehension problems. To me it shows gross ignorance and pompousness on his/her part. I seriously doubt damien is representative of Toyota employees. I even doubt his/her claim to have been in 100's of companies.

It was very interesting to see damien write in another quality related forum today that those of us here in the Elsmar forums are all 'ISO huggers' or something to that effect. Of course our old pal Jim 'Multiple Personality' Wade chimed in with: "If you think the discussions here are low-level, take a look at the certificate-worshipping and bad practice encouragement that takes place daily in the forums at Elsmar Cove!"

Anyone who 'hangs around' these forums knows there are people here on both sides of the fence, some sitting on it, and others just lurking, but I dare say this site and forum have never been overly pro- ISO or pro- any standard per se. In fact, if one reads through some of the old site material, one will see that this site was originally more of a 'protest' site than anything else. I have lambasted ISO 900x and QS-9000 to death. I suggest damien read thru:
http://Elsmar.com/iso9000.html , http://Elsmar.com/qs9000.html and http://Elsmar.com/obsolete/wots.html

Or taking a read through http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4452

I'm not what one would call a standards proponent by any means and a lot of others here are not, either. That doesn't mean I (we) all feel there is no value in standards. We do see value in standards - including ISO 9001.

Not to mention that in these forums many topics are discussed of which ISO 9001 is only a small part. It is not ISO centric as a whole, but rather is more of a general business standards site with a focus on quality and environmental standards. From statistical methodologies to corrective action systems, from calibration issues to environmental aspects, from Seddon to Juran - we discuss it all!

damien is a person akin to Jim Wade when he was allowed here - Out to stir things up and bait people without a whit of facts, evidence, numbers or even a clear hypothesis. Either bored or ignorant - or both.

Data and facts?

Companies compliant to QS-9000 even though their dpm ratings hit 75,000 each qtr at their customer. Where's the value?

GM, Ford and Chrysler with numerous recalls each year due to defective parts, many of which are supplied by ISO 9000/QS-9000 certified companies in their supply chains. Where's the value?

The Firestone/Ford tire debacle, with Firestone an ISO/QS-9000 certified company. Where's the value?

Toyota discontinuing the pilot ISO 9000 implementation at the Shimoyama factory because it "added waste." Where's the value?

Registrars certifying QMS's irrespective of the degree of management commitment (pass/fail mentality). Where's the value?

The list goes on and on ... yes, there are some companies successfully using ISO 9000, but there are many more who adopted it because they had to. Their performance has not been significantly improved by ISO 9000. Let's be honest here - if it weren't for supply chain coercion, the number of companies that would have adopted ISO 9000 would probably be quite low. Can it help improve quality - perhaps; does it add value - questionable.

Hey, Little Cee and Rachel! You didn't know "muda" but you did know "merde"? Wow!:lmao:
If not, let me suggest http://babel.altavista.com/ (merde is French.)

When you know the meaning of merde, you'll get the joke.:lmao:

As to the rest of this thread, now I'm as bored as damian.

It was very interesting to see damien write in another quality related forum today that those of us here in the Elsmar forums are all 'ISO huggers' or something to that effect.Yeah, I read it too, and I don't particularly care, for three obvious reasons:


Imo it is grossly incorrect.
The first post in this thread was a copy, word by word of the post in the other forum - which suggests to me that damian followed the link provided from Jim and already had his mind made up about what the Cove is.
Neither post (in either forum) displayed any great intent to get a constructive discussion going. To me it looks more like an attempt (somewhat successful I might add :rolleyes: ) to rock the boat a bit just for the fun of it.
Not to mention that in these forums many topics are discussed of which ISO 9001 is only a small part. It is not ISO centric as a whole, but rather is more of a general business standards site with a focus on quality and environmental standards. From statistical methodologies to corrective action systems, from calibration issues to environmental aspects, from Seddon to Juran - we discuss it all!
Yes... I tried to explain that too.

damian: you suggested that: an enlightened person would attempt to understand and apply the fundamental principles on which the system is basedSo tell us about Toyotas way. I am interested, and either way it would be a lot more constructive to discuss the value of one thing instead of bashing something else.

/Claes

Objective evidence of what? That because the "rulebook" calls for "emphasizing defect prevention and the reduction of variation and waste in the supply chain," that this is what will happen when the rules are "applied"? If this were working, why do GM, Ford and Chrysler still continue to have huge quality problems in their supply chains, as evidenced [objectively] by the ongoing recalls and the fact they consistently lag in JD Power reports behind the Japanese automakers in first year quality, with a huge gap when you move out to years 4 and 5. And note, we are only talking quality here, not cost, delivery, and health and safety.

Please excuse me for rushing off yesterday but I finish at about that time.

I think you will have to ask THE BIG THREE yourself to find out why? Maybe they'll take you on and solve it for them....you never know once you apply the "rules" effectively and efficiently? One person's rubbish is another person's gold.
For starters continious improvement is embedded in ISO 9001:2000.....and as MARC said you should be addressing TS 16949, I don't recall anyone stating that you where off topic, but still there is always room for improvement.

However on a more positive note since you're so keen on ISO 9000, I would suggest that you go through ISO 9004:2000 Quality Management Systems-Guidelines for performance improvement.......there's also some more objective evidence.......as to finance, health and safety. Not to mention infrastructer, workplace....etc.

For those forced to do it by their customers - probably no.

For those who chose to do it - probably yes.

For those who (like us) were already in the 'good business practice' mode from company inception 32 years ago, and were requested to seek certification - yes.

I feel sorry for you that you perceive any attack on ISO 9000 as a hostile one. No one is knocking anyone's approach.

That's odd - and here I was thinking we had all been labelled as "ISO-huggers".

Oh wait, we were...

Data and facts?

Companies compliant to QS-9000 even though their dpm ratings hit 75,000 each qtr at their customer. Where's the value?

GM, Ford and Chrysler with numerous recalls each year due to defective parts, many of which are supplied by ISO 9000/QS-9000 certified companies in their supply chains. Where's the value?

The Firestone/Ford tire debacle, with Firestone an ISO/QS-9000 certified company. Where's the value?

Toyota discontinuing the pilot ISO 9000 implementation at the Shimoyama factory because it "added waste." Where's the value?

Registrars certifying QMS's irrespective of the degree of management commitment (pass/fail mentality). Where's the value?



I'll play! Toyota issues dozens of recalls on thousands of cars since year 2000 despite implementing TPS! Where's the value?

So tell us about Toyotas way. I am interested, and either way it would be a lot more constructive to discuss the value of one thing instead of bashing something else.

:agree1: Great point, Claes!

Let's look at the mission of the Cove, shall we?

An Information Resource for ISO 9000, ISO 14000, ISO 19011, as well as the ISO/TS 16949 and QS-9000 automotive standards to Quality, Engineering and Management professionals. People Helping People!

People helping people...not insulting, slamming or continually provoking (be this intent of the writer or the perception of the reader).

Damien, you tossed out the lure by starting a rather intersting debate regarding the benefits, merits and value of an internationally recognized standard. Reel us in. Tell us more about TPS, its foundation, why is it better than ISO 9001 or TS16949. What makes it so great compared to a system recognized by many other countries and companies? Sell us on it. Your profile states that you are a VP of Manufacturing....I have not doubt that a person in that position is capable of providing a persuasive argument. :D

As has been pointed out in this discussion, the system is only as good as the culture. Damien talks about visiting companies where he is in disbelief that they managed to attain/maintain registration to ISO 9001. Yet I read only one example of a successful management system....Toyota's. Does this mean that TPS (be it the program itself or its founding principles) is more beneficial? No. But I don't think that is Damien's intent.

There have been a few remarks regarding Damien's actions of stirring the pot and comparing him to a previous member of the Cove. I suggest that if Damien wishes to turn this discussion into something with more value, something that can benefit all of us (people helping people), he simply tell us about TPS and what makes it a better system than ISO 9001/TS16949.

On a quick side note, I am curious as to why Toyota felt ISO was muda...could it be because it already had TPS in place? If so, I, too, would probably agree that registration to ISO 9001 would be rather non-value adding. But that's because you had a system already in place.

I have no desire to proseltyze for TPS, which will stand or fall on its own merits just like ISO 9000. My arguments against ISO 9000 have been articulated in this thread as well as one on "the other forum". I simply believe that the value it adds is questionable, and that where value is added it is not likely to be significant. The evidence I present is "anecdotal", but I believe it is verified in the performance of a great majority of firms who have achieved certification but still fail to show signficant improvement in their performance. Were ISO 9000 even remotely effective, the long-standing and ongoing quality problems in the automotive supply chains (to take one example of a pervasive industry application) of the Big Three would have been addressed long ago. The bottom line is that ISO 9000, as a transformation and improvement methodology, has failed, like so many other programs and fads, to change the preoccupation with local optima aimed at providing short-term results in the majority of firms.

The most frightening aspect of ISO 9000 is, for me, that it is perceived as a substitute for thinking by a great many firms which adopt it. "Let's get certified and everything will be right with the world," seems to be the operative mantra. The fact that ISO 9000 is not based on knowledge, and never can be based on knowledge because it is prescriptive, means that by itself it can never support a learning organization. The majority of companies I have visited who have achieved ISO 900 certification have never taken the time to understand what the value required by their customer is and how their business system should be designed to create and deliver it. They continue to struggle, paying lip service to continual improvement, carrying huge amounts of waste, and only concerned with meeting the next quarter's targets. They are completely sub-optimized, yet they are certified. This is the most deplorable thing about ISO 9000 certification - that sub-optimization can be accorded recognition, even validation, via a certificate.

There are companies who have achieved world-class levels without ISO 9000 and they have made that journey by becoming learning organizations focused on continually improving the value delivered to customers. They apply basic principles based on acquiring what Deming called "profound knowledge" of their processes and systems through the empowerment and involvement of their employees. This is a radically different notion from the conformity to requirements mindset required by ISO 9000. You cannot substitute prescriptive requirements for knowledge.

I see no point in your post. Many more companies, I suspect, without ISO have gone down the tubes. I've seen ISO help some companies - especially during implementation. With some I've seen it to be nothing but an added 'cost of doing business'. That doesn't mean the standard is inherently bad.

I'll state what I stated earlier - ISO 9001 is just some good business system basics which most companies address in one way or another whether registered or not.

So again, damien, I think we all agree. ISO can be bad and it can be good. That's not a very good reason to dismiss and condemn it in its entirety.

If the only, or the most significant, waste in a business is ISO 9001 'costs', it would be quite an unusual business.
The most frightening aspect of ISO 9000 is, for me, that it is perceived as a substitute for thinking by a great many firms which adopt it.
I don't believe that's the majority case. I've never before even heard anyone say ISO 9001 was or is a substitute for 'thinking'. I've known a lot of people who have said it makes people think. I myself believe implementations promote thinking. I also wonder why you use the word 'frightening'. What scares you? Is it the end of the world if some companies don't understand that ISO is a model and will typically not save a failing business?

Look, Gang,

Damian seems to add nothing different or more informative with each successive post.

Damian also apparently ignores other's responses and queries.

My suggestion: stop replying to this thread. End it right here!

We have better topics about which to expend our energy.

I have no desire to proseltyze for TPS, which will stand or fall on its own merits just like ISO 9000. My arguments against ISO 9000 have been articulated in this thread as well as one on "the other forum". I simply believe that the value it adds is questionable, and that where value is added it is not likely to be significant. The evidence I present is "anecdotal", but I believe it is verified in the performance of a great majority of firms who have achieved certification but still fail to show signficant improvement in their performance. Were ISO 9000 even remotely effective, the long-standing and ongoing quality problems in the automotive supply chains (to take one example of a pervasive industry application) of the Big Three would have been addressed long ago. The bottom line is that ISO 9000, as a transformation and improvement methodology, has failed, like so many other programs and fads, to change the preoccupation with local optima aimed at providing short-term results in the majority of firms.

Yes, you have stated your arguments against ISO, your beliefs against ISO, your "anecdotal" (your word, not mine) evidence, etc. I wasn't asking for that. Perhaps, I should rephrase my request, as you appear to believe that I want you to convert us over to your side. I simply wish to understand.

You state why ISO doesn't work. So tell me why TPS does. What is the difference? Why are they different? Rather than sit at a computer telling me the reasons for your belief in ISO's failure...tell me why TPS and how it works.

The most frightening aspect of ISO 9000 is, for me, that it is perceived as a substitute for thinking by a great many firms which adopt it. "Let's get certified and everything will be right with the world," seems to be the operative mantra.

Many firms, I agree. All? No. And what it is even better, by my experience and exposure (i.e., my "anecdotal" evidence) is that companies who first pursue registration for the purpose of getting the piece of paper on the wall, soon realize that the system can be beneficial. They start to see ways to improve processes, systems, Return On Capital Employed, etc.

The fact that ISO 9000 is not based on knowledge, and never can be based on knowledge because it is prescriptive, means that by itself it can never support a learning organization.

Upon what evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) do you base this? Do you understand why ISO 9001 is the way it is? This kind of ties into my request of you, Damian....I'm trying to understand why TPS is the way it is. What were the building blocks for it?

The majority of companies I have visited who have achieved ISO 900 certification have never taken the time to understand what the value required by their customer is and how their business system should be designed to create and deliver it. They continue to struggle, paying lip service to continual improvement, carrying huge amounts of waste, and only concerned with meeting the next quarter's targets. They are completely sub-optimized, yet they are certified. This is the most frightening thing about ISO 9000 certification - that sub-optimization can be accorded recognition, even validation, via a certificate.

Well, let's face a cold, hard fact of business, shall we? The primary goal of a business is to make a profit. It's not about giving jobs, or doing what we love...it all about $$$. The wonderful thing is that concepts such as Safety, Continaul Improvement, Customer Satisfaction, etc. are tied into an organization's ability to make more money.

There are companies who have achieved world-class levels without ISO 9000 and they have made that journey by becoming learning organizations focused on continually improving the value delivered to customers. They apply basic principles based on acquiring what Deming called "profound knowledge" of their processes and systems through the empowerment and involvement of their employees. This is a radically different notion from the conformity to requirements mindset required by ISO 9000. You cannot substitute prescriptive requirements for knowledge.

No one here is saying that ISO 9000 is needed to achieve world-class performance. We are saying that it can be tool used to help achieve that level by some organizations. Is it right for everyone? Hardly...and I'm certain that many people here in the Cove would be first line to agree with me.

***

So, Damian...you came here because you're on vacation and bored. What do you hope to gain out of your visit here? We come here in the hopes of exchanging information...learning, helping. While I find your topic interesting, I'm hoping now you will add some information to help learn about TPS (doesn't mean we'll agree with it, but it's nice to understand other concepts).

Look, Gang,

Damian seems to add nothing different or more informative with each successive post.

Damian also apparently ignores other's responses and queries.

My suggestion: stop replying to this thread. End it right here!

We have better topics about which to expend our energy.

Right on, Rob - I'm sure that we all have a million better things to do than respond to attempts at button-pushing.

I see no point in your post. Many more companies, I suspect, without ISO have gone down the tubes. I've seen ISO help some companies - especially during implementation. With some I've seen it to be nothing but an added 'cost of doing business'. That doesn't mean the standard is inherently bad.

I'll state what I stated earlier - ISO 9001 is just some good business system basics which most companies address in one way or another whether registered or not.

So again, damien, I think we all agree. ISO can be bad and it can be good. That's not a very good reason to dismiss and condemn it in its entirety.

If the only, or the most significant, waste in a business is ISO 9001 'costs', it would be quite an unusual business.

I don't believe that's the majority case. I've never before even heard anyone say ISO 9001 was or is a substitute for 'thinking'. I've known a lot of people who have said it makes people think. I myself believe implementations promote thinking. I also wonder why you use the word 'frightening'. What scares you? Is it the end of the world if some companies don't understand that ISO is a model and will typically not save a failing business?

Of course its a substitute for thinking and learning. Look at the statement by Claes: "What's the alternative [to ISO 9000]?". This is about the most stupid statement I have heard and shows how much the mind of some in the ISO community has been numbed by slavish adherence to prescriptive requirements. This statement implies that there has to be "something" - whether we call it ISO 9000, Six Sigma or whatever is immaterial, but the need for a program, a fix, a prescribed solution is so endemic that people have forgotten what it means to think and learn, either individually or collectively. The people who built great production systems (i.e., Ford, Ohno, etc.) did it with their own brainpower, combined with that of their co-workers - not with programs,consultants and registrars. Ohno himself said the only thing you need is an inquisitive mind. The great companies are the ones who's employees think and learn together and are aligned towards a common goal - a culture of learning and continual improvement. If you think you need a program or ISO 9000 to do this, you've missed the mark entirely.

Of course its a substitute for thinking and learning. Look at the statement by Claes: "What's the alternative [to ISO 9000]?". This is about the most stupid statement I have heard and...

There is no need to insult anyone here, Damian. You yourself admitting to 'coming in peace'. (see next quote)

I feel sorry for you that you perceive any attack on ISO 9000 as a hostile one.

...shows how much the mind of some in the ISO community has been numbed by slavish adherence to prescriptive requirements. This statement implies that there has to be "something" - whether we call it ISO 9000, Six Sigma or whatever is immaterial, but the need for a program, a fix, a prescribed solution is so endemic that people have forgotten what it means to think and learn, either individually or collectively.

Isn't TPS a program? I'm gathering the overall gist of it is to assist in the overhauling of wasteful activities. Is there not some sort of protocol to be followed in order to identify, track, control, and disposition such activities? Wouldn't this protocol consist of requirements to ensure proper identification, tracking, control and disposition?

The people who built great production systems (i.e., Ford, Ohno, etc.) did it with their own brainpower, combined with that of their co-workers - not with programs,consultants and registrars. Ohno himself said the only thing you need is an inquisitive mind. The great companies are the ones who's employees think and learn together and are aligned towards a common goal - a culture of learning and continual improvement. If you think you need a program or ISO 9000 to do this, you've missed the mark entirely.

Good for them for doing it on their own! :applause: Now, for those who did not manage to think it up on their own, don't you think it would very non-muda of them to sit down and try to reinvent the wheel? If the system exists out there, why should they think of it by themselves? I thank them for their creativity and appreciate it...there's no need for me to develop a method for CI, when someone's already thought up the widely used PDCA methodology.

Yes, a culture of learning and CI is a wonderful thing to have. Does being registered to ISO 9001 mean you've suddenly got that culture? :magic: There is no magic fairy wand that waves over our heads and says "WHAM! You will now learn and continually improve!" (if only it were that easy). I'm sure that TPS, as impressive as it sounds now, did not have immediate results over night.

ISO 9001 within an organization is an evolutionary process. If you have taken the time to read other posts throughout the Cove, Damian, you will have noticed multiple threads expressing frustration, anger, confusion and general uncertainty regarding the Standard. Odds are, when Toyota first started implementing TPS, learning about it, communicating it, etc., there were a lot of similar feelings.

Overtime, TPS has helped your organization to align itself to a management system that has shown, I'm assuming, obvious benefits. Overtime, registration to ISO 9002:1994 and now ISO 9001:2000 has helped my organization to control our methods for standardizing, controlling, monitoring, measuring, and improving....all aspects of our Business Management System. Did we need ISO? Probably not. Did ISO help us? Definately yes. :D

This statement implies that there has to be "something" - whether we call it ISO 9000, Six Sigma or whatever is immaterial

Getting a bit religious in context here, IMHO.

This has now become an extremely boring thread

Has someone activated an 'echo' button?

Look, Gang,

Damian seems to add nothing different or more informative with each successive post.

Damian also apparently ignores other's responses and queries.

My suggestion: stop replying to this thread. End it right here!

We have better topics about which to expend our energy.:agree1:

This is the only thread that damian has participated in and he has not offered any evidence to support his perception of ISO. Nor has he responded to any of the questions about TPS.

Of course its a substitute for thinking and learning.
What ever you say.

Of course its a substitute for thinking and learning.

How can we learn if we have no teacher? I am now beginning to wonder if you truly understand TPS enough to be able to provide us with even a basic understanding of how and why it works.

It is amost as if it is your sole purpose here to take credit for working for an organization that through the efforts of men like Ohno have established a process (and yes no matter what lofty terms you use, it is merely a process) that has been proven to be benefitial to that organization. But what have YOU contributed to that process, and can you share in your knowledge to the point that others can benefit from it, or is it your desire to merely set on the sidelines and throw stones?

If throwing stones is what you're all about, I not only not interested - but I see your input to this entire thread as muda!

Either offer real help, or don't waste my time with your trite remarks.
:mad:

Damian,
Do you work in the automotive field?
I for one, respect your right to an opinion yet, we (Many) at the Cove have from time to time (As you evidently have) become entrenched in a position and, have come under siege. The :truce: emoticon is a good start Damian.
I'm not going to run all over your views. We at the cove reserve the right to (Respectfully) disagree with views according to our perception or ingrained knowledge through either, education or real world experiences.
I would like to know more about your working environment Damian. Your views alone re-ISO9001, I find intriguing and, I would sincerely wish to know why you are apparently an opponent of the ISO 9001 culture.
I don't particularly have a love affair with ISO9001 yet, I do see that, the management system that is evident throughout the standard and associated documents of reference advocate the beginings of systems thinking as a foundational principal for profound knowledge.
I look forward to your reply.
Wallace.

Look at the statement by Claes: "What's the alternative [to ISO 9000]?". This is about the most stupid statement I have heard and shows how much the mind of some in the ISO community has been numbed by slavish adherence to prescriptive requirements.

Quite right. That was a stupid. I tried to have a constructive discussion with you. Very stupid... I have now given up on that (See, I'm getting smarter already). I don't mind being stupid though, because one of these days I may get lucky and ask a clever question, while you on the other hand always will remain Damian.

This statement implies that there has to be "something" - whether we call it ISO 9000, Six Sigma or whatever is immaterial, but the need for a program, a fix, a prescribed solution is so endemic that people have forgotten what it means to think and learn, either individually or collectively. I never said that. You did... What it rather does imply is that we all need to think and learn, both individually and collectively. You should try it sometime, and throw in a bit of modesty at the same time.

This little quote from Toyota Canada's website may help:
Respecting people is a commitment that Toyota takes very seriously. This commitment includes respect for all stakeholders including Team Members, customers, suppliers, the community and shareholders.It must be lovley to work there...

/Claes

The thread has some good content so it stands, but we don't need problems like we not so long ago experienced where things became very personal.

Next week is a new week. Other threads will rise. Let's let this one die a quick death.

Maybe this damien dude (remember the movies Omen I, II, & III) can develop something better. Seeing as he knows it all, it shouldn't be too, too hard.

How about it damien deary? ;)

Damien,
Common courtesy is to politely enter into conversation when asked or provided opportunity to enter ones home or group or whatever, it's not to start slinging fecal material around to try and prove how "sharp" you are.

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

Most groups I have come across develops a type of group think. This naturally organises itself to promote and protect the group - to remain comfortable and to help people learn and do their jobs. However, looking at this from a high level, historically, there will be times when we will be able to say 'and this is what replaced ISO 9000'. Well, I would suggest that this group will be one of the last people on earth to see this occur, only because we are so close to it and many of us depend on ISO. We also truly believe that we see the benefits.

In Damian's posts I felt, as well as others in the forum, that he had an interesting point. From his point of view he tried his best to understand how ISO can help, and compared it with the TPS. Many of you were civil and listed to what he said. Others, for reasons of immaturity or stubborness I suppose, chose to react insultingly. I would say that you are in danger of being left behind in an environment that is moving ahead. ISO 9000 registrations are declining in mature countries, and ISO has failed to become the approach favoured by those who train and lead industry.

Personally, I see Damian's posts as echoing John Seddon from the UK. John, has written a very clear analysis of ISO 9000 which allowed my boundaries to become far more expanded. John also promotes the TPS thinking as a way to move forward in a sea of 'fads'. If I was to gamble, I would say that TPS will become far more mainstream, and ISO 9000 will drop away in mature countries.

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it. I believe it is not just an alternative to ISO 9000 but leaves ISO behind in the dust. The trick for me was to to be able to temporarily let go of defined thinking that we all develop when we work with something like ISO for so long.

Rachel I would recommend you read Johns book on ISO.

Regards,

Ilias

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

*sigh* So much for letting this thread die off.

Most groups I have come across develops a type of group think. This naturally organises itself to promote and protect the group - to remain comfortable and to help people learn and do their jobs. However, looking at this from a high level, historically, there will be times when we will be able to say 'and this is what replaced ISO 9000'. Well, I would suggest that this group will be one of the last people on earth to see this occur, only because we are so close to it and many of us depend on ISO. We also truly believe that we see the benefits.

I prefer to say that many of us are connected to a Management System or Program of some sort and/or a related methodology such as Six Sigma. We see the benefits because we live it. We also see that no system/program/methodology/process is perfect. One thing that we all share is a desire to improve.

In Damian's posts I felt, as well as others in the forum, that he had an interesting point. From his point of view he tried his best to understand how ISO can help, and compared it with the TPS. Many of you were civil and listed to what he said. Others, for reasons of immaturity or stubborness I suppose, chose to react insultingly. I would say that you are in danger of being left behind in an environment that is moving ahead. ISO 9000 registrations are declining in mature countries, and ISO has failed to become the approach favoured by those who train and lead industry.

Why even mention this slinging of insults? But if you wish to do so, please note that it was a two-way situation. Doesn't make it right, but it is important to note that shots were fired from both sides.

Are registrations declining in mature countries? I haven't seen the survey come out yet. Have you? However, if they are, that is only part of the story and is, in my opinion, a meaningless number without an answer to the following question...WHY? Why are numbers declining? I don't want ISO's opinion on why they are...I want organizations to tell us why they let their registration lapse or why they chose to never pursue it.

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it. I believe it is not just an alternative to ISO 9000 but leaves ISO behind in the dust. The trick for me was to to be able to temporarily let go of defined thinking that we all develop when we work with something like ISO for so long.

We tried to learn about it, Ilias. We asked Damian to tell us more and had the door slammed in our faces. It is rather difficult to let go of "defined thinking" when you have no other option to think about. We attempted to give our own points of view and were mocked. Rather than encourage us to learn more about TPS, Damian insulted and basically said we were wrong. Not exactly a facilitating style I would encourage trainers and leaders to have.

For the most part, I'd say the members of the Cove are not only willing to share knowledge, but willing to learn it, as well. We frequently disagree and, thankfully, we occasionally agree. But we are all willing to admit that there is not necessarily just one right way to accomplish something.

Unfortunately, Damian might have had a point to make but he failed to do so. He did not share...he preached. He did not assist...he stated. When we asked questions, he was unable to provide satisfactory answers - by that I mean he failed to provide evidence that explained why he felt the way he did...not that he was unable to convince we were wrong. We don't come here to prove each other wrong...we come here to show that we have a way that works for us.

Final nail in Damian's coffin is this...where is he now? Comes in while on vacation, insults, stirs up controversy, and disappears. That does not exactly inspire to think "Hey...maybe this guy is on to something."

I just caught this thread.

I think it's a worthy discussion, because its underlying premise hints at our evolving struggle, as quality professionals, to remain relevant in today's churning business climate. For me, it expresses misgivings that many management people have toward Quality, and especially ISO/QS/TS/etc.

Damian said:

"The fact that ISO 9000 is not based on knowledge, and never can be based on knowledge because it is prescriptive, means that by itself it can never support a learning organization. The majority of companies I have visited who have achieved ISO 900 certification have never taken the time to understand what the value required by their customer is and how their business system should be designed to create and deliver it. They continue to struggle, paying lip service to continual improvement, carrying huge amounts of waste, and only concerned with meeting the next quarter's targets. They are completely sub-optimized, yet they are certified. This is the most deplorable thing about ISO 9000 certification - that sub-optimization can be accorded recognition, even validation, via a certificate."

This tells me that companies are not doing the registration (a basic indicator of unawareness is that Damian kept calling it "certification") for any reason except they think they have to. Those who feel this way--let's say the management, who amplify the company's heartbeat and spirit through their policies and support--will be just going through the motions. They may not really be buying into Quality's benefits at all.

They resist as long as they can, saying they don't want to "bureaucratize" their systems by making those pesky procedures and things. I have seen this close up.

Currently there is movement away from publicly owned status. Some companies are considering stock buybacks and going private, feeling uncomfortable with increasingly intrusive oversight and disclosure requirements. Perhaps this is what Damian is feeling too.

Why register? Because customers demand it--for market position? For the company's resale value? To improve the company's credit rating? Are these good enough reasons? Management had better believe it, or ISO won't work.

Damian noticed, as many did, that registered companies can still fail miserably. Bridgestone Tire was registered to QS 9000 at the time of their catastrophic Ford Explorer debacle. How can this be--why didn't auditors catch the problem, where was the value then? Many have asked this question, and rightfully so because many lives were lost and ruined through that failure.

I can say from my observation that registrars can't demand to look at performance data, merely system records and associated details. Correct me if I'm wrong, but short of becoming a police force, I suspect ISO would gain more respect if auditors were allowed to be more aggressive.

But therein is the rub. ISO is a communally formed standard, and such uncomfortable aspects as performance oversight and ethics, if they ever existed in the standard, were edited out during the review and approval process. Training and empowering auditors in oversight could be troublesome.

In fact, I find the new ISO is more flexible and learning oriented than before. People who don't see this, as Damian might not have, may still be dealing with the suspicion based on the older standard, never deeply considering their potential with the new one.

Our wrangling--and particularly mine, and my tendency to "nuke" training matters--about the standar'd requirements can easily be viewed as bickering or indecisiveness. Perhaps we resemble a bunch of religious scholars, animatedly discussing ancient texts' meaning and application. In my view, our ability to do that "proves" the standard's flexibility. It also shows an uncomfortable truth: we are trying to read registrars' minds, anticipate the minimum they will accept and "conform" to that rather than make a system that we can prove works, and simply present it as such.

Such philosophical exploration as this can help us understand how to make Quality more appealing to smaller businesses, with or without registration. I submit we will increasingly need to do that--spread awareness, or leave our professions because as manufacturing slips away, some of us struggle to remain relevant.

...there will be times when we will be able to say 'and this is what replaced ISO 9000'. Well, I would suggest that this group will be one of the last people on earth to see this occur, only because we are so close to it and many of us depend on ISO. Well... We have over 40 forums clobbered together here. One of them deals with the ISO 9000 series. Does this suggest that we are terribly devoted to ISO9000?

Others, for reasons of immaturity or stubborness I suppose, chose to react insultingly. Speaking for myself, I chose to retaliate in kind when damian was rude to me, not before. I tried to get a constructive discussion going and he would have none of it. I would be happy to see a proper (and civil) discussion on the subject.

Personally, I see Damian's posts as echoing John Seddon from the UK.So do I.

I would say that TPS will become far more mainstream, and ISO 9000 will drop away in mature countries. That is entirely possible, and time will tell...

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it. By all means. As I said early in this thread: Let's discuss it.

/Claes

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

Personally, I see Damian's posts as echoing John Seddon from the UK. John, has written a very clear analysis of ISO 9000 which allowed my boundaries to become far more expanded. John also promotes the TPS thinking as a way to move forward in a sea of 'fads'. If I was to gamble, I would say that TPS will become far more mainstream, and ISO 9000 will drop away in mature countries.

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it. I believe it is not just an alternative to ISO 9000 but leaves ISO behind in the dust. The trick for me was to to be able to temporarily let go of defined thinking that we all develop when we work with something like ISO for so long.

Rachel I would recommend you read Johns book on ISO.

Regards,

IliasAh yes, *sigh* indeed, Roxane!

Ilias, the reason you missed this thread is there were many other good things going on when it was in full swing. The bulk of your threads mention John Seddon. I hope you have more to tell us than a rehash of his philosophies. I prefer to read and hear things firsthand, not second- or third-hand. Perhaps Mr. Seddon, himself, would deign to join us occasionally to give us the benefit of his wit and wisdom. Please feel free to extend an invitation to your countryman on your own behalf as well as on our behalf.

Have you looked through the thousands of other threads which focus on ALL aspects of quality or are you primarily interested in the philosophical aspects of ISO as a flawed program?

I, for one, welcome all input which reflects an open mind and an eagerness to impart FACTS versus an intent to proselytize a point of view. Sadly, we receive input from time to time which confuses facts with opinion and the resulting furor is embarrassing to read.

Rarely, we get someone so confused he or she will ascribe personal characteristics to individuals based on an expressed opinion. This is mere "namecalling" and belongs in the play yard, not where the epithets will hang, like the rotting albatross on the Ancient Mariner, to forever mark the horrid deed.

Welcome, Ilias, to the Cove.http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bigwave-d2.gif I hope your sojourn is a happy one.

...From [damian's] point of view he tried his best to understand how ISO can help, and compared it with the TPS...

What thread were you reading?

Rachel I would recommend you read Johns book on ISO.


Okay - why me specifically?

...Rachel I would recommend you read Johns book on ISO...

If you could just doooo that, that would be great. (tee hee, I love Office Space quotes.)

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

Ilias

Ilias, I am glad you found it as I have now been benefited by reading this thread's entirety this morning.

I am glad I found The Cove with its many discussions. It is great to be a part of a group of individuals that can readily present their viewpoint and supporting facts.

Jaime

If you could just doooo that, that would be great. (tee hee, I love Office Space quotes.)

Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks! :D

When the first version of ISO 9K appeared in 1987, I did not like its content. And I wrote to that effect in article published by the IQA, in its house magazine, in 1988. I advised it needed "prompt and thorough revision". All **** broke loose because someone (me) had the temerity to disagree with the content. My remarks were foolishly interpreted by some as meaning I was opposed to the idea of such a standard: I was not, I am not and I will not be. But I do not like they disingenuous way in which it has been promoted and the more unsavory elements of the multi-billion dollar industry it spawned.

As we know, since 1987, two further revisions have appeared. The 2K version is the most significant as it changes the approach from one based on the old style Mil-Q-9858A type of standard (emulated, plagiarised etc by so many offspring) into the "task" approach - which I have publicly advocated since the early 1970s.

So, when anyone asks "is there an alternative to ISO 9K?", it is worth remembering that same point was made by many who were outraged at any criticism of the content of the earlier editions. Indeed, in the UK, the very suggestion that the old BS 5750's content was flawed, was similarly greeted with howls of horror, when someone (ahem!) expressed concern and suggested change. Those same horrified people also embraced the 1987 ISO 9K when it appeared, stated it was an essential step forward (and so forth), (the 1987 ISO 9K was little different from BS 5750:1979 content).

My point is: can any standard be perfect? Is it not the case that these things will continually evolve (improve) as experience is gathered? Is there an alternative to ISO 9K? Of course there is! It will be whatever is the next and subsequent edition.

While damian and others may not like the present content, there is a number of forums through which contructive suggestions and experience can be provided with a view to securing improvements. Of course, the whole process is based on one gigantic committee and that itself does not guarantee the best content will prevail. Of committees some say they always reach agreement based on the lowest common denominator of positions. Others say the camel is a horse designed by a committee.

I may not agree with the tone of some of damian's remarks but, as Voltaire said, one must defend unto death his right to say them. I suppose that is what free speech at the "Cove" is all about. And, yes, I am sure Mr Seddon would be welcome at the Cove.

ISO 9001 is remedy for a lack of common sense.

Why do we need it? Because when you get a group of people together, you not only harness their collective intelligence, you also bear the burdun of their collective stupidity. It is human nature, we have all been there and we have all contributed.

A standard pulls everything back in line by requiring everyone to play by the same rules (in theory). Some work better than others (See the Child safety foundation, FDA, NRC, etc.) Where ISO falls apart is that it is not applied consistently by the registrars. Instead of treating it as a true standard, it is open to interpretation, which opens the pandoras box of points of view and hidden agendas.

Is it a Gigantic waste? Well the registration part certainly is.
The standard itself? No, I think it is beneficial to keep the collective stupidity at bay.


Regards,

Car-

Hello Damien:

I didn't realize that the cove only does the following things as stated by Damien inthe first posting:

"demonstrating conformity to requirements, expending energy trying to figure out what clauses or requirements mean to satisfy a certification body, or working to achieve local optimization via a "process approach,".

(By the way, the Process Approach does not support local optimization or sub-optimaztion unless done incorrectly.)

Seems to me there is plenty of discussion on how to improve the business system to improve customer perception. By the way Damien, please tell us why there is an ISO 9001 clasue for "Customer Perception" but no requirement addressing customer satisfaction? This may be an example of advanced thinking brought to the table by ISO 9001 that most organizations would never even think about.

Keep in mind there is the Standard. The actual document. There is the implemention of a system, and there is conformity assessment.

"ISO 9001" is a document. This document is interpreted by every organization that uses it to analyze their business system. If an organiztion wishes to be or is required to be certified, then they will have to enter into the rhelm of conformtiy assessment.

Is your dissatisfaction with the document, organizations' interpretation of the document, or with the feild of conformity assessment?

Regards, Dirk van Putten

Alas, damian doesn't visit anymore (under his original screen name) - his Profile shows:
damian
Registered User
Last Activity: 16th April 2004 04:51 PM
Offline

ISO 9001 is remedy for a lack of common sense.

Why do we need it? Because when you get a group of people together, you not only harness their collective intelligence, you also bear the burdun of their collective stupidity. It is human nature, we have all been there and we have all contributed.

A standard pulls everything back in line by requiring everyone to play by the same rules (in theory). Some work better than others (See the Child safety foundation, FDA, NRC, etc.) Where ISO falls apart is that it is not applied consistently by the registrars. Instead of treating it as a true standard, it is open to interpretation, which opens the pandoras box of points of view and hidden agendas.

Is it a Gigantic waste? Well the registration part certainly is.
The standard itself? No, I think it is beneficial to keep the collective stupidity at bay.


Regards,

Car-

You are quite correct Carl but it doesn't stop at the ISO standard we are subject to the interpretation of standards and laws in every facet of our lives. As you point out the collective stupidity of the human condition is a burdun on all societies. Thats why we have a justice system.
I can recall an instance when I was an inspection supervisor and the prime contractor rep. asked me what he could do to help expedite product. My reply was to have him coordinate the inspection activities of both DCAS and his Customer reps;To wit, consistently apply the specifications to the product.
His mouth dropped open and his hands went into the air. Its impossible when you have three organizations inspecting the same product each has been instructed in a different manner by different instructors, albeit it was the same solder spec. :2cents:

OK,

You are cruising down the highway doin' 70 mph.

Red lights start to flash behind you.

You pull over, the officer approaches and says, "do you know why I pulled you over?"

Regardless of your answer, or whether or not you get a ticket, you BOTH understood the standard of the 55 mph speed limit.

There was no "interpretation" of the standard.

THAT is the reason that the ISO registration process is USELESS.

I am not familiar with the solder spec you are referring to, however I know one of two situations exists without seeing it.

Either:
1. The standard is fine, unfortunately people are allowed to "interptret" it

OR

2. The standard is not written with enough clarity to be applied in a consistent manner and should be re-written

Oh yeah, there is a third option

Regardless if the standard is actually useful or not, it was designed as a money making scam.

So let me ask this question

If the officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket because he "interpreted" that you were going 70 mph, but in fact you knew you were only going 53 and had evidence to prove it, what would you do?

I'm going to challenge his interpretation.

So why do we allow registrars to interpret, and why do we have any confidence in a Registrar audit?

Carl-

Dear Carl and others:

I just saw this thread, which goes way way back to long before I registered. Tried to read through some of them, I must admit, not all, though. so, I may be missing something for sure.

One thing that seems quite clear is the so-called "collective stupidity" that is being noted repeatedly. In another thread, I think it was Wes who said something like "seeking mediocrity". The ISO 9K2K standard, widely used in the automotive industry, was meant to be a method of helping the Big 3 evaluate their suppliers. This is also the reason why it is so difficult for a quality professional, from another industry, to enter the automotive field (discussed in another thread).

Anyway, let's take a simple method of assessing a supplier. We look at many metrics of their performance. Let's say we use a point scoring system, with a scale of 0 to 10 on a number of key measures of performance, say 10 in all. This means 100 points total. Then what do we do? We add all the scores. Supplier A had a score of 86, supplier B had a score of 88, supplier C had a score of 92. Then we find an 'average' score for all the suppliers. Let's say average is 89.

Of these three suppliers, two suppliers A and B with scores of 86 and 88 are below average, and one supplier C is above average. This is how the search for "mediocrity" rather than the search for EXCELLENCE begins. It becomes enshrined into our way of thinking. Does this "average" routine really mean that supplier A with 86 points should not be considered? There were 10 different measures of performance. The 0 to 10 scores on 10 measures were added together to arrive at a "composite score". Perhaps, there are some measures where supplier A (86 composite) is better than supplier C (92 composite).

Standards are necessary for us to function in an orderly manner (just like the speed limit of 55 mph). If not, there would be utter chaos. However, in my humble opinion, we also have to learn to be more critical in evaluating "data" and learn to distinguish between the "average", or the mediocre, and the EXCELLENT.

If you are an athlete, say a runner or a swimmer, you want to participate in the Olympics. If you participate in the Olympics, you want to get the GOLD. This is what we mean by EXCELLENCE - a quality or a feature of a person of thing that cannot be surpassed. Average values that we use to make many decisions, implicitly, do not meet, in my humble opinion, this standard of EXCELLENCE.

The metric of looking at 'average' just will not do. So, I think a new method of evaluating data is required for those who seek to excel. Now, fire away at Johnny come lately to this thread.

Charmed :)

I have to say that while the concepts of ISO do not bother me the registration certificate and third party registration does. This is the part of the ISO thingy that adds waste. People have to be registered so they try to figure out how to prove that they are doing the things they usually are doing already. This leads to extensive documentation of all sorts of extras.
I believe that most businesses want to and do there best to provide a quality product to their customers. the ones who do not well how will a QMS of any kind help them? It won't.
Ultimatly each company is responsible only to their customers. I hope the concept of registration dies a very quick and painless death.
Registration has huge obsticals that need to be overcome. One is that third party audits are not objective. Since we the ones being audited are paying the bill the registrar has a conflict of interest. really the companies requiring the certificate should pay for the registration if they desire it.

Just my thoughts

Mark

So damian gone now?? well, I can't believe anyone could insult claes-- you one of the least offensive posters here. And very quick to welcome others. :applause:
As a matter of note, i have rarely noticed any remark that was stupid, we are generally professionals and the thinking from those with lots of experience is one of the great things about the cove!

I will reiterate the point I expressed in my fledgeling paper. A company should make the standard its own. for his part, damian at least point out what is so BAD about canned programs. Its thinking and not standardization that is the whole point. It is pure "muda" to put in a canned program and seek the peice of paper.

However it is not so muda to put in time and thought to a QMS using ISO 9001 as a set of suggestions on how to do it.

Damian also reflects a little of the attitude against the 'fad' of the year. I am sure many in the cove can empathize. However, I must speak up for the marketing of quality. If their was no 'fads' -six sigma,ISO900x; would there really be jobs for us? even if you subscribe to the theory that management will pay for quality without fads-- would modern ideas of quality really fight against the tons of other people trying to market ideas to top management.

Don't forget that everyday, a small army of people embark to convince that management that XYZ program (lean, SAP, microsoft office, teams, herbs) is going to be the 'magic' pill to turn around some of their understaffed, unenlightened, and low morale organization.
We Do need to be heard, and if it takes FADS, to do it, I'll I'll swallow another fad from some overpaid consultant. for ultimately merely hiring you and keeping (any of you) is a basic vote of confidence in your ability to make an ability to make a difference. in these days of aggresive corporate staff-cuts its not so very trivial, either.

I think the single biggest victory ISO ever achieved was to promote the idea to hire paid professionals to analyze and eliminate quality problems.

OK,

You are cruising down the highway doin' 70 mph.

Red lights start to flash behind you.

You pull over, the officer approaches and says, "do you know why I pulled you over?"

Regardless of your answer, or whether or not you get a ticket, you BOTH understood the standard of the 55 mph speed limit.

There was no "interpretation" of the standard.

THAT is the reason that the ISO registration process is USELESS.

I am not familiar with the solder spec you are referring to, however I know one of two situations exists without seeing it.

Either:
1. The standard is fine, unfortunately people are allowed to "interptret" it

OR

2. The standard is not written with enough clarity to be applied in a consistent manner and should be re-written

Oh yeah, there is a third option

Regardless if the standard is actually useful or not, it was designed as a money making scam.

So let me ask this question

If the officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket because he "interpreted" that you were going 70 mph, but in fact you knew you were only going 53 and had evidence to prove it, what would you do?

I'm going to challenge his interpretation.

So why do we allow registrars to interpret, and why do we have any confidence in a Registrar audit?

Carl-
I agree! :agree1: :topic: The problem with solder specs (most if not all) is they are subjective in nature. I recall one spec that had three degrees of acceptance (acceptable, better, preferred). Now the inspector says the solder joint is acceptable but the auditor is looking for preferred. Sound familar? Of course happens all the time, we live in world shaded in grays. :yes:

Notice something? This thread now displays a proper and construcive discussion :agree1: Kudos to Allan & Carl for bending it in the right direction....

And J Oliphant: Thank's....:agree:

/Claes

Well, thanks to you all for replying to my post of some days ago, I think it shows the reslience of this group when it comes to talking about positive & negative aspents of our work. I will just try and answer some comments that were asked of me:

1. Roxanne, I understand there has been a reduction in ISO 9000 certification in mature countries. John Seddon published some work about it recently that was taken up in the press. I believe the article is still on his website somewhere. If I look around me I would have to admin that ISO 9000 is hardly a topic that is heard about much in management circles, nor is it ever the subject of management magazines that I have read. Ontop of this much of the research on ISO 9000 effectiveness appears not to show a true causal link between ISO registration and operational improvements. There was some comments by someone called Gavin Dick in the Telegraph in the UK. BSI in the UK cannot seem to show any real research on the matter.

2. Claes, I would like to discuss the TPS but it is amazing how difficult it is to find true information on it, or talk to someone knowledgeable. It seems there was a chance with Damian, and I have sent him an email, but no reply yet. I am still learning about this, and reading books on Lean. It also seems that it is a concept that is best grasped by doing. A catch 22 situation of sorts. So unfortunately I am unable to contribute much on Lean. What I do understand is that it seems to be diametrically opposed to a standard of any type, because you need the theory and method, then do Lean. No standard can ever supply this and restricts this. ISO 9000 will not change the management thinking and that is what is needed in my opinion.

3. Wes Bucey, yes I admin I am becoming a fan of John Seddon. This started when I believe a learned to look at ISO 9000 after reading his book "The Caase Against ISO 9000". It is clear that he is far cleverer than I am and has done more research. I cannot hope to match his abilities to look at something like ISO 9000 and see it for what it is from a very unusual point of view. So I am not afraid to follow his ideas. I can see no wrong in this, and I also admire others like Mintzberg, etc. I still read everything critically and make my own mind up. What did surprise me more was that I understand John Seddon does not make any financial gain from denegrating ISO 9000, he just sees it as a total waste of time, and distracts people from doing real improvement. Don't forget the principles of ISO 9000 were developed during the 1940's to fix a short term need. I find ISO 9000 stifling and rigid when compared to real business today.

4. Rachel, I suggested you read the book as I note from your profile that your experience of ISO 9000 and operations is rather short compared to me, and you are clearly young and eager, and you are looking for a challenge. My suggestion was not meant to be anything other than that. I am glad of people who nudged me in certain directions when I felt too comfortable.

5. Jay Oliphant, if only organisations would take the standard and make it their own how many of organisations who are regisetered do this? 5% is my guess. So when I look at ISO 9000, and other standards, I see the reality of the situation and not just the theory. And looking at the big three automotive pushing their suppliers into QS 9000/ TS 16949, and it is clear I think to all of us that coersing a supplier to implement a standard will drive the wrong behaviour - that is to get the certificate. It all seems too primitive to me, there are more intelligent ways of doing business.

As for Six Sigma, don't get me started on that excuse for management control. Improvements can be justified to any programme, I have done that a few times in my time, and I know that they were not really due to the fad but clear hard work despite the fad. That is my experience anyway.

Jay, I think you hit on a good point. Are we all going to really truly criticise something that is giving many of us employment at the moment? I am just imagining myself going into my bosses office and suggesting that I resign because I suggest that the managers get their act together, manage the system directly, and leave ISO 9000 alone. Like in the Telegraph with BSI in the UK arguing that ISO 9000 is a good thing for business, and having no data or research to show it. They are making money from it so what are they going to do?

Interesting thread,

Ilias

I am just imagining myself going into my bosses office and suggesting that I resign because I suggest that the managers get their act together, manage the system directly, and leave ISO 9000 alone.
I am considering this course of action of course I am moving on to something else. I do not think that this company will keep the system going when I am gone so why implement the parts that are just baggage anyway.
Mark

For the record:Certainly, the certification process is fundamentally flawed - how can you pass/fail audit a management system? Dr. Juran called it "instutionalized mediocrity" and by and large the evidence I have seen within suppliers I have visited (yes, its anecdotal but the performance of those companies is not) supports that assertion. Ergo: not Wes's quote. Actually, I don't remember reading that quote or a paraphrase in Juran. I'd appreciate someone refreshing my memory to the exact quote and context, if it exists.

I liken the ISO9k2k issue to a good software program which has been corrupted by some "gremlin." The software manufacturer almost always recommends:
"Delete program and re-install!"

In some (by no means all) organizations, the concepts and methodologies behind ISO9k2k have been misinterpreted and allowed to go off on a tangent which causes outsiders to attribute the misdeeds to a fatal flaw in ISO9k2k.

Alas, these same organizations who go "off kilter" are able to find a registrar (or merely a single auditor) who is an "enabler" and actually abets the misinterpretation and subsequent misimplementation by issuing a "registered" certificate.

Is this any different than the supremely obese man who couldn't get out of bed but still managed to eat tens of pounds of food per day? The "enabler" bought and served the food.

Sometimes, someone has to have the tough love to just say, "NO!"

1. Roxanne, I understand there has been a reduction in ISO 9000 certification in mature countries. John Seddon published some work about it recently that was taken up in the press. I believe the article is still on his website somewhere. If I look around me I would have to admin that ISO 9000 is hardly a topic that is heard about much in management circles, nor is it ever the subject of management magazines that I have read. Ontop of this much of the research on ISO 9000 effectiveness appears not to show a true causal link between ISO registration and operational improvements. There was some comments by someone called Gavin Dick in the Telegraph in the UK. BSI in the UK cannot seem to show any real research on the matter.
Ilias,
I live in a mature country and Yes our governing body (QSA) has stated that according to their records (article in latest online Magazine) companies are leaving the registration merry go round ...but they are being replaced. The market is NOT growing but rather has plateaued. I think we could all discuss the many and varied reasons that companies leave behind registration.
2. Claes, I would like to discuss the TPS but it is amazing how difficult it is to find true information on it, or talk to someone knowledgeable. It seems there was a chance with Damian, and I have sent him an email, but no reply yet. I am still learning about this, and reading books on Lean. It also seems that it is a concept that is best grasped by doing. A catch 22 situation of sorts. So unfortunately I am unable to contribute much on Lean. What I do understand is that it seems to be diametrically opposed to a standard of any type, because you need the theory and method, then do Lean. No standard can ever supply this and restricts this. ISO 9000 will not change the management thinking and that is what is needed in my opinion.

Why the discussion on who's management system is better? IMHO I think this thread has got it all wrong. Step away from the terms used (ISO, TPS, TQM etc) and look at what they are trying to achieve. We have a successful business and we are certified by and to a standard. We did not build our business around the standard rather the standard lets our customers know that the the business processes we have in place are equal to or better than the laid down standard. We did not design our processes around the clauses! Our company has learned from Ford, Juran, Deming, Toyota, Ishikawa etc etc but it has learned this through the collective skills, education and experiences of our workforce. They have designed systems and the processes within from their life skills and education (The Registration acknowledges these). We have never tried to build our business around the standard. Please remember that the standard (IMO) is a criteria for a license it is NOT the TOOL for improvement. I hope this makes sense.

3. Wes Bucey, yes I admit I am becoming a fan of John Seddon. This started when I believe a learned to look at ISO 9000 after reading his book "The Case Against ISO 9000". It is clear that he is far cleverer than I am and has done more research. I cannot hope to match his abilities to look at something like ISO 9000 and see it for what it is from a very unusual point of view. So I am not afraid to follow his ideas. I can see no wrong in this, and I also admire others like Mintzberg, etc. I still read everything critically and make my own mind up. What did surprise me more was that I understand John Seddon does not make any financial gain from denegrating ISO 9000, he just sees it as a total waste of time, and distracts people from doing real improvement. Don't forget the principles of ISO 9000 were developed during the 1940's to fix a short term need. I find ISO 9000 stifling and rigid when compared to real business today..
ISO9000 is not a 'real business'!!! It is not even a tool! How you meet the standard is up to you and your company. The tools you use to achieve the standard are up to you. The amount of times that I have heard people say 'ISO has not fixed my business' still astounds me. How can it fix your business? They are like the instructions you get with 'Flat Pack' furniture...The instructions are only useful to people that can use them i.e have the necessary tools to implement them. Read Hex Key = Business Plan, Spanner = Trained Workforce, Screwdriver = Process Control etc etc
4. Rachel, I suggested you read the book as I note from your profile that your experience of ISO 9000 and operations is rather short compared to me, and you are clearly young and eager, and you are looking for a challenge. My suggestion was not meant to be anything other than that. I am glad of people who nudged me in certain directions when I felt too comfortable..
I'm sorry if this sounds as if I am defending Rachel (I'm know she can defend herself) but I wish, at the same age, that I had the same common sense, education, knowledge and grasp of this tangled web that she has. I do, however, believe that Ilias was just trying to offer Rachel advice.
5. Jay Oliphant, if only organisations would take the standard and make it their own how many of organisations who are registered do this? 5% is my guess. So when I look at ISO 9000, and other standards, I see the reality of the situation and not just the theory. And looking at the big three automotive pushing their suppliers into QS 9000/ TS 16949, and it is clear I think to all of us that coercing a supplier to implement a standard will drive the wrong behaviour - that is to get the certificate. It all seems too primitive to me, there are more intelligent ways of doing business..
Ilias, I can't fault this at all as it relates to the previous part of my post. It would seem however that the major car companies are to blame for the expansion of some of these problems by imposing THEIR business processes on others. Six Sigma was born from Motorola and everyone (that uses it) expects it to do for their business what it did for Motorola. I think HP has a very good system as does Toyota....then again I think Roxane and Stew and Rachel have excellent systems (I get this from thier posts)
As for Six Sigma, don't get me started on that excuse for management control. Improvements can be justified to any programme, I have done that a few times in my time, and I know that they were not really due to the fad but clear hard work despite the fad. That is my experience anyway..
Six Sigma has it's place and I am sure that the people that use it believe in it. I personally do not have much faith in it and I know my management would not either (especially the cost) :D
Jay, I think you hit on a good point. Are we all going to really truly criticise something that is giving many of us employment at the moment? I am just imagining myself going into my bosses office and suggesting that I resign because I suggest that the managers get their act together, manage the system directly, and leave ISO 9000 alone. Like in the Telegraph with BSI in the UK arguing that ISO 9000 is a good thing for business, and having no data or research to show it. They are making money from it so what are they going to do?
I walked into my boss’s office the other week, the new HR manager was there and she asked me what I expected to be doing in five years. I said that hopefully, I would still be employed here but doing another job. She asked why? Was I unhappy with my current role? I said NO. I saw my role disappearing because if I do it right EVERYONE should be working together in the integrated system, which is our business and they want need a deicated Quality Guy but rather a Business Analyst or Improvement Manager etc

BSI has to develop the tools to help us develop our businesses. Not preach the standard. I have found since 9K2K that our registrar (80% of Australian Market) has changed their tune. No longer do they solely audit to the standard but they have realised that they have to evolve and meet their customer’s requirements. We want them to gauge our business, give us tools to help etc etc. Not Gimmicks or fads but strong business proven tools.

I will now get off my Soap Box. It is late in the day here and If I sound a bit miffed rest assured it is not with you personally. We have had similar discussion right throughout the COVE but it seems that when people KNOCK ISO they never offer an alternative. Damien tried (TPS) and we, again, listened but AGAIN, NO TRUE ALTERNATIVE WAS OFFERED.
PS: What works for Toyota will not necessarily work for someone else

Notice something? This thread now displays a proper and construcive discussion :agree1: Kudos to Allan & Carl for bending it in the right direction....
I have almost been shocked... :eek: I was sorta waiting for a blowup. Makes me happy! :agree1:

EDIT ADD: This is what happened to 'damien'...

Reporting-MTA: dns; Elsmar.com
Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost
Arrival-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:03:24 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; teddy_england1966@yahoo.ca
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; mx1.mail.yahoo.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to teddy_england1966@yahoo.ca cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta445.mail.scd.yahoo.com
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:03:25 -0400 (EDT)

He's long gone.

Ilias,

so you know I am young and eager,too. I have 5 years experience in quality and am 30 years old.
Also, thanks for the advice about reading seddon's book, but it can be challenging to find books. with a new family (4 / 2 year old) there isn't much $$$ for books-so if I can't snag it at the library , it will have to wait...
so the big point*
Sumarize favored authors concepts and do not judge me on whether I seem young , inexperienced- judge me on What I say.

Great Post Greg B :applause:. And I agree with what you said.

HOw is "The organization shall plan and develop the processes needed for product realization..."[ISO 9001:2000 7.1], a tool?? Its a directive and a very general one at that. ISO is the shell of what a company needs to do, because it is so general. any company implementing ISO has to do things their 'own' way because ISO doesn't nearly offer enough detail. So if you implement ISO you should be wise and pick the details that make sence for your company/ industry and fit your own company culture and ideals. You should ask questions like 'what is the right way to do XYZ', what process would other personnel best support and be interested in?

case in point:
ISO 9001 7.6 "Where Neccesary to ensure valid results, measuring equiptment shall
a) be calibrated or verified at specific intervals, or prior to use, against measurement standards traceable to international or national measurements;”

This general requirement doesn't mention a controlled document calibration schedule (which we have) or even make it terribly mandatory to calibrate (which we do), It doesn't say how to calibrate something either only states that the standards should be traceable. The point is we make all these other rules (about whats calibrated, when and how) to meet this general directive in this standard.

ISO is full of places like this we you need to make your own specific 'rules' to turn this very general standard into a QMS.

My other big thought is that, although there is little inherent benefit from registering. There is enormous benefit to adopting principles of enlightened management. Consider Deming, he has my admiration because he described some of the 'laws' of good business/ quality practice. consider the directive
to 'drive out fear'. Very general, its not easy to insert form XYZ to ensure company has driven out fear.
However, what is the consequences of having a management system where a worker whom reports poor product is likely to be fired?? whats the consequence of a worker whom reports poor product to be thanked rewarded and the probelm fixed without ANYONE being fired or written up?

Hence IMHO, ISO is no tool and its 'rules' are so general that you pretty much have to define the 'details' to implement it .

you can avoid ISO (it will save you a lot of $$$) but you ignore principles of good quality management at your own peril-- there will be benefits to following them and consequences for ignoring them.

and tell us more about John seddon's thoughts (or better yet have him visit the cove), because we are all here to learn and should be judged on what we say.

Jay

Ok, I’ll debate it a little.

I can see three possible challenges to ISO:
Efficiency X Person needs to spend Time and money understanding, implementing and hosting ISO auditors. Y people needs to spend time creating, and maintaining quality records and forms. Registrations costs $$$. These are avoidable fees.

Philsophy ISO doesn’t maindate Y idea OR ISO requires directives that is irrelevant to the business.

Conformance ISO is so general and subject to interpretation that registration/auditing is a ‘non-value’ added activity. So whats the big appeal, it doesn’t mean anything to your customers Nor Force you to adopt any good quality management ideas.

I take it from previous posts that you consider Efficiency to be the major problem with ISO, you (and damian before you) consider ISO to be ‘wasteful’ use of resources (time and money).

Perhaps you and your management team consider the best solution to be the cheapest. Certainly it is cheaper without ISO. It is cheaper without the ISO rules too. For example calibrating—we spend hundreds of dollars a year having ‘traceable’ standards and dozens of hours between 6 chemists calibrating just the lab instrumentation. Certainly this is a cost, management would prefer not to pay. So without ISO, it trims staff down and both staff and management agree that there is no time (and money) for calibrations.

But what is the cost OF not calibrating/validating product test instrumentation at regular intervals?? Nothing—Until one of the instruments is out of maintenance. Soon, possibly, gauge that the inspector are using to measure product dimensions are wrong. Plant personnel notice, the foreman verifys that product is drifting out of spec. he makes a big pile of the shift’s product (which is sorted into good and bad by another inspector) and goes and ‘adjusts’ the tool press. Problem solved. No expensive SPC, no MRB, no corrective actions, maybe not even formal inspection forms to deal with. All that is $$$ the plant is saving by not having the overly wasteful ISO system in place.

Meanwhile the tool press is busy making defective product. And the shipment is passed and gets to customer whom finds out a lot of 10,000 parts is out of spec, and is worthless for them. Their tight deadlines are approaching and they contact the company franctic. It goes to sales (no new sales), marketing (product 1234 has more features), then to production. Short strapped production goes for the obvious intuitive reaction. More inspectors! And fire that SOB whom was using the bad guage. No quality manager, corrective actions nor forms showing what really caused the problem. Who’s going to spend time getting to the real problem??

No one, and that’s the real point of it altogether. ISO is a management’s investment in quality and it would be only too happy to not spend any money on any quality rules. Management likes not spending money and not hiring people. But without that assurance your customers are unhappy and ready to move. Better stay at the cheapest because no ones going to put extra money into a product that isn’t reliable.
Oh and by the way, some Chinese company with half the overhead just entered your market.

I look forward to the counterargument. Please do reference what John seddon’s main points are. Is his an argument of efficiency? Philosophy? I believe ISO is defendable because if you spent a time to intelligibly set up rules to prevent quality problems you would certainly be following some of (if not all) ISO general directives. ISO provides management motivation (by publically recognizing the investment with a certificate) to allow you to set up a system to prevent quality problems. If you’ve got an enlightened management whom is willing to give you the resources to do the job, WOW. Normally management holds you back from really doing a thorough job at quality assurance.

In that case, your registrar is your friend. Think of it a second. If management doesn’t give you the resources to do the job, then some auditor might have enough courage do stop you from going forward. Stop you from having an inadequate quality effort. He gives management a reason to change their dangerous short staffing before some competitor completely overwhelms you company with a superior product. So why is it that some people so resent the smaller waste of resources meeting a standard when they will not rail against companies that endanger employee’s security by short staffed, unenlightened, and inefficient quality systems.

The various matters raised in this thread are (sadly) almost worn out through similar or identical discussion that started about 16 years ago. It is amazing how many acres of space have been devoted in house magazines, web sites, conference proceedings etc, to arguing the merits or otherwise of ISO 9K et al. And, yes, for my sins I am also guilty of that.

Yes, the standard obviously contains things sensible people would incorporate into their business. For example: plan what you do, do what you plan and record what you did; check what you do; know you are tright and so forth. (Does anyone out there remember Jack Vassaly's marvelous summary of the famous "18 criteria", produced in the early 1970s?)

Of course, one can dispute the actual content, wording and so forth - as I mentioned already in this thread - the standard can be worked upon to produce its next incarnation. But, why is it not implemented? Well, Moses wrote down only ten things - and we are still waiting for compliance. Trouble is, implementation requires people. And, people are not perfect. Revisit this in 20 years or 50 when we have the umpteenth edition of ISO 9K and the same questions will be asked. At least in the case of Moses' 10Cs, there is a day of reckoning: with ISO 9K - who shall be St Peter?

I am not so much convinced the standard has problems, though it has certain shortcomings, as I think the manner by which it was promoted, the general ability of many who tried to put it into their firms and the lack of value-added results - especially as most attempts at implementation have been conceptually flawed - have combined to destroy the "quality momentum" that was clearly visible throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when dealing with senior executives. In short: the quality profession was presented with a major opportunity but blew it because it became seen as a one-trick pony whose name was: ISO 9K. Why did that occur? After all, there had been a plethora of standards in many countries and business sectors for years and the quality pros in various sectors were gaining ground by simultaneously helping their firms develop their Q Progs to meet the sector standards and improving business results. But none of them promoted their sector's standard as the definitive answer to life, the universe and everything. (42) They were getting management's attention and support.


ISO 9K spawned an industry into which many arrived seeking an easy and quick buck. The laws of supply and demand, prevailed. Of great concern to me, then, as it is now, is the fact that so many instant "quality experts" plundered the quality profession, taking from it rather than puting in anything. And, of course, some gravitated to various committees and bodies that "govern" qualifications, certificates and so forth - after all, if one can claim to be a meber of this or that body, does not that infer "competence, expertise" in that particular field? (Or is it just a good dupe for business?). It has been tragic. But, nothing is irreversible given hard work and good will from those who really are experienced professionals.

It is time for the quality profession to clean up its Augean stables. Hopefully, then, some of the present debate will be put to rest.

...

as I think the manner by which it was promoted, the general ability of many who tried to put it into their firms and the lack of value-added results - especially as most attempts at implementation have been conceptually flawed - have combined to destroy the "quality momentum" that was clearly visible throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when dealing with senior executives...
Of great concern to me, then, as it is now, is the fact that so many instant "quality experts" plundered the quality profession, taking from it rather than puting in anything. And, of course, some gravitated to various committees and bodies that "govern" qualifications, certificates and so forth - after all, if one can claim to be a meber of this or that body, does not that infer "competence, expertise" in that particular field? (Or is it just a good dupe for business?). It has been tragic. But, nothing is irreversible given hard work and good will from those who really are experienced professionals.

It is time for the quality profession to clean up its Augean stables. Hopefully, then, some of the present debate will be put to rest.

I've been seeking a further understanding of the reasons why ISO 9000 gets picked on so much. Allen you have a different answer, but I'm trying to understand it.
You seem to say that the quality managers and consultants of the world ruined the destroyed the quality momentum that was showing in the 80's and 90's. In trying harder to understand who you mean I get some very vague clues. 'those promoting quality, those that are inexperienced, those that are instant quality efforts and those that got out of quality (I'm imagining consultants and authors) more than they put in. I disagree most with the latter.

In my mind, I see some really great thinkers shaping quality through the 80's and 90's; Juran, Deming, crosby, Tagushi. these people brought great enlightenment, to me at least. no to be fair few of them 'promoted the standard'. but these are the least guilty of incompetence or spouting when they didn't know. These great thinkers pointed out some of the mistakes and sins of the quality system that use to prevail in america. heavy on inspection, clueless on prevention. Their concepts then inspired many to try to bring the message to management. Did it make a few 'instant experts'. maybe. But really who many truly incompetent consultants stayed in business? Remember, allen many of the people you mention are here, in this cove. I could be called an instant quality expert. the cove is full of people whom have done implementations. Consultants, Mark,Wes,Db is a consultant.

What grime are we so guilty of? so far as I could tell, we are/were only trying to bring these thinkers innovations to a cynical, and not so attentive management. and ISO was just the gift wrap. A momentary commitment into those that learned important lessons from the great thinkers of quality. Management would get peer recognition and in the background perhaps enlightened. that was there attempt.

I am probably most defensive of the word 'experienced'. Tons of people have experience, experience is inevitable. but there is experienced and set in your way. experience and not willing to consider new ideas. What we need is not experience but is thinking, and isn't that why a lot of people are here at the cove.

Thats why it was so BAD that damian attacked claes. not because claes was 'experienced' because claes is thoughtful. I find it hard to believe we ruined our own quality initiative by being dumb. On the contrary, I find it easier to believe that like deming said, the system has generated the defect. A system where management expect miracle pills to its problems.

PS. I'm not sure the debate will ever be put to rest, some people will always resent a standard.

I vividly remember the days of Mil Specs for Quality. There were a lot of bureaucrats who loved the prescriptive methods of dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s - I was not one of them.

I loved efficiency. I loved "shortcuts" and making changes on paper long before we ever made a physical product. Inspection (meaning "detection of defects") always made me see visions of dollar signs flying out the skylights.

I wasn't bright enough, nor did I have the time when I was young, to write books on my ideas of making PROCESSES (yeah - we used that term back in the 60's) more efficient.

Preventive maintenance? Car manufacturers had been touting it for years, aided and abetted by oil companies and service station mechanics. Why did someone have to make a big deal out of industry also adopting preventive maintenance?

Cleanliness? Sunday schools were teaching "cleanliness is next to godliness" for at least 200 years before I was born, so why the big deal about 5S?

"Waste not, want not." was advice from Ben Franklin at the time of the American Revolution. Why was there such a big deal about eliminating "Muda?"

As I see it, many of us who chafe at ISO9k2k or 6Sigma are not railing at the underlying principles so much as we are ticked that some folks touting ISO9k2k or 6Sigma act like everything we did before was stupid and inefficient.

"Mistake proofing?" I have a strong hunch a certain carpenter and his son in Nazareth often said "measure twice, cut once."

Every so often, a particularly charismatic guy repackages a bunch of old truisms and presents it as "new, improved" for his audiences of greenhorns. Alternately, some tout the "secrets of the ages." (I guess they are secret if folks never bother to read about them in readily available books in the nearest library.)

Just because they are repackaged does not make them bad (but it also doesn't confer instant stupidity on anyone who hasn't signed on to the campaign.)

As the "experienced players" among us gain more experience, we often come across a glaring reality: It isn't enough to have a good system in your head, you have to sell it to ALL the folks who will use it and implement it. By selling, I mean we have to inspire, coax, coerce, bribe, dazzle with logic, appeal to greed, etc. to overcome the inertia of an existing system.

So, often the difference between a "successful" quality manager and an unsuccessful one is not which particular methodology he follows, but how good he is at marketing it to his organization. A lot of guys seem to like 6 Sigma because it has some built-in marketing tools to appeal to the suits in management. That still leaves a lot of folks on the shop floor who also have to be brought into the game (which may explain why some 6 S programs go off the rails.)

I think a big part of the problem with ISO is that it along with ALL of the other Quality Standards has such a small pool of truely qualified people to implement, comunicate and maintain the systems in the businesses being required to conform. by qualified I mean having some grasp of the quality guru's philosophies. And because of this many companies hire who ever is willing to perform a job they are likely not qualified for in order to try to meet the mandate supplied by their customer. This is how I got into the field and I have no formal training in this. It has all been OJT learn as you go. I do not know many of the guru's many of you casually spit out as if they were some relative or friend or movie star. Juran, Deming, and Ishikawa (the fishbone dude in case I spelled it wrong) are the ones I have some knowledge about but I have read very little by them more about them or about their ideas written by others. I suspect that many here are in the same boat.
I have met so many people in this field that are unqulified "experts" that think because they took a class for a day or two they have it, that are really only qualified to pick grass or collect cans it makes me sick. The problem is not the concepts of ISO or other QSystems but the lack of truely knowledgable people to work in the field. JMO
Mark

I think a big part of the problem with ISO is that it along with ALL of the other Quality Standards has such a small pool of truely qualified people to implement, comunicate and maintain the systems in the businesses being required to conform. by qualified I mean having some grasp of the quality guru's philosophies. And because of this many companies hire who ever is willing to perform a job they are likely not qualified for in order to try to meet the mandate supplied by their customer. This is how I got into the field and I have no formal training in this. It has all been OJT learn as you go. I do not know many of the guru's many of you casually spit out as if they were some relative or friend or movie star. Juran, Deming, and Ishikawa (the fishbone dude in case I spelled it wrong) are the ones I have some knowledge about but I have read very little by them more about them or about their ideas written by others. I suspect that many here are in the same boat.
I have met so many people in this field that are unqulified "experts" that think because they took a class for a day or two they have it, that are really only qualified to pick grass or collect cans it makes me sick. The problem is not the concepts of ISO or other QSystems but the lack of truely knowledgable people to work in the field. JMO
Mark


Mark, I agree. But, it is not only book sense that makes it - it is the APPLICATION of these ideas that is the key, and that is the reason I, and so many others (I believe, anyway) do not like the "one size fits all" approach. Sure, knowing about the tools is important, but there is no substitute, IMO, for seeing how and why things actually work.
ISO 9000? Just a tool. Fishbone diagram? Just a tool, etc, etc.

Its the proper, and successful, application of these tools that is important.

I think a big part of the problem with ISO is that it along with ALL of the other Quality Standards has such a small pool of truely qualified people to implement, comunicate and maintain the systems in the businesses being required to conform. by qualified I mean having some grasp of the quality guru's philosophies. And because of this many companies hire who ever is willing to perform a job they are likely not qualified for in order to try to meet the mandate supplied by their customer. This is how I got into the field and I have no formal training in this. It has all been OJT learn as you go. I do not know many of the guru's many of you casually spit out as if they were some relative or friend or movie star. Juran, Deming, and Ishikawa (the fishbone dude in case I spelled it wrong) are the ones I have some knowledge about but I have read very little by them more about them or about their ideas written by others. I suspect that many here are in the same boat.
I have met so many people in this field that are unqulified "experts" that think because they took a class for a day or two they have it, that are really only qualified to pick grass or collect cans it makes me sick. The problem is not the concepts of ISO or other QSystems but the lack of truely knowledgable people to work in the field. JMO
Mark

Mark,

I MUST disagree. Just because someone knows a lot about some GURU it does NOT mean they can implement a Quality, Environment or Safety System nor does it mean they can run a business with Good Sensible Business Practises. Many of the better QA (systems) people I have met thru my networks have not had any formal 'Quality' training other than a brief one day induction to ISO and a two day internal auditors course (that is all the training I received). I have learned most of my 'QA' stuff from networking, Life & Business skills and even the cove. Please do not confuse ISO with the Quality Gurus. IMO the Gurus are espousing more about metrics and certain aspects of a Business System they are not necessarily talking about ISO and in many of the experts cases ISO was not around when they started selling their theories. As Wes stated it used to be Mill Specs etc. IMHO any Business Graduate or a Person with a good business head can run a QA system because as I stated in my last post it should be a reflection of YOUR BUSINESS not a regurgitation of the STANDARD or a GURU's VISION. Don't let Quality Control TECHNIQUES or FAD TOOLS Cloud your view of what Quality Assurance is about. It is a BIT of Paper that certifies to your Customer that you run your business in line with a given set of business guidelines. What it does not do is tell them if you actually make a GOOD product and IMHO that ids the major drawback - Not of ISO but of the registrar system of audits.

Greg,
I guess I was not clear because I agree with what I understand you to be saying. What I am trying to say is that most of the people I know in this line of work ( auditors, Quality staff, consultants ) do not have a clue what they are doing and are flying by the seat of their pants. I really do not care if they know Juran or the others but it IMO would be beneficial to understand some of the philosophies that drive the quality world. And IMO it would be very good if they had any kind of problem solving skills.
I was nominated for my job simply because I was the only one to complete college ( BRE religious degree ). I was not ready for what I was thrown into but now it doesn't bother me that much because most people in it are not any better qualified than me and most, in my not so humble opinion, do not have as much common sense. I have been doing this now for about ten years and I am still amazed at how some people make $50.00hr for "consulting", just because they have an opinion and got one or two places their flag.
Mark

Greg,
I guess I was not clear because I agree with what I understand you to be saying. What I am trying to say is that most of the people I know in this line of work ( auditors, Quality staff, consultants ) do not have a clue what they are doing and are flying by the seat of their pants. I really do not care if they know Juran or the others but it IMO would be beneficial to understand some of the philosophies that drive the quality world. And IMO it would be very good if they had any kind of problem solving skills.
I was nominated for my job simply because I was the only one to complete college ( BRE religious degree ). I was not ready for what I was thrown into but now it doesn't bother me that much because most people in it are not any better qualified than me and most, in my not so humble opinion, do not have as much common sense. I have been doing this now for about ten years and I am still amazed at how some people make $50.00hr for "consulting", just because they have an opinion and got one or two places their flag.
Mark

Good comeback Mark, well explained. I apologise if I had misread your previous post and I may have come across a bit strong. FYI: My expertise is in Aircraft Avionics (started with Milspec stuff) and my Diplomas are in Engineering and Management.

so we have my original 3 complaints of ISO

It is the most efficient use of resources
NOt includes this or overemphasizes that
registration is a non value added activity

and add 2 more:
People implementing are not competent
The ISO std added no profound knowledge to the quality movement

and in all these- 'people implementing are not competent' resonates??

I will protest markasmith, craig, and greg. Isn't this like blaming the worker for quality problems (Deming)? you could consider implementing a management directive to be a process. in that process quality workers are like production. In your own businesses surely you would not automatically blame workers for every problem, so I think we should NOT automatically blame quality workers when there efforts fall short. These professionals have their limitations too; Quality efforts must clearly be supported and must be supported when they hit the inevitable obstacle in other departments.
Just the other day, actually quality management was rebuffed from on high, here when they protested that a department signed off for training on procedures for over 90days. management told the ISO dept that this dept was too busy to be expected to achieve this in 90days. oh and it probably would have taken 1-2 hours max for the dept to do the training. Is this the quality workers, fault too??
those of you whom are quality managers, surely as difficult as it is to understand the standard and the 'best' way to do things--is that really as hard as trying to get support from management/ other departments?

I say blame the system first, and leave well-intentioned people alone.
if you hold to you opinion and feel urge to engage in friendly debate, please post.

I hope I am not too strong, I'm enjoying this thread. it's probably redundant, but interesting. I realize I may be simplifying others point of view-- personally, I think ISO is neither a gigantic waste or necessarily beneficial. So I'm willing to debate a little with those that post whom definitely think ISO is a 'gigantic' waste.

The question is kind of like saying "Is a College Degree a Gigantic waste, or beneficial?"

A college degree should be an indicator that you have proven a certain degree of proficiency in your field.

If put to good use, it is a win-win for all.

If maintained by the holder and revised as needed, it is kept current with the pace of the business world.

Some choose to put it to the best use and actually go BEYOND the requirements.

Certain criteria MUST be met to acheive it. No "interpretation" of whether or not you passed or failed each course.

But....

Right now ISO 9001 is a gigantic waste, here is why:

What if you receive the degree regardless of your grades?

As long as pay for your classes and show up (sometimes), you get the certificate.

Those who chose to actually participate, work hard and keep current would benefit from it more, but in the end, the guy or gal that did not bother will have the same diploma.

THAT is the current state of ISO.

EVERYONE gets the same cert, regardless of how much they actually subscribe to it.

Until the standard is treated like a TRUE standard....

Yes, ISO is a gigantic waste.

Carl-

[in reference to a college/uni degree] Certain criteria MUST be met to acheive it. No "interpretation" of whether or not you passed or failed each course.

Carl - not always, I'm afraid.
Allow me to introduce you to the bell curve - I and many of my friends rode it right through "ChE 038 - Numerical Methods and Modelling". :lmao:

Just a little comic relief...
Cheers,
-R.

Rachel,

Nothing wrong with a bell curve.

You know what they call someone who had the lowest passing grade on their medical boards?

Doctor

Carl-

What if you receive the degree regardless of your grades?

As long as pay for your classes and show up (sometimes), you get the certificate.

Ummm...where exactly did you go to school?!?! And, in high school, why was I never told about schools that give out degrees even if I didn't go to class?!?! :)

Those who chose to actually participate, work hard and keep current would benefit from it more, but in the end, the guy or gal that did not bother will have the same diploma.

And some people do better on tests, some people have to hold down a job while going to school to pay for tuition, and some, to be honest, are just natually great on the academic side. I, for one, do not place much stock in grades...there is always more to a story than what you first read.

But trying to apply your analogy to the real business world and ISO 9001:2000, for those companies that work hard (no...not hard....work smart, implement ISO in the spirit in which it was intended, and have a generally well-founded business plan (plus provide a product/service that society wants) will be around for a long time.

EVERYONE gets the same cert, regardless of how much they actually subscribe to it.

Who is being hurt by this? Company A who has a great Business Management System will survive for a long time, is adaptable and in touch with their Customers and ISO provides them just another means of keeping their Customers happy. Company B who has a nice piece of paper on the wall, stays in business because they met the requirements of their Customer who said "You need to be ISO 9001:2000 registered."

Until the standard is treated like a TRUE standard....

What is a TRUE standard? Would like ISO 9001:200 to explicitly tell us what a Purchasing is supposed to do and how it is to do it and with which tools and who to include and everything like that? Isn't that called a procedure?

RC,
Your quote:

"Ummm...where exactly did you go to school?!?! And, in high school, why was I never told about schools that give out degrees even if I didn't go to class?!?"

My point EXACTLY, there was no partial fulfillment or interpretation, you HAD to meet certain criteria.

Who is being hurt by this? Company A who has a great Business Management System will survive for a long time, is adaptable and in touch with their Customers and ISO provides them just another means of keeping their Customers happy. Company B who has a nice piece of paper on the wall, stays in business because they met the requirements of their Customer who said "You need to be ISO 9001:2000 registered."

So how was ISO responsible for Company A success? It wasn't, Company A is probably going to do those things regardless. If company B customers only requirement is for them to be registered, they HAVE made the customer happy.

A standard is something that is appplied AS EQUALLY AS POSSIBLE to all. It STANDARDIZES a practice.

There is absolutely nothing STANDARD about ISO, and it will remain so until such time as we throw interpretation out thewindow and apply some real rules governing what is required.

Carl-

RC,


There is absolutely nothing STANDARD about ISO, and it will remain so until such time as we throw interpretation out thewindow and apply some real rules governing what is required.

Carl-
That is an interesting sentiment Carl. But, is it practical when it comes to an international standard intended to state prescriptive requirements that any business sector might apply? Perhaps, perhaps not.

There is the old wisdom that "rules are made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

I sometimes wonder whether or not ISO 9000 is like a guide dog. It will get the blind person to its destination provided that person holds onto the leash. The only problem is, one needs to first train the dog to know the roots its master wants to take as well as all the obstacles and hazards in the pathways. And dogs do need feeding and grooming. Sadly, of course, the blind person is unable to use a "poopa-scoopa" when the dog goes about its natural, and occasional process of relief. Others have to come along and do that and dispose of the residue.

Of course, I would NEVER suggest management is blind when it comes to matters of "quality". (Ahem) :rolleyes:

But I am aware by all the chatter about ISO 9K's defects, or is that "defecations"? that it is the humble quality department that follows the procession.

"Ummm...where exactly did you go to school?!?! And, in high school, why was I never told about schools that give out degrees even if I didn't go to class?!?"

My point EXACTLY, there was no partial fulfillment or interpretation, you HAD to meet certain criteria.

:topic: Where I went to High school there was a policy that you could not fail a student if they passed both the mid term and final. Guess what I went to class twice mid term and final got passing grades and took the credit. The next year they changed the policy, not sure if it was on my account or not.
Mark

There is another old addage that I prescribe to.

"There's a sucker born every minute".

I've been doing ISO since 1994, 6 different companies, been the consultant, the quality manager, management representative, lead auditor, etc., etc.

The whole thing is a free-for-all. Everyone passes. It is rare that you even hear of a "conditional" situation.

It is a joke. In 4 weeks, I can put together a system for any 150-500 person company that will pass the audit, GUARANTEED.

I vote "Gigantic waste"


BTW, the blind guy will find it eventually.

Carl-

The discussion asks whether or not ISO 9000 is a "gigantic waste", and after some 1400 posts on the subject of ISO, is it not time to ask the following?

1. If you believe it is a "gigantic waste" do you want it to remain that way?

1a). If you respond "no", what are you personally going to do about it?

1b). If you answer "yes" ask yourself whether or not any part of your earnings over the years since 1987 have emanated because of its existence. Move to question 2.

2) If they have,
2a) Are you a sufficiently principled person to return all or part of that remuneration so as to reduce the amount of "waste" for the community as a whole? or

2b) If you are not so principled, quit complaining about the "waste", count your blessings and reflect on the possibility you have been part of the "waste".



When ISO 9K arrived, in 1987, I was so frustrated with its content - especially its ambiguities and structure - I answered a slightly diiferent question to #1. As it was in an early state and the waste was not then accumulating, I felt impelled to write a book, "Meeting ISO 9000 in a TQM World", which was followed by a second edition shortly after the release of the 1994 edition of ISO 9K. I resolved not to write a 3rd edition regardless of whatever might emanate when the eventual 3rd edition of ISO 9k might emerge. Each edition dealt with the standard and each of the prevailing "daughter standards". I withdrew those books from the market when I felt they had served their purpose - that is, I had made my contribution.

In both editions I took pains to point out the problems with the content, as I saw them. In this every paragraph, sentence and even possibly confusing/ ambiguous word was dealt with: and I suggested "prudent interpretations" of every clause's words for the context of a highly-competitive, globalized world clearly looking towards TQM. (I make no claim that the books were brilliant - merely an exposition of my views of what to do, in light of my experience.) I also reproduced my "Task Element" approach showing the benefits of what is now commonly called, the "process approach" - which seems to have stuck.

My point is this: there is now a plethora of committees and avenues by which you could make your views known. But, the standard will never become what you might wish unless you are prepared to offer constructive criticism about the content. That is what I endeavoured to do, and I am sure others do as well. And, it seems to me, Mr Seddon is maybe trying to do the same, though I admit to not having read his book, at this juncture, nor to having engaged wioth him in any discussion concerning his motives.

And, as others have mentioned, a major problem is that the whole matter of the content of ISO 9K, which is what ought to determine whether or not it would be a "gigantic waste", is frequently confused:

a) with the conduct and efficacy of the entire registration industry, whereby we are all familiar with the resultant horror stories.
b) with the actual implementation process within the firm, including such matters as top management support, provision of resources etc.
c) with the correctness or otherwise of major companies imposing registration onto their supply chains.

It is a joke. In 4 weeks, I can put together a system for any 150-500 person company that will pass the audit, GUARANTEED.

I vote "Gigantic waste"
We have the ability to devise an assessment system that can probe every nook and cranny of a company and find all of its nonconformities. Such assessments would be so expensive, however, that few would seek certification.

In a perfect world, customers would be knowledgeable of expectations of certified suppliers, and would issue corrective action requests (CAR) that would make your newly certified company either "tow the line" or give up on the idea of certification. Either would be an acceptable outcome of the "4 week certification" endeavor.

If we believe in the idea of establishing minimum standards for business to participate in certain arrangements, and I certainly do, then it is incumbent upon us to identify the delta between "what is" and "what should be," and develop a strategy for correcting this deficiency.

:2cents:

Joe

I agree, in part, with many comments here. ISO and its' implementation is far from perfect. However, I have an even more basic question than Alan's interesting points.

If you feel that ISO is such a "gigantic waste", and I'm assuming from many commentaries here that many of you are intimately involved in it, how do you get up in the morning, look in the mirror and feel good about what you do? :confused: A bit idealistic for sure. But, part of the intrinsic value of one's life (which would include vocation) is hoping at the end of it all, your presence/actions made a difference. That you just weren't taking up space and using valuable resources for nothing. It sounds to me like some of the people commenting here really don't respect what they do or feel they make a difference. How sad. :( Don't get me wrong. If your answer is "I have a mortgage and bills to pay", then that explains it and I respect that. But it also says you are accepting the situation, which is your choice not a mandate. JMHO

Personally I think the idea of registering to a system of business principles is silly (notice I said registering to). We provide a service and product. if our customers wish to use us then they make a judgement do they like what they get or not. if not they require more of us and we decide if we can live with and accommodat their desires.
To impose a system just because a system says that it must be done is communism IMO. This is stupidity at its highest, our customer is having us register not because it is their great desire but because they have to require us to according to the standard they are registered to(TS16949). I am sorry but whoever wrote that one needs a drool cup strapped to their chin and a safety helmet so they don't hurt themselves.
All this to say if it is implemented due to mandate then it is a waste if it is implemented because the company takes the time to evaluate what is needed and not needed on their own it is valuable.
MARK

My feelings on this are that I am here to implemnt a good manufacturing system to satisfy cutomers, and continually improve what we are doing. Improve productivitiy, reduce scrap and rework and improve profitability.
If all this can be achieved, why does a 3rd party need to get money to come in and say "Yep, they are doing it". Customers know who their good suppliers are with out making suppliers pony up additional expenses and continual days of dealing with external auditors.
However, that being said we have no choice in deciding about ISO/TS16949.
If you do business with automotive, you do it anyway.

Here is how I get up I the morning and look in the mirror feeling good about what I do:

Because of my beliefs, I have progressed towards an ever more simplistic registration to the standard that passes registration/audits with the minimal amount of effort possible. I have evidence to support every element the standard requires and little else in the ISO system. I use the savings in time and effort to concentrate on tools and systems that actually have impact on the Quality of the product. Wherever possible, I leave these tools and systems outside the ISO system.

I also let the VP and the rest of the team know that I think ISO is a Gigantic Waste.

I would not do it at all if a few customers didn't require it.

I claimed "ISO compliance" in the past and was very successful at avoiding the costs associated with registration for over 2 years, even though one of our largest customers required ISO as part of their certified vendor program.

So far, my motgage payment has not been late.

Carl-

It seems to me that most of us are not in situations where our company sells directly to the consumer. Often we also have suppliers we use on a regular basis.

One area where ISO 9000 certification has made a difference to me is when I am buying a personal item; big ticket, and long lasting (a "durable good" like a TV or washer).

I was comparing TV sets a few years ago, with a few in the price range I was interested in. One had "ISO 9001 Registered" on the carton, the others did not. Did I buy the TV from the registered company?

YEP.

Craig,

Unfortunately, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the company had a cert on the wall and little else, or actually had a living system that was of benefit. The ISO designation meant nothing.

You may have passed up a set from a company that had a much higher consumer quality rating / lower defect rate.

Not the way that I would choose, but to each their own.

Best of luck with the set in any case!

Carl-

Check this out!

http://www.nsf.org/NSF-ISR/newsroom/Register_Fall03.pdf

Page 2 tells the story of a home builder who implemented ISO. Here are the number$

Sales: 39 percent increase from 1999 through 2001.
Increased market share: Sales are 36 percent higher in the first six months of 2002 compared to the previous year. Winton’s share of the El Paso market increased by 11 percent.

Profit: Profit increased 82 percent from 1999 through 2001. For the first six months of 2002, the company posted a 203 percent increase in net profits compared to the same period in 2001. In fact, profits in the first six months of 2002 exceeded the entire year of 2001.


Even allowing for hype, it looks like someone actually got something good from ISO and can prove it.


Here is the website

http://wintonhomes.com/mean.htm

What a nice simple statement of what ISO means to the customer.


The key lesson I take from this is - MANAGEMENT COMMITTMENT - he did it because he saw value, not because he was forced to by a customer.


I'm jealous - it sounds like it was a ton of fun

Check this out!

http://www.nsf.org/NSF-ISR/newsroom/Register_Fall03.pdf

Page 2 tells the story of a home builder who implemented ISO. Here are the number$

Sales: 39 percent increase from 1999 through 2001.
Increased market share: Sales are 36 percent higher in the first six months of 2002 compared to the previous year. Winton’s share of the El Paso market increased by 11 percent.

Profit: Profit increased 82 percent from 1999 through 2001. For the first six months of 2002, the company posted a 203 percent increase in net profits compared to the same period in 2001. In fact, profits in the first six months of 2002 exceeded the entire year of 2001.


Even allowing for hype, it looks like someone actually got something good from ISO and can prove it.


Here is the website

http://wintonhomes.com/mean.htm

What a nice simple statement of what ISO means to the customer.


The key lesson I take from this is - MANAGEMENT COMMITTMENT - he did it because he saw value, not because he was forced to by a customer.


I'm jealous - it sounds like it was a ton of fun






I think everyone associated qith "quality management" would like any such story to be conclusive of what an improved QMS could do for a company. Of course the firm deserves congratulations for its improved results but, does ISO 9K etc really deserve the amount of credit all would wish.

The firm admits its sales follow national trends: we all know there has been a housing boom since the late 90s and especially following the stock market crash of 2000-2001. Indeed most economists and Mr Greenspan admit robust house building, with new starts reaching and sustaining all time highs has been responsible for mitigating a major part of the USA recession's worse effects. Indeed, as is well recorded, a lot of people who were disillusioned with the stock market debacle have chosen to invest their money in homes/ new homes/ upgrades/ extensions and the like. Therefore, in determining the effects of ISO 9K on sales, one would have to discount what might have been the effects of the house boom. And, though one would want to think a show house might have a ribbon around it proclaiming it was built under a QMS certified to ISO 9K that is as unlikely as is the possibility that Mr & Mrs Joe Q. America actively sought out ISO 9K builders and their decision to take on a mortgage was in any way influenced by the thought of the builder being ISO 9K "certified".

As many Covers will know, profits depend on fixed and variable costs. What we would need to know is that these were in anyway reduced directly as a result of ISO 9K registration. If a firm has been working at less or around break even, even a small increase in sales will have a significant effect on profit as does the structure of the balance sheet. If the firm is highly leveraged, a small increase in sales will have a considerable effect on the bottom line. And, as Mr Greenspan has so generously reduced interest rates to help America out of its recession, it could easily be the case that the profit increase is in no small way attributable to lowered costs of financing for the builder.

So, though I want to be able to refer people to success stories, on the basis of what the registrar states in its brochure (which is bound to be of a glowing nature, for obvious reasons) there is not enough evidence. And, if you wanted to put that brochures affirmations in front of any CEO to convince her/ him of the case for ISO 9K or any QMS improvement project, you might be looked at " a little bit sideways"!

Craig,

Unfortunately, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the company had a cert on the wall and little else, or actually had a living system that was of benefit. The ISO designation meant nothing.

You may have passed up a set from a company that had a much higher consumer quality rating / lower defect rate.

Not the way that I would choose, but to each their own.

Best of luck with the set in any case!

Carl-

Carl:

Obviously the best way would have been to go to Consumer Reports and do some research - if it was an expensive big screen I would have. But, for this set, used only once in a while, and a small investment, as far as I knew all other things were fairly equal.

As far as the set goes, it still works....

:agree1:

As many Covers will know, profits depend on fixed and variable costs. What we would need to know is that these were in anyway reduced directly as a result of ISO 9K registration. If a firm has been working at less or around break even, even a small increase in sales will have a significant effect on profit as does the structure of the balance sheet. If the firm is highly leveraged, a small increase in sales will have a considerable effect on the bottom line. And, as Mr Greenspan has so generously reduced interest rates to help America out of its recession, it could easily be the case that the profit increase is in no small way attributable to lowered costs of financing for the builder.



Allen:

I agree with most of your post, but, respectfully, there is one important piece of data you don't address, IMO. I'll do that here.

This most interesting tidbit is the increase in market share. If the company is seeking to increase market share, it may actually be willing to endure flat, or even slightly declining, profits. If market share was indeed the main goal, then did ISO 9000 help them to achieve it? Hard to tell. I would like to think that a robust QMS had something to do with it, though. Put another way, it would be very hard to believe that the numbers shown were achievable with lousy quality and poor customer service, wouldn't you agree?

Increased market share, $___ more profits through ___% fewer defects and ___% lower employee turnover, a ___% increase in customers' "excellent" rating of work.

These are metrics that have more meaning to me than just ___% higher profits because I have seen various ways to lower costs, thus improving the bottom line. I once saw a manufacturer that piled its receivables high on the floor, only paying the screaming suppliers for them when it was time to insert into product. They even stopped paying for bathroom materials. They almost ran out of toilet paper...their supplier refused to sell to them after that.

Yes, ISO can have value but it's a waste of effort when the activities are just a sing-along. Its premise is good. It is actually little more than a guideline for a good QMS and a seal of approval for stakeholders who can't get a closer look at business operations.

If you have a truly effective and vital QMS without it, then you are indeed singing a tune for the benefit of whomever. But if the registration gets you that business, weigh its costs against the value of that business or just feel like a prostitute.

Allen:

I agree with most of your post, but, respectfully, there is one important piece of data you don't address, IMO. I'll do that here.

This most interesting tidbit is the increase in market share. If the company is seeking to increase market share, it may actually be willing to endure flat, or even slightly declining, profits. If market share was indeed the main goal, then did ISO 9000 help them to achieve it? Hard to tell. I would like to think that a robust QMS had something to do with it, though. Put another way, it would be very hard to believe that the numbers shown were achievable with lousy quality and poor customer service, wouldn't you agree?

Craig,

Thank you for agreeing in general with my post. But, as I read the NSF brochure, Winton admits (and names) a number of its competitors LEFT that particular market. If so, small wonder it can claim an increase in market share in a market for which, following national trends, which they claim to do, the market would simulataneously be growing. And, if that also meant they had a greater number of units sold - abracadabra!

Craig,

Thank you for agreeing in general with my post. But, as I read the NSF brochure, Winton admits (and names) a number of its competitors LEFT that particular market. If so, small wonder it can claim an increase in market share in a market for which, following national trends, which they claim to do, the market would simulataneously be growing. And, if that also meant they had a greater number of units sold - abracadabra!


Allen:

Again, here we are with some data that could be interpreted either way - why did all of these competitors go out of that line of business (even as generally the housing market was strong)?

Were there other reasons, or was Winton just that good (because of ISO certification, no less)?

Even if we were there as it happened, still I suspect it would be hard to tell for sure. Also, this is just one instance...

Still, interesting case.

Allen:

Again, here we are with some data that could be interpreted either way - why did all of these competitors go out of that line of business (even as generally the housing market was strong)?

Were there other reasons, or was Winton just that good (because of ISO certification, no less)?

Even if we were there as it happened, still I suspect it would be hard to tell for sure. Also, this is just one instance...

Still, interesting case.

Yes Craig, I, too, am intrigued. we could muse over that for ages, in the absence of hard data. And for that, I guess it is going to be a case for the Missouri wisdom.

Dear all,

ISO, on their website, have published their latest ISO 9000 registration data that they have obtained from around the world. It clearly shows an increasing decline in the majority of countries (as Chris Paris was trying to do something about last year). For instance the UK ISO 9000 registration is down 20%.

However, the US is still increasing. Does anybody have any clear idea why the US is bucking the trend?

Other countries that are increasing rapidly like China, Spain, Japan, Romania all have pressure to implement ISO 9000 nationally, so they are chasing the certificate.

Ilias

Dear all,

ISO, on their website, have published their latest ISO 9000 registration data that they have obtained from around the world. It clearly shows an increasing decline in the majority of countries (as Chris Paris was trying to do something about last year). For instance the UK ISO 9000 registration is down 20%.

However, the US is still increasing. Does anybody have any clear idea why the US is bucking the trend?

Other countries that are increasing rapidly like China, Spain, Japan, Romania all have pressure to implement ISO 9000 nationally, so they are chasing the certificate.

Ilias

Ilias

I recall hearing around the time of the release of the new standard someone say that UKAS expected about a 30 percent reduction in the number of certified organisations, and a similar reduction in certification bodies. The argument was, I believe, that the certificate would mean more for those left, because it would be harder to obtain and would give more comfort to customers doing business with them. So if the reduction is only 20%, does that mean that the certificate still has the same (lack of) value? Or that it means more in the US for those folk who have it???

And was the reasoning for the predicted reduction in the UK justified by events?

Dear all,

ISO, on their website, have published their latest ISO 9000 registration data that they have obtained from around the world. It clearly shows an increasing decline in the majority of countries (as Chris Paris was trying to do something about last year). For instance the UK ISO 9000 registration is down 20%.

However, the US is still increasing. Does anybody have any clear idea why the US is bucking the trend?

Other countries that are increasing rapidly like China, Spain, Japan, Romania all have pressure to implement ISO 9000 nationally, so they are chasing the certificate.

Ilias

Ilias,

Is this NEW business registration in the UK? Do you think the American Car and Aeorospace industries have anythiong to do with the ISO increase in America?

Uh, guys,

Before you get too excited about the U.S. Increase in registrations, you might want to look at those numbers again.

Page 13 says the number of ISO 9000 registarations was 38,927 in December of 2002.

They claim 41,571 in december of 2003, HOWEVER only 30,294 were the 2000 revision. This means in January of 2004, there were only 30,000 VALID registrations. Looks like a 24% DECREASE to me.

Carl-

Uh, guys,

Before you get too excited about the U.S. Increase in registrations, you might want to look at those numbers again.

Page 13 says the number of ISO 9000 registarations was 38,927 in December of 2002.

They claim 41,571 in december of 2003, HOWEVER only 30,294 were the 2000 revision. This means in January of 2004, there were only 30,000 VALID registrations. Looks like a 24% DECREASE to me.

Carl-

And so should the question be "WHY IS ISO REGISTRATION DECLINING?" Any thing new here?

And so should the question be "WHY IS ISO REGISTRATION DECLINING?" Any thing new here?
Are the registrations following the jobs? I mean US manufacturing is moving over-seas very quickly. Every week we get two or three notices of auctions for businesses gone bust here in Michigan. So if the jobs are increasing in China etc... then would you not also expect that they would have an increase in registration while wherever the jobs came from would show a decrease.
Something else I am wondering about is companies that become registered and go out of business shortly after. Is this a new trend or just a coincedence that I know of two to three companies that have done this in the last year? For those companies who did that it was definately a gigantic waste.
Mark

Are the registrations following the jobs? I mean US manufacturing is moving over-seas very quickly. Every week we get two or three notices of auctions for businesses gone bust here in Michigan. So if the jobs are increasing in China etc... then would you not also expect that they would have an increase in registration while wherever the jobs came from would show a decrease.
Something else I am wondering about is companies that become registered and go out of business shortly after. Is this a new trend or just a coincedence that I know of two to three companies that have done this in the last year? For those companies who did that it was definately a gigantic waste.
Mark

I do know of one example. As QA Manager at Western Reserve Electronics, Inc.(late 1990's). I was tasked with putting together an ISO-9002 program. This was completed, but as we approached registration the company filed banckruptcy and closed the doors. It was a really bad experience! It is my belief that the company was desperate for relief and thought that ISO was the Magic Pill. :magic: Perhaps we are seeing some of this in your examples.

I am so sick and tired of hearing about "Our" businesses moving "overseas"

I am 42 years old and can remember my father talking about it when I was 7.

I have heard about it ever since. The Japanese are ruining our auto industry. The Japanese are ruining our domestic motercycle market. The Chinese, The Koreans, Blah,blah,blah. THEY are not ruining or stealing anything, we are giving it to them.

Would everyone like to know why our businesses go overseas?
Jack Nicholson comes to mind "You can't HANDLE the truth!"

We tax the **** out of our own businesses and let foreign business, and sometimes foreign people in our own country, get tax breaks

We bow to Unions time and again. Necessary at one time, now just a bottomless political money pit. Everything from auto workers and the doughnut eating "Heroes" of Police and Fire departments all across the country, to the most useless union ever developed, the teachers union. What a pathetic bunch of losers.

We allow white collar crime to run rampant. Enron, Martha Stewart, Halliburton, the list goes on, and on. Wake up, do you really think that these people are making decisions that are worth the millions they are paid annually? You could put anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of business in the same position for six figures and get the same result. Instead, we pay them 50 million in salaries, dividends, stock options, and severence packages and they STILL choose the unethical and illegal route because they are greedy. And we defend them! (Please refer to some recent ethics threads. THESE are the people running our companies.)

And yes, we start money grabbing initiatives like ISO and Six Sigma that start out as potential holy grails of our profession, only to become "pimped" and regarded as anything but useful.

And we end up paying for these insane practices. An item that can be made at the same quality level, without the taxes, without paying unions to pay off the Governor and without paying off the consultants and registrars can be made with a substantially lower cost.

Yes, offshore looks pretty good.

If they need to throw an ISO registration cert in there, it is no big deal. It has little to do with the quality of the product, but if required, they will oblige.

Are there other factors? Sure, there are plenty.

Carl-

It seems to me, this whole debate is beginning to center on these things:

1. An absence of verifiable complete data, fully disclosed and open for perusal concerning the number of registrations, the associated industries, the number of resignations, the number affected by M&A activities (as an example) and so forth.

2. An absence of verified, quantified cost benefits for the registrants before and after achieving ISO 9K registration. (And that industry has now been operating for 15 years or so.)

Let us consider would we, as "quality professionals" accept this state of affairs in our employers' or clients' quality programs? If someone writes a report or wants a decision taken, would we not insist on the underlying data being sound etc.?

If we have such a situation emanating from the ISO 9K registration industry, which many CEOs et al regard as the face of quality and which those who promote it regard as the flagship of the quality movement, what image does that present for us?

Whatever may be the case, one thing is indisputable: after 15 years of advocacy, heavy selling and campaigning, the actual number of registered companies (or the number of certificates issued, which is an entirely different matter) is a mere fraction of the number of businesses operating worldwide. Pick up any "Yellow Pages" or business directory or look at a house magazine for an industrial sector and count how many firms exist just in your own locality/ business sector, let alone, worldwide.

If my involvement with top executives has taught me just one thing, it is this: when there is no doubt about the benefit of pursuing a new tool or technique, there is a stampede to do it. Take as an example: how many firms rushed to install telex machines, fax machines, PCs, email when each of those arrived? Certainly, the registration industry would have shouted from the rooftops a similar stampede for ISO 9K certs etc. had they experienced a similar stampede.

I am so sick and tired of hearing about "Our" businesses moving "overseas"
Carl-
Wow must of touched a nerve.
Just for clarity all I said was manufacturing jobs were moving, not that "they" were stealing them. And being that they are moving would you not expect the countries they are moving to to be where ISO would be increasing and the also would you not expect the places that were loosing the business to show a decline in ISO registration. Sorry if it came out differently than that, but that is what my point was intended to be. By the way Carl I agree with almost everything you said. Many of the problems in the US market is because of the US not the "them".
Mark

Sorry if I sounded "ballistic" Mark, It was not directed at you specifically.

Your message was just a catalyst. I know what you were saying and I agree with you. One would expect registrationas abroad to increase in light of those circumstances (given that registration were required or desired)

It just seems like every time we are up against a wall, we try to blame offshore cheap labor as culprit instead of looking in the mirror.

I know for several years, Toyota refused to go ISO/QS. They claimed their quality systems were already working and they didn't need it. Thye had the customer satisfaction numbers to back it up. Not sure if they are registerd now or not.

Carl-

What I find interesting is what the ISO report doesn't say... that is, the rate and trend of certificate "withdrawals". After going to the ISO Organization website, I found the report to be long on verbage and short on content, with the important numbers buried in the article (28 pages!!!). As I said in a previous thread, if the news had been good, wild horses couldn't have stopped them from publishing this much earlier.

As much as some folks may not appreciate Mr. Paris' view on his Oxebridge site, I did find his 9/4/04 brief comments interesting and look forward to his interpretation of the figures.

ISO, on their website, have published their latest ISO 9000 registration data that they have obtained from around the world. It clearly shows an increasing decline in the majority of countries (as Chris Paris was trying to do something about last year). For instance the UK ISO 9000 registration is down 20%.Could this in part be due to saturation? And as was mentioned above, does this number only apply to new registrations? Is there data on existing registrations being abandoned (discontinued)? Is there any correlation data, for example company size in employees? Or total companies in the UK vs. companies registered?

On another note, I ask this: Is it important that ISO registrations continue to grow and proliferate? As one who doesn't believe ISO 9001 is typically valuable outside of its advertising appeal (not withstanding requirement by some customers based upon questionable reasoning), I am not the least concerned about a drop in registrations.

Chris Paris is referenced several times with respect to his complaining about the drop in registrations, however Mr. Paris' bias as an important player in a company (Oxebridge) which heavily depends upon registrations for their existence makes his complaints important to.... Guess who...

Could this in part be due to saturation? And as was mentioned above, does this number only apply to new registrations? Is there data on existing registrations being abandoned (discontinued)? Is there any correlation data, for example company size in employees? Or total companies in the UK vs. companies registered?

Thanks Marc, I'm glad someone read my post and got us back on track.

On another note, I ask this: Is it important that ISO registrations continue to grow and proliferate? As one who doesn't believe ISO 9001 is typically valuable outside of its advertising appeal (not withstanding requirement by some customers based upon questionable reasoning), I am not the least concerned about a drop in registrations.
Exactly right :applause: . My main concern is that we have a business that uses and follows best practise and that it works for US. I want a system that proves my product not just that I conform to an international 'document' system. I honestly believe that WE have ISO only because certain customers want us to. It is like our safety system. We have a system that is as good if not better than the standard but we are not certified and the same goes with our Environmental system. So why do we have ISO for Quality? The customer requested it. This in itself is troubling as ISO does not and cannot guarantee product. Toyota is not registered (so I have been told) It makes a good product soy I ,as the customer, purchase from them.

One thing the truncated report makes clear this year which never was quite clear to me before in previous reports:

There is NO CENTRAL REGISTRY OF ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE 3RD PARTY REGISTRATION TO ISO9K2K!

The language is unusually frank and straightforward in saying the data is not totally reliable because the various member bodies of ISO have different interpretations of the survey questions! (Apparently their record-keeping is not in line with the spirit of ISO9k2k.)
[page 1] ISO performs the survey annually by requesting certification data from a variety of sources,including national standards institutes,accreditation and certification bodies and regional databases (the sources are indicated in the country tables).The figures that appear in the survey do not come from ISO, but from disparate sources and this gives rise to variations in the quality and quantity of the data that are beyond the control of ISO.If I read between the lines correctly, the survey report writers imply the number of registrations is interesting, but not meaningful. They seem to echo a point I raised months ago when this topic was raging in the Cove: they don't take into account the AS, TS, and TL versions of ISO in the tabulation.

I was stunned to see Italy had more ISO9k2k registrations than the US. I was further stunned to see the slim margin between one billion population India and five million population Israel in total registrations.

What the report available for free via the internet http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/pdf/survey2003.pdf
does lead me to conclude is that for years we Quality geeks have been urinating into the gale force wind trying to interest and involve a generally apathetic American business world into adapting and adopting ISO9k2k into their systems and then seeking third party registration.

The truth is only a few major OEMs are coercing their supply chains to become registered. For the rest of American business, ISO is a "non-issue,"

I'll make the claim that I can NEVER be accused of "...trying to interest and involve a generally apathetic American business world into adapting and adopting ISO9k2k into their systems and then seeking third party registration...." I have told every implementation client I have ever worked with that ISO 9000 is fairy dust which will not appreciably affect their business.

However, I believe and have said to each that the implementation process its self is typically valuable because it forces a company to take a close look at what they are doing and why. I have also made it clear, and have many times stated in threads in these forums, that it's the act rather than the program. That is to say, if a company steps back and decides to implement 'lean', six sigma or any other improvement program with a committment to spend money and time they wouldn't normally have, that company will be hard pressed to not find some areas where they can improve.

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, Amen!

Like bodybuilding, you have to do the [ISO] exercise on a regular and committed basis for it to have any good effect!

However, I believe and have said to each that the implementation process its self is typically valuable because it forces a company to take a close look at what they are doing and why. I have also made it clear, and have many times stated in threads in these forums, that it's the act rather than the program.
Marc,
I am wondering if "the implementation process...is typically valuable" or if it is more like the shops I have worked for or with where one or two people go through the facility to implement a system based on customer mandate, and the management tends to "more important matters". Do most companies really benefit, or are you speaking only about companies that are doing it for the right motivation? And do most companies persue a QMS for the right reasons or by mandate? Do you or anyone have data on this?
Mark

OK,

First, I agree with Marc, it isn't necessary for ISO to continue to grow and proliferate, however these numbers (for the U.S.) show a DECLINE, and a serious one.

Second, this is a survey, and a suspect one at that.

Third, by ISO's own admisssion, there is no central registry.

Finally, why do we continue to allow this behavior without DEMANDING change?

Carl-

Marc,
I am wondering if "the implementation process...is typically valuable" or if it is more like the shops I have worked for or with where one or two people go through the facility to implement a system based on customer mandate, and the management tends to "more important matters". Do most companies really benefit, or are you speaking only about companies that are doing it for the right motivation? And do most companies persue a QMS for the right reasons or by mandate? Do you or anyone have data on this?
Mark


Mark:

IMO there is no way that there could be reliable data concerning who is doing the ISO dance for the "right reasons". What would the criteria be? How do we measure warm fuzzies?

That said, if a company has at least a passing interest in their quality systems, and documents it as such (a quality system, that is) that loosely fits the ISO, QS, etc template, there can be some advantages over lean, six sigma, etc.

One of the things that I am very surprised that those in this have thread have missed is basic to registration - outside auditors. Sure, from the registration standpoint, we need a compliance person. But, a good management rep. can see what the auditor looks at, and listen to the questions asked, to get ideas on how to improve the system. An experienced auditor has seen lots of approaches that work, as well as some that do not work so well. A good auditor, there for the "right" reasons (measurement?) is interested in looking at the QA system not only for compliance purposes, but also for "Opportunities for Improvement". If this is not the case, then why have "Opportunities for Improvement" included in the audit report?

How can these audit results be more useful than six sigma, lean, etc? There is a framework within which the results can be interpreted. Right there in black and white.

Am I saying that ISO 9001 registration is better than lean, six sigma, etc.? If we try to prove it is not, the same problems present themselves that we have wrestled with here. As Quality people we like to see good data properly interpreted. Gives us the warm fuzzies, so to speak. I don't think there is solid data proving or disproving the efficacy of these approaches. We only have anecdotal evidence. Of course we also know our systems, and our individual cultures.

Don't like ISO? OK. I surely hope you find something in the vast QA tool box that works for you (not directed at anyone in particular, BTW).

I am wondering if "the implementation process...is typically valuable" or if it is more like the shops I have worked for or with where one or two people go through the facility to implement a system based on customer mandate, and the management tends to "more important matters".Management often gets on with their business after telling one or more person to 'get it done'.Do most companies really benefit, or are you speaking only about companies that are doing it for the right motivation?Define what the 'right motivation' is... Loss of customers? Customer complaints? A customer requires it or the owner sees potential increased sales? Bad 'personality' companies often derive no benefit, but even with them there is typically some benefit. It's pretty hard to not find at least one thing a company can do to improve during an implementation.

But that's part of my definition of what a 'good company personality' is vs. a 'bad company personality'. A 'good personality' company acts on data and doesn't need a standard to tell them to act when there are problems. And do most companies persue a QMS for the right reasons or by mandate? Do you or anyone have data on this?How do you define what the 'right reasons' are? There are many threads here where the reasons why companies go through ISO 9001 (and TS and AS, for that matter) are discussed. I'm betting there is at least one with a poll, if not more than one. The consensus is always the same - Almost all companies do it because of a customer requirement or as a sales/marketing aspect.

A QMS by mandate is, as the word implies, a 'forced' compliance scheme whether mandated by a customer or even by corporate. The question is does data indicate a need or not. Most all implementations - I'm guessing at 95% - are driven by customer requirement or sales envisioning increased sales due to the popularity of the standard (advertising food). Not all, but most.

I have this 'thing' about what I call company 'personalities'. Though admittedly there are shades of gray, I typically classify a company as one or the other. A good personality company is one where they're doing the 'right' things to begin with. Implementation in these is typically more of an exercise of mapping systems and associating existing systems with the required systems. Typically the system requirements of the standard are already there. And in these 'good personalitiy' companies one finds that aspects like 'Continuous Improvement' are part of the company's 'normal' processes - ongoing and across all functions and departments. On a personal level, in 'good personality' companies I have observed other aspects, such as employee satisfaction, are high.

When I got into ISO in the early 1990's I did it for the money. When I first saw ISO 9001:1987 I laughed it off because it was so general and basic. All I saw was just good business practices that any well 'designed' and run company would be doing anyway. The gal that shared it with me told me it would be a money maker and she turned out to be right. I did very, very well during the 1991 to 2000 period. But it's all just good business practices. TS, AS and other related 'standards' are in the same boat - They're just variations on the theme with industry specific requirements (which again, industry wise the additional requirements are just good business practices for that industry).

As a last note - I have had clients which chose me after reading threads here and/or speaking with me about my opinions on ISO 9001 and how relevant it is. Clients which realized they could improve and must improve going back years - continually improving was part of their understanding of how a business must run to stay in business. Mostly they were financially motivated and had data. In some cases they realized they did not have enough data to make decisions. The point is they were in a state of Continuous Improvement to begin with and in most cases always had been because it was understood that's how a company stays in business and grows. Had it not been a customer mandate for ISO they would have done something else, such as 'Lean' or used various tools to improve. I have been lucky in that most of my clients were 'good personality' companies Not that I haven't had some that were seriously 'bad personality' companies...

OK,

First, I agree with Marc, it isn't necessary for ISO to continue to grow and proliferate, however these numbers (for the U.S.) show a DECLINE, and a serious one.

Second, this is a survey, and a suspect one at that.

Third, by ISO's own admisssion, there is no central registry.

Finally, why do we continue to allow this behavior without DEMANDING change?

Carl-
I am not sure one could characterize the decline as "serious". It may be serious for those whose livelihoods depend on the associated (dwindling) cash flow. But I cannot believe it is "serious" for the Quality movement.

And I am not sure why we (as quality practitioners) should demand change.
The numbers are falling because of good old market forces and for the reasons I have stated elsewhere. If someone running a business or those within a particular service sector (e.g. registrars, accreditation bodies et al) cannot respond to the voice of the market, they do not really deserve a future. Who, then, should bail them out?

It is for those offering the "service" to effect the changes needed and pay heed to what their clients want. In so doing, the really tough question they must address is one that has been discussed almost ad nauseum on the Cove: if registration was not mandated, would the clients want it?

Perhaps, as the market size falls there will be consolidation of the different registration firms - perhaps justified publicly as being "to effect economies of scale" or "to take advantage of the potential synergies" - always amusing stuff in M&A. But, smart companies (international business consulting firms) who were once in the registration business have already exited the field.

The very fact that this thread has gone on so long with so many postings without answering its headline question shows we in the quality movement, drawing on our Covers' experience from all over the World are unable to definitively answer it ("gigantic waste or beneficial"). If we do not know the answer to the question, is it any wonder we are unable to persuade CEOs to stay the course or to take up registration? Is it any wonder, as competition is ever more fierce, the CEOs will not look to cutting what is perceived as a nil or negative return for the associated expenditure?

The registration industry has had over 15 years to quantify the cost benefits of its service: based on the discussion in this thread, IMO, it has failed to do so in a convincing manner. That being so, we can continue posting to this thread ad infinitum and IMO will still not answer its headline question.

What is interesting to me about this thread is that the original question was too vague and responses have intermingled the following 3 things:

1. the standard as a document

2. The implementaiton of the requiremts / an organization's repsonse to the standard

3. Conformity assessment.

When the question is asked, "ISO 9001 - a gigantic waste of time or benficial?", I do not know if the question applies to #1, 2 or 3?

Is the document a waste of time? Is the document perceived to be a waste of time becasue businesses world wide cannot design elegant and simple processes that meet the basic requirements of ISO 9001? Or is the confomity assessment world for ISO 9001 the waste?

Many of the respones do not make this distinction. What is a waste of time or a benefit; the standard, our implemention of the requirements, or conformity assessment?

Regards, Dirk

I have been a Registrar Auditor for over 12 years and in the last 3 years have seen a noticeable increase in clients voluntarily dropping registration. Reasons include: being bought out by companies who are not registered and see no value in it; the primary customer who demanded registration has now relaxed their requirement for the registered supplier; and, the registered client management has once again discovered that knee-jerk/flavor-of-the-month/doing this is our salvation "quality management", doesn't work. I would be the first one to admit that the Standard is not perfect and that Registrars are also not perfect and are focused on the same thing ANY business is: making money!

However, IMHO, this thread has primarily focused on Registrars and the Registrar Auditors being the problem and being the ones who must step up to the plate and resolve it. I think another very important group deserves some of the heat of this debate. That would be the registered client/site.

Registered clients continue to demand (to a point, understandably) in-depth audits, in-depth reporting, extensive continuous improvement suggestions, while continuing to hammer Registrars (and Auditors) on cost vs benefit. This would include expecting the same in-depth audit, Post-2000 Standard, that they got before (even though there is much more to audit under the new Standard, if you are doing it right), but expecting this to happen in the same 8 hr time frame of the previous Standard Audit (and, at ever decreasing costs). This obviously puts both the Registrar and the Registrar Auditor in the middle. Folks, if the Standard adds more stuff to be audited, (particularly in the core competencies/mandatories area, which is where the majority of 2000 Standard changes occur, and which are SUPPOSED to be being reviewed by the Auditor at EACH visit for the previous time frame), you obviously can't do as in-depth an audit in the same 8 hr time frame, including everything else you need to fit in. At my Registrar, the core competencies (i.e. Management Review, CA/PA, CI, Document changes, Customer Satisfaction, etc.), if an Auditor is doing them right, typically take 2 to 4 hrs alone. That leaves 6 to 4 hrs left to cover on average 2-3 of the functional/dept areas scheduled for that visit, including the added requirements of departmental interface checks and measurable objectives, if applicable, not to mention report writing, closing meeting and addressing client questions. I can also tell you that at no time has any registered client I've ever worked with said to a Registrar: "Yeah, we understand there's more to audit and since we want our audits to continue to be thorough, please go ahead and bill us for another half day". If clients feel ISO is a gigantic waste and that audits are not as in-depth as they used to be, just maybe you need to look at how your responses and attitudes have contributed to the perception. Frankly, I see this as the customer wanting "Saks Fifth Avenue quality at a (insert your favorite discount store) price. And for those of you, who have commented that the Auditors need to be more actively accountable for this (not just Registrar management), I can assure you many of us have already been there. Two years prior to the actual implementation date of the 2000 Standard, I (and other Auditors in my company), brought the very issue of how we were expected to do more in the same time frame and still do an in-depth audit, to our managements' attention. Guess what the answer was and who it involved? If you said, the registered customer would not accept added time (and expense) and might pick up their ball and move to a different playground, you'd be right. So, basically, while many registered clients (not all) may talk about wanting a more in-depth audit, it many times comes back to the issue of price (whether dictated by the site or their Corporate) and if the other guy down the street is two cents cheaper....gone with the wind.

Clients also offer "mixed signals" as to what they expect. (Please see parallel comments I've noted under the thread discussing if 3rd Party Registrars should provide recommendations). For example, with the possible exception of small, privately owned sites, there are really 2 customers a Registrar Auditor is dealing with during any visit: the Corporate site (not necessarily registered and who has their own agenda) and the Registered site you're actually visiting. As illustration, I work with a major customer who's CORPORATE site has told my companys' Auditors that we should be finding something EVERYTIME we visit the registered site and does not feel they are receiving benefit from ISO nor that the Auditor is doing their job, if we don 't have any findings. This attitude is 360 from the registered site, who typically wants a "clean bill of health" and is not happy about ANY Auditor comments, because it reflects negatively on the ISO Rep and may impact their Performance Review (which, in one case, I was told included punishment for less than perfect ISO visit results, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS A MBO BY THE CORPORATE SITE, WHO WAS DEMANDING THE REGISTRAR AUDITOR ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING!!) :confused: I even had one Plant Manager flat-out tell me (one-on-one, of course) that Corporate expected the site to pass and if I didn't pass them, the ISO Rep/Quality Manager would be out on Route 66 (Route has been changed to protect the innocent). I like to call this situation "being expected to meet mutually exclusive, but simultaneously demanded, requirements". (Just for the record, I step back, do the job I'm supposed to do, and let them have the cat fight. Additionally, the expectation of the Corporate group to "always find something", flies in the face of my companys' attitude, which is we should be assuming innocence, until proven guilty and that we are there to work WITH the client, not against).

If people/companies think there is no benefit to this or its' a gigantic waste, maybe the entire problem doesn't lie with the Registrar or the Standard. I would suggest we ALL step back and examine our own motives. Until we ALL do that, none of this will be resolved. And KUDOS, to those registered companies who don't play games and understand that it's not a perfect system and we all need to accept responsiblity for changing it.

JMHO and experience. :thanx:

That was certainly an interesting viewpoint. Any other working 3rd party auditors like to comment from their POV?

As a long-time business executive and one of the "suits" folks (including me) often rail against, I can tell you the dichotomous views between corporate and auditee site about the expectation of a third party audit is NOT commonplace. If the differing views DO exist, it is most likely due to an erroneous interpretation of a casual remark from a CEO which gets repeated and magnified as it passes down the chain of command.

A Quality Manager who finds himself under such pressure from a middleman supposedly interpreting the CEO's dictum merely needs to ask for a clarifying memo countersigned by the CEO. My own experience is the "taboos" encountered verbally rarely get transferred to paper, once someone realizes the potential for being cut by his own sword.

Make no mistake, the politics of working in a large multi-site corporation can be deadly. It can be even more deadly to the technician (as most of us Quality geeks are considered), who believes himself to be "above such petty politics."

FIRST BIG NEWS FLASH: The politics isn't petty, it's serious and needs to be treated as such. The guy who finds himself out on Rte 66 doesn't get fired because the Quality didn't cut the mustard, he gets fired because he lost the political battle he may not have realized he was in.

We ALL know the main rule: http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/coveringass.gif

dichotomous adj : divided or dividing into two sharply distinguished parts

I have been a Registrar Auditor for over 12 years and in the last 3 years have seen a noticeable increase in clients voluntarily dropping registration. Reasons include: being bought out by companies who are not registered and see no value in it;


That is the subject of this thread: if firms are seeing no value in it - WHY?


Registered clients continue to demand (to a point, understandably) in-depth audits, in-depth reporting, extensive continuous improvement suggestions, while continuing to hammer Registrars (and Auditors) on cost vs benefit.
:

What's wrong with that? The client lives in that world as well as the registrar.

The remaining argument about what can or cannot be done in an 8 hour time frame seems to me pure sophistry.

The commercial world expects all firms to do more for less and in less time. That is customers expect improving value for money and greater productivity.

When I am asked to do an audit, I estimate the time required. If my client does not understand or agree to the time I believe is required, I try to explain why I believe it is necessary. If my client then will not agree to the time either the scope is reduced to meet the time he will allow or I decline the assignment: if I cannot do an audit properly, I would rather turn down the assignment than ruin my standing.

Of course, there will be someone willing to do a job for two cents less. But, Is not that person also a registrar? And, if there are such registrars around it reflects on the registration marketplace as a whole. The remedy is in the hands of the registrars themselves.

If at the outset they had better developed a formula for calculating the minimum time to audit processes and included that as the standard for their audits, the clients may have grumbled but, if they want the paper would pay for the time. In the auto sector there is a table of minimum time and I was asked to comment on it. It is based on the number of employees: not on the number of processes/ tasks to be audited. Small wonder they get it wrong. I have written my formula in my book Management Audits. It was developed in the mid 70s when I reviewed my overall performance in doing my audits - process audits; even though the standard for compliance was based on the old 18 criteria, as forerunners to BS 5750 types and then the first two ISO 9Ks. I realized the typical amount of time I needed to audit a single process and thereafter calculated the audit duration accordingly.

Yes, you were quite right to bring to the attention of whoever (some committee or other) that you would need more time, but the registrars en masse had the power in their hands to set the standard. If it was not set, that is not the fault of the client. If it was set on the basis of "we are more frightened of losing business than in insisting on the level of thoroughness really required to properly assess compliance with the standard", such a decision in itself ensures the clients will receive a less than thorough audit (service) and increasingly feel they are not getting value for money. The registration industry deserves to reap according to what it has sown in the interest of maintaining its cash flow. At that point the registrars should to use your words "examine [its] own motives".

this thread has primarily focused on Registrars and the Registrar Auditors being the problem and being the ones who must step up to the plate and resolve it. I think another very important group deserves some of the heat of this debate. That would be the registered client/site.
jcbodie,
I am not sure that I have come to the same conclusion as you with this. And I am not sure that the majority of fingers are pointed at those in your profession tho' maybe they are. My opinion on this is that it is not your fault as the 3rd party registrar. But think about it to truly be a third party should you not be hired by the second party. I think the biggest issue with the registration being a "joke" for many companies is that they choose the registering company to audit them. the same company that is being audited is footing the bill. I do not see how an audit can be truly objective in this situation. It is a conflict of interest IMO for you to "objectively" audit the people who keep your lights on. Not because of auditor integrity mind you but because of a conflict of business goals. I blame the current system.
Mark

Mark:

Thanks for your thoughts. Interesting comments. I suppose a registered site could have THEIR client pick the Registrar, but still "bill" the registered site, but what if you had many different clients? Who would make the final choice? As I've always said, this is not an easy problem to solve and it involves ALL parties.

Unfortunately, recent posts here have seemed to conclude that all the blame (and therefore, the responsibility for correction) lies with the Registrars and Auditors. I finally felt compelled to jump into the fray. As I've said, we ain't perfect....but neither is anyone else.

You may take comfort in the fact that some clients dump their Registrar anyway, if they don't like what they are being told, and the Registrar actually stands their ground and lets them go. I've also seen where the same client comes back to the original Registrar, when the new Registrar takes the same stance. So, part of the problem maybe that there are still some "paper mill" Registrars out there, willing to rubber stamp things. BUT, as in my other threads, this comes back to my statement that some of the blame has to be dished out to some (not all) registered clients who play these games and look for "path of least resistance". The Registrars and Auditors have no control over clients who elect to do this.

I'm happy to say that, overall, I have pretty reasonable clients which, most of the time, makes my job both interesting and rewarding. When it becomes otherwise, it's probably time to move on!

Thanks for your professional and balanced remarks.

AllanJ:

FYI, Registrar Auditors don't schedule or negoitate the time for an audit, as a Consultant would. I can assure you, that if that were the case, I would do exactly what you noted you do, i.e. re-negotiate or refuse the job if I felt the time was unreasonable.

While you may feel this is entirely in the hands of the Registrar, my point is, if Registrars want the business they agree to some of these time restraints. Unfortunately, that's the way it is and Auditors AND Registrars are just trying to find balance in that world. What makes it bad are the "paper mill" Registrars, who force reputable Registrars to make the kinds of decisions I described. BUT, certainly one of the reasons they are forced to do this is because the marketplace (i.e. registered clients or potential clients) drive this issue. Some SAY they want an in-depth audit, but don't want to pay for the time necessary to do it and head to the lowest bidder. If there were not clients out there like this, the "paper mill" Registrars would not exist and maybe, the lack of in-depth audits or value of ISO as a discussion would cease. That's all I'm saying: All participants need to take responsiblity.

AllanJ:

FYI, Registrar Auditors don't schedule or negoitate the time for an audit, as a Consultant would. I can assure you, that if that were the case, I would do exactly what you noted you do, i.e. re-negotiate or refuse the job if I felt the time was unreasonable.

While you may feel this is entirely in the hands of the Registrar, my point is, if Registrars want the business they agree to some of these time restraints. Unfortunately, that's the way it is and Auditors AND Registrars are just trying to find balance in that world. What makes it bad are the "paper mill" Registrars, who force reputable Registrars to make the kinds of decisions I described. BUT, certainly one of the reasons they are forced to do this is because the marketplace (i.e. registered clients or potential clients) drive this issue. Some SAY they want an in-depth audit, but don't want to pay for the time necessary to do it and head to the lowest bidder. If there were not clients out there like this, the "paper mill" Registrars would not exist and maybe, the lack of in-depth audits or value of ISO as a discussion would cease. That's all I'm saying: All participants need to take responsiblity.

wow deja vu
mark

jcbodie,
But think about it to truly be a third party should you not be hired by the second party. I think the biggest issue with the registration being a "joke" for many companies is that they choose the registering company to audit them. the same company that is being audited is footing the bill. I do not see how an audit can be truly objective in this situation. It is a conflict of interest IMO for you to "objectively" audit the people who keep your lights on. Mark


I actually have given more thought to this and have identified another option, although not perfect.

DISCLAIMER: I WOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN OUR LIVES

Having noted the above DISCLAIMER, maybe one solution is that the Registrar function could be performed by one govt. entity, much like the EPA or USDA. This would completely remove the profit motive (and any undercutting of price and audit days), as we all know that government is not about making a profit or operating efficiently. :biglaugh:

Everyone interested in registration (by their own choice and not dictated by an industry customer) would only have one choice: the govt. dept. , which would also remove the bias you mentioned, Mark, about who chooses the Registrar. One manday price for everyone, no matter if you were Joe Blow's Garage Repair (emp: 1) or Big Bad Company (emp: 200,000). If a potential registrant didn't like what the govt. entity wanted to do or charge, and tried to threaten them by taking their 120 site business to someone else, tough toenails: there would be no opportunity to play one Registrar off on another, relating to adequate time for audit, price, etc. and I believe the "paper mill" aspect would be reduced significantly, since the govt. wouldn't care if you registered or not. Similarly, since Auditors would be govt. employees (presumably protected to a greater degree than in the private sector), the Auditors could be more focused on reporting audit result/NC's "fair and true" and not be influenced by customer threat of walking out the door to another Registrar. (This power might go to the Auditor's head though---Oh wait, that's wrong, because there is never corruption in govt. My mistake.)

I realize this solution would require a giant leap of faith, as to the efficiency of the operation (would they be properly staffed, how long would the wait be for registration, how long to process my certificate, would they lose my files, etc.). It could also create a whole other set of problems (i.e. if Auditors are govt. employees, would they be protected as civil servants, making it much harder to ever get rid of the bad ones; merit raises for excellent Auditor performance would be replaced by the Grade/Level system of compensation in Govt----oh, I forgot, private sector doesn't give merit raises anymore either). :D

Just a thought, albeit an imperfect one (see DISCLAIMER above). No easy answer. :)

jcbodie,

I do not know you but sense that you maybe a very focused, attentive auditor, however:

I have worked with at least 7 different registrar auditors over the past 10 years. Most of them were fairly intelligent, and very nice to work with. I am still going to find fault with the registrar side of things.

The RAB and the registrars have twisted the ISO registration scheme into a complete scam. They have been in the back pocket of the ASQ since the inception and everyone has their hand out. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, but the RAB is well aware the "paper mill" registrars exist and they know that the vast majority of registrars fall into that category. When companies are registered, they don't say "come in for 8 hours and register me" the REGISTRAR dictates the length of the audit.

The evidence suggests that many, if not most registrar auditors, come in, look over some documentation, audit a few hours, interpret as they see fit (inconsistently amongst auditors and registrars I might add) and give the certificate to the company.

There is a complete lack of auditor consistency, but it does not matter because everyone passes, nobody loses registration due to an audit and NOBODY keeps track of the numbers.

The finger points at the registrars for a reason.

Carl-

jcbodie,

I am still going to find fault with the registrar side of things.

but the RAB is well aware the "paper mill" registrars exist and they know that the vast majority of registrars fall into that category. When companies are registered, they don't say "come in for 8 hours and register me" the REGISTRAR dictates the length of the audit.

The evidence suggests that many, if not most registrar auditors, come in, look over some documentation, audit a few hours, interpret as they see fit (inconsistently amongst auditors and registrars I might add) and give the certificate to the company.

There is a complete lack of auditor consistency, but it does not matter because everyone passes, nobody loses registration due to an audit and NOBODY keeps track of the numbers.

The finger points at the registrars for a reason.

Carl-


Carl

I don't disagree with what you have outlined as "your experience", although working with "7 different Registrars" does not necessarily, in my mind, support that "evidence suggests that many, if not most registrar auditors" are the problem (hardly, a statistically sound sample size). AND, I don't disagree that their are problems with Registrars---I have ALWAYS maintained throughout my responses here that both Registrars and Auditors are PART of the issue. My comments were that Registerered AND potential Registered Sites ALSO contribute to this "paper mill"/lack of substance ISO argument. (Maybe not most of the problem, but certainly part of it. ) We ALL need to look into the mirror. :truce:

Additionally, reputable Registrars (like mine) actually don't "dictate the length of the audit" as much as they are SUPPOSE to be following an established audit length matrix, which is set by a non-Registrar Technical committee (the number and name escapes me at the moment). Again, there are unscrupulous Registrars out there that "shave" time to get the business. BUT, I know of cases where there are dishonest clients, as well. Case in Point: I met an ISO Rep on a plane, who knew I was an auditor for a different Registrar. He relayed to me that the Registrar quoted a 4 day Audit (which from his description of the operation, sounded correct to me, per the matrix). The auditor (who was local) did not follow-up on any of his interface checks, during the course of the audit (as a good auditor does) and announced to the ISO Rep at the close of day THREE that he had seen enough and the audit was over!!! (This Auditor works for a very well know Registrar). What do you think the ISO Rep did? He told me not only did he NOT report the Auditor to the Registrar, as not completing the 4th day (as mandated by the matrix), but when the Registrar bill came for "4 days", the ISO Rep PAID IT! and did not alert the Registrar to what happened and the ISO Rep gave the Auditor a glowing review and requested him back for all future visits!! The site got their "paper" and that's all the ISO Rep cared about; the ISO Rep admitted this to me!!!! While the Auditor certainly was wrong (and gives good Auditors and ISO a bad name), I'm not sure the Registrar is to blame, in this case. The Registrar quoted the correct time and has to honor what the Auditor invoices them for (since the Auditor was local, he had no expenses that might have been caught by the Registrar, i.e. why does your plane ticket show you're leaving at the end of the 3rd and not the 4th day?) The ISO Rep had an obligation to report this Auditor to the Registrar, but was more concerned about "passing" and having an Auditor that "rubber stamped" things, for future visits. In this case, since I'm assuming the Registrar had no knowledge of what happened, then RAB couldn't follow-up either.

Relative to your comments on RAB, I have no experience with them. The Registrar I work for demands IRCA registration for their Auditors (this is the International body, the difference being RAB Auditors only have jurisdiction within the US, while IRCA Auditors can go anywhere in the world to work). And IRCA is pretty **** strict. So maybe the RAB problem is local to the US and unfortunately, giving everyone a bad name.

Again, my point is none of us are perfect (Registrar, Auditor, Client, Accreditation Board) and to clean up one or two areas (even if they are the major problems), will not completely solve the issue. I do agree that if something isn't done, the value of ISO will continue to be questioned and conscientious Registrars, Auditors and Clients will continue to suffer. :yes:

jcbodie,

I can't disagree with what you are saying. Customers don't even hide it anymore, it is a joke.

While your auditing skills and the ethics of the Registrar you work for may well be above the norm, the system you are required to work with has deteriorated to a point that cannot appreciate your value.

I will add this, based on my experiences (legitimate sample size or not) and the experiences recounted on this site, the ASQ forum and those experienced by my colleagues, the "Interpretation", lack of standardization in auditing practice and, yes the unscrupulous practices of SOME (I say many) Registrars and Clients alike, ISO Registration has become a disgrace.

It is nothing more than the cost of doing business in most cases and the perception (rightly so IMO) is that everyone who pays the bills passes.

It is a gigantic waste.

Carl-

Carl

Again, my point is none of us are perfect (Registrar, Auditor, Client, Accreditation Board) and to clean up one or two areas (even if they are the major problems), will not completely solve the issue. I do agree that if something isn't done, the value of ISO will continue to be questioned and conscientious Registrars, Auditors and Clients will continue to suffer. :yes:

All good sentiments. But, as you have noted on my recent posting on the thread, concerning whether or not "3rd party" auditors ought to make recommendations, I (among others) was already concerned about the conduct of the registrar assessments way back in 1987 when writing the 2nd edition of "Management Audits" and I continued raising the matter in appropriate forums. As we now approach 2005 - 18 years later, is it unreasonable to think this registration industry, its accreditation boards and so forth have been given a very reasonable amount of time to clean up the act? Is it not well overdue that "something is done"? And since this whole debate about the value of ISO 9K etc has been rumbling on for well over a decade, without resolution, has not the matter exceeded the point indecency for the quality profession?

Back in 1991, at the Cranfield meeting (referred to in that other thread) when I dared to question the level of conduct of registrars et al, I was scorned by them and told my conclusions could not be right because the shere number of registrations was increasing (translation: the market place like the service and/ or the way the service was conducted). Now, as the number of registrations fall in countries whose market place has almost 18 years of ISO 9K experience, perhaps their excoriating remarks made to me need to be reversed?

As I understand it, there are about 100 or so registrars in the USA. Therefore if our friend has enjoyed poor experienced at the hands of 7 of them, that may not seem to be statistically significant, but it is a large enough number to raise a reasonable person's eyebrows. If, of course, he had only ever had experience of 7 reagistrars and every one of them was viewed as deficient in service, that would be highly significant for him as it would represent a 100% failure rate of registrars.

There is no smoke without fire.

Sorry I have not replied to a couple of the questions regarding ISO numbers, which I seem to be fascinated with. Some of the answers have arleady been answered by others anyway. In the past few days I have been trying to find out some background to these numbers, and this is what I have found.

The ISO numbers are dependant on certification companies in each country submitting their figures in to ISO every year. As this is a voluntary process some of the data has to be seen as not accurate. This is especially true of withdrawn certificates, as certification companies are reluctant to submit this data as it can be seen as 'embarassing' information on their performance. However, the overall numbers of ISO registrations can be taken as indicating a trend.

To answer a question on the numbers, they represent total registrations that certification companies have on their books.

To answer another question regarding saturation; ISO 9000 has been designed to cover many operating organisations, including service. It can also be used in SMEs. So for saturation then the base of ISO certificates should represent a substantial % of businesses with greater than 50 people. In reality this is not the case.

The increase in foreign registrations appears to be due to the global bodies like the EU, UNIDO, and WTO. They are pushing ISO 9000 as a method where customers can distinguish supplier quality. That seems to be why China, Romania and others are increasing at a crazy rate - market coercion. Foreign businesses are not in a good position to evaluate ISO 9000 as it is new to them. Some national governments are providing funding for certification, and provide consultants, training, etc. In some cases some industries have targets to implement ISO 9000 in a % of total companies.


Peter Fraser, I read your post, but I am not sure as to the argument that UKAS was expecting a reduction in ISO 9000 certificates. It seems like to me that they were hedging their bets and predicting a reduction.

Greg B, from what Carl Keller found was that the US figures are only higher if the 1994 and 2000 versions are taken together. I must say the marked difference in figures is puzzling, and seems to point to a discrepancy so that the true figure may be lower. So I would not imagine the Auto or Automotive industries have anything to do with an increase. Especially with TS 16949 and others actually decreasing the ISO 9000 figures.

John Seddon has released a press release on the latest ISO figures. As the release includes some graphs I cannot paste it here, ask for the press release at this email address if anyone is interested
julie@vanguardconsult.co.uk
And John's battle against ISO 9000 http://www.lean-service.com/3.asp

Carl Keller, I have to say I agree, it may be up to us to instigate and demand change but at a greater level. It seems that ISO as an organisation is not up to looking at the standard, the market place, the registrars, and the clients from the viewpoint that we have. I would also say that we need a radical rethink and reassessment of what happens in the future? One thing that will fail is if we do nothing. And I don't just suggest some campaign to keep ISO 9000, but what does industry need and what can we provide?

Ilias

This thread fascinated me.
Are there any further respectful contributors willing to state their views??
The tone of this thread was indeed negative yet, fruitful.
Wallace.

Continuing the theme of attacking ISO 9000 John Seddon recently had an article published in the IQA magazine - Quality World. This article is available on the web to IQA members only.

https://www.iqasecure.co.uk/publication/qw_nov04_02.asp

The main points in the article are not new and are repeated at the Vanguard site:

http://www.lean-service.com/6-quality.asp

Attached to the site is an open letter to the new MD of BSI about the standard. I have attached it here.



For my sins I sent a reply through to IQA which was posted in their next edition. Once people have had a chance to see what John Seddon thinks I will post my reply. Any feedback gratefully received.
__________________
Rgds, Paul Simpson

Looking for Solutions

Thanks for the interesting attachment Paul.
Reformation is good: Painful but good at the end of the day.

What do you believe may be the implications for the ISO standards for fast growing productive countries such as China in this century?
It seems to me that, there are more and more, genuine and constructive interest in the ISO standards coming from that part of the world.
Taking this reality into consideration, do you believe China may be in a position to pro-actively involved in the "Reformation" process?

Regardless of Mr. Seddon's position and approach to the ISO standards, I must admit that the ISO standards have become engrained into modern business processes in such a way that, they are now institutionalized practices (For the most part) in global business.
I don't exactly have a love affair with the ISO standards yet it's clear, there is at this time, no viable alternative to the ISO global standard.
Wallace.

As a few people seem to have looked at the John Seddon letter I will post my response. Whilst I agree with most cove members that ISO 9001 on its own cannot provide all the answers I do believe that if implemented properly the standard does have a lot to offer to people who understand the spirit and want to use their management system to improve. Again any feedback gratefully received.

I like your response. While ISO 9000 has many detractors around the world, and, without a doubt, it is misapplied in a high percentage of cases, when properly embraced, as a component of an organization’s business management system it can be very effective.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/thumbup1.gif

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2005/Ref950.html

Ref.: 950
16 February 2005

Intel CEO on the need for International Standards

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/image2/barrett.jpg"Companies that embrace standards that have been globally adopted and reflect world-wide consensus are in the best position to succeed because they are able to create world-class products based on high-quality standards."

This is the view of Craig R. Barrett, chairman and chief executive officer of Intel, the world-leading semiconductor technology company. Barrett is the subject of an exclusive interview in the February issue of ISO Focus (www.iso.org/isofocus (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/isofocus/2005contents.html)), the magazine of the International Organization for Standardization.

"These products have the benefit of being developed with broad participation, incorporating global perspectives and requirements," Barrett tells ISO Focus. "Standards that have been adopted globally free companies to compete in various markets around the world without having to develop multiple versions of a product."

Barrett appreciates that ISO standards are associated with worldwide consensus and quality. "Use of ISO standards in areas of management systems and supplier's declaration of conformity," he says, "have helped us maintain our world-class manufacturing excellence …. Meeting these requirements will inspire high confidence among governments, regulatory bodies and consumers because the standard represents a world-class benchmark that can be applied globally across all businesses."

As a 'building-blocks' supplier, Intel uses ISO standards in its own products as well as to help set electronics industry-specific standards in, for example, the area of design for environment. Says Barrett, "Intel seeks to conform to international standards to promote product harmonization and to facilitate trade, which in turn makes it easier for our adopters and customers to market their products and compete in more markets around the world."

Both ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001:2004 management system standards, respectively for quality and environment, are fully integrated in Intel's corporate quality network and environmental, health and safety organizations world wide. "We have been able to use and its revisions as a means of driving continuous improvement in many areas," Barrett says in the interview. "In addition, we have leveraged the framework in our supplier selection, management and recognition processes, enabling us to keep pace with increasing expectations on supply chain performance."

Global standards also bring a great many benefits to consumers, Barrett emphasizes: "They lead to a higher number of product offerings for consumers, and introduce more competition and lower costs. Consumers are more willing to buy products when they are based on such standards because it is a safer choice."

"Intel remains a committed contributor to the development of ISO specifications," says the company's CEO. The world is getting smaller as people and countries become more interconnected, so the need for global standards has grown …. We look forward to ISO's continued leadership."

[i]Note for editors: Craig R. Barrett, having served in several senior managerial posts in Intel since joining the company in 1974, has been Chief Executive Officer since 1998 and will serve as Chairman of the Intel board of directors from May 2005. In addition to authoring more than 40 technical papers dealing with the influence of microstructure on the properties of materials, and a textbook on materials science, he is a trustee for the US Council for International Business and a board member of the US Semiconductor Industry Association as well as of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. He was recently elected Chair of the National Academy of Engineering, is Co-Chairman of the Business Coalition for Excellence in Education and Chairman of the Computer Systems Policy Project.
Press contact:
Ms. Elizabeth Gasiorowski-Denis
Journalist
Public Relations
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 733 34 30
E-mail gasiorowski@iso.org (gasiorowski@iso.org)

According to the Heads Up #61 (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU61.pdf)from ANAB, output matters. I.e., certified QMS's must deliver on customer satisfaction...

Summary

The consistent application of criteria in auditing an organization’s QMS with regard to achieving customer satisfaction, delivering conforming product, and continually improving the QMS is imperative. This is especially important to the continued reliance of the customer supply chain and other interested parties on the added value of the third-party certification system. To achieve the intended purposes of ISO 9001:2000, certified organizations must be held accountable. Outputs do matter!

I hope the Accreditation Bodies take this to heart themselves and weed out the registrars that are not doing what they are supposed to. Because if accreditation is not enhancing confidence on registrar's performance, they are not doing their part either....

Damian,
Thank you for your comments. With respect to the business I am involved, there needs to be controls in place so that ALL components we manufacture for our core products are installed in a inform manner. I am in the RF shielding business and this is a business niche that needs controls that are specific and rigid. Especially from a manufacturing angle.

What we are doing with ISO is to make improvements to our internal business so our external business goals were much easier to achieve.
My 2 cents, thanks.

Also see this related discussion thread: ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4229)

There is a whole lot more to running an organization that what is covered by ISO 9001 or any of its variants (TS, TL, AS, etc.). As long as ISO continues to have this limited focus, it will never receive the recognition that it seeks. Because of its limitations, organizations typically do not see it as a tool to improve their business, but rather just to do the minimal for the marketing value of certification.
How much and to what extent, of the following list of business activities, do you think ISO 9001 addresses?
General management; sales and marketing strategies; product strategies; pricing strategies; product and manufacturing technology; resources and infrastructure; operations management; quality and environment management; finance, accounting and administration; communications and information technology; investor relations and regulatory compliance.
This list is far from complete.
The success of an organization lies in the strategies it uses to deploy these business activities in satisfying the needs of its stakeholders.
It boils down to this critical question – what is the purpose of ISO management standards – Is it to improve the quality of an organization’s products or to improve the organization? Most advocates will say the latter. If that is the case, then how can it possibly do so if it only addresses a small portion of an oranizations scope of activities?
Let me give you a typical example – nowadays, most companies use significant IT technology that impact just about every activity listed above. Yet there is nothing in the ISO 9001 standard that addresses this. Most Certification Body auditors will usually look at electronic documentation and records and leave it at that. They are, by and large, not trained and indeed afraid to tread into this area. But look at the risk of IT. What if IT systems fail? And operations come to a standstill?
Then there is the issue of ISO always trying to play catch-up. The so-called 8 quality management principles were introduced with the 2000 version. But these were around long before the 1994 version. Will the next version borrow from the leadership and accountability requirements contained within SOX Act?

Art Lewis

Welcome to the Cove, Art :bigwave:

How much and to what extent, of the following list of business activities, do you think ISO 9001 addresses?
General management; sales and marketing strategies; product strategies; pricing strategies; product and manufacturing technology; resources and infrastructure; operations management; quality and environment management; finance, accounting and administration; communications and information technology; investor relations and regulatory compliance.

How many of those is the ISO standard intended to address? Do you think that the standards should relieve business owners from the responsibility of thinking for themselves? The fact is that the standard provides a uniform framework for accomplishing those objectives, and isn't meant to replace the hard work it takes to be successful.

It boils down to this critical question – what is the purpose of ISO management standards – Is it to improve the quality of an organization’s products or to improve the organization?

It's a false dichotomy. How can you do one without doing the other? Not only that, the purpose of the standards is not to improve anything except the uniformity of the infrastructure needed to be successful. We all know that it's possible for lousy businesses to achieve ISO registration. What I don't understand is why that fact surprises anyone. It's possible to spend $50,000 remodeling your kitchen and still make inedible food.

Let me give you a typical example – nowadays, most companies use significant IT technology that impact just about every activity listed above. Yet there is nothing in the ISO 9001 standard that addresses this.

Of course there is, even if the reference isn't explicit. It's not possible to address the interaction of processes without addressing the modes of interaction.

Most Certification Body auditors will usually look at electronic documentation and records and leave it at that. They are, by and large, not trained and indeed afraid to tread into this area.

If that's true, how is it the fault of the standard?

But look at the risk of IT. What if IT systems fail? And operations come to a standstill?

What indeed. What prevents auditors from addressing IT within the framework of process efficacy?

Art, you used your post to plug your website, but you show so little understanding of what ISO is.... ISO is MUCH MORE than ISO 9001.
So many ISO standards addressing so many issues and so many stakeholder issues.... For someone that seems to make a living helping people implementing QMS's according to international standards, you seem to be overly critical of the standard that pays your bills.

Art, you used your post to plug your website, but you show so little understanding of what ISO is.... ISO is MUCH MORE than ISO 9001.
So many ISO standards addressing so many issues and so many stakeholder issues.... For someone that seems to make a living helping people implementing QMS's according to international standards, you seem to be overly critical of the standard that pays your bills.

Glad to see nothing has changed in the few weeks I've been away. Every so often someone puts their head above the parapet to have a go at ISO and before they can get the benefit Sidney comes back with both barrels! :lol:

On a serious note there is some truth in Art's post - there are some auditors out there who don't understand enough about business processes. The examle of IT is a poor one however. It's not the IT that is the important thing to understand but the business processes and data management, without an understanding of that the IT knowledge is meaningless.

Thumbs down Cuspindo no prato que comeu? What's that all about Sidney?

Cuspindo no prato que comeu? What's that all about Sidney?

I think it's Portuguese, and means "Don't spit on your plate" or "Don't spit on what you eat."

Your quote: (posted by Jim Wynne – Forum moderator)
Do you think that the standards should relieve business owners from the responsibility of thinking for themselves? The fact is that the standard provides a uniform framework for accomplishing those objectives, and isn't meant to replace the hard work it takes to be successful.
My response: The infrastructure needed to be successful include all of the business areas I listed. Business owners must have carefully planned and deployed long-term strategies for all of these areas, to succeed. ISO 9001 is one of many tools one that organizations use in this endeavour. However it has limited scope (implicit or explicit) as indicated in my earlier post. It cannot claim to be a management system standard when it addresses such a small part of business and management activities. What is the point of having a uniform framework for managing the tip of the iceberg?
That is why business owners must seek help elsewhere and find and use a variety of other tools and expertise that help them in addressing this larger scope of activities. If you read D&B reports on why businesses fail, you will find that the majority of failures are due to poor management and inadequate financing, not because of poor product. If you dig deeper, you will find that poor management relates to most of the business areas I have listed in my earlier post.
I agree that the responsibility remains with business owners to find and use such expertise and tools.

Your quote: (posted by Jim Wynne – Forum moderator)
It's a false dichotomy. How can you do one without doing the other? Not only that, the purpose of the standards is not to improve anything except the uniformity of the infrastructure needed to be successful. We all know that it's possible for lousy businesses to achieve ISO registration. What I don't understand is why that fact surprises anyone. It's possible to spend $50,000 remodeling your kitchen and still make inedible food.
My response: As a business owner, I wouldn’t care a hoot about using a tool that doesn’t improve anything other than provide a uniform structure for certification purposes.
If the tools I use don’t help solve my problems and improve my business, then why use them?

ISO 9001 has always been perceived as a feel good marketing tool thrust upon organizations. There are dubious stats that it adds value or solves problems. These come mostly from Certification Bodies that obviously have a bias in providing such information.

Yes you can have a certified system and still make poor product, just as you can have remodelled kitchen and still make inedible food. Which proves my point that business owners need more than ISO 9001 to manage and control their business because of it’s limitations. Everyone knows that ISO 9001 certification has had much more success as a marketing tool to promote domestic business and perhaps international trade than its usefulness as a tool for problem-solving or improving an organization. And that’s the reason why most companies go for ISO certification.

Your quote: (posted by Jim Wynne – Forum moderator)
Of course there is, even if the reference isn't explicit. It's not possible to address the interaction of processes without addressing the modes of interaction.
My response: With regard to the IT example, using your logic you can imply just about any scope and control into the ISO 9001 standard. However, the ISO organization and CB’s do not promote this broader implication that you suggest. Why would they? Can you imagine the confusion it would create? Leave alone audit implications?
I still maintain that CB auditors only audit the output of the interaction modes, and rarely the control over modes. I have worked with over a dozen CB’s including two of the largest and have done hundreds of 3rd party audits to see this first hand. You say its implied. I say you can only imply so much. if it is not in the standard and it is a difficult or highly technical area such as IT, auditors just wont go there. Again, I attribute this to the limited scope of the standard.

Your quote: (posted by Jim Wynne – Forum moderator)
What indeed. What prevents auditors from addressing IT within the framework of process efficacy?
My response: Here’s what prevents them – it is not explicit in the standard; it is not commonly identified as a process within the QMS scope; auditors are not trained in and don’t know how to audit IT; and there is not enough time to audit anything outside the formally defined scope of the audit. Collectively, these are all shortcomings of an ISO bureaucracy originating with a standard that has a limited scope.

PS. Now that I am semi-retired, I will be happy to engage in such dialogue as above. However, I don’t read or browse through all posts because of problems with my eyesight. So I would appreciate as you did today to invite me via email to respond to specific issues or QMS questions. I would be happy to contribute.
Best Regards,
Art Lewis

NOTE: Link to web site removed by Marc. Linking to one's web site is only allowed in the user's Profile.

Sidney,
You quoted: Art, you used your post to plug your website, but you show so little understanding of what ISO is.... ISO is MUCH MORE than ISO 9001.
So many ISO standards addressing so many issues and so many stakeholder issues.... For someone that seems to make a living helping people implementing QMS's according to international standards, you seem to be overly critical of the standard that pays your bills.

My response:
Yes, ISO 9001 is well recognized. Yes there are an ever increasing list of sector specific standards. Do they serve the needs of organizations? Is everything going smoothly in the ISO world? That is what this discussion is about.

Yes I have been practising business management and risk management for the past 35 years and quality management for the past 15 years. Yes I help companies implement ISO systems, but I help them improve their business first and then focus on ISO certification. Yes my clients pay me well because I actually help them save tons of money

Sidney, I suggest if you have something to contribute to this discussion, please do so, otherwise don't belittle yourself by making personal attacks.
Regards,
Art Lewis

:topic: Folks - Please remember this is a discussion forum, not a place to wage personal wars. This is an old thread, and by it's very nature is a contentious topic. Opinions are fine, but let's keep things civil.

I apologize for the tone of my post. I misread Art's post and erroneously thought that we had another case of a hypocritical criticism of ISO 9001 by someone that profits from helping organizations implementing it.

When I read it more carefully, I see that Art and I agree in one fundamental underlying issue. ISO 9001, contrary to what many people mistakenly believe (and profess here at the Cove), is NOT a Business Management Standard. It is simply a Quality Management Standard.

Quality Management is (albeit critical) a single facet of a Business Management System, and Art listed many aspects of managing an organization that ISO 9001 does not address (on purpose). I just think that Art unfairly criticizes ISO 9001 for something that the writers of the Standard never intended. ISO 9001 is NOT an all encompassing document. It has a narrow focus. Further, some of advanced QMS issues not addressed in ISO 9001 are covered in ISO 9004 and many other ISO documents maintained by TC176.

Art, once again, my apologies.

Your quote: (posted by Jim Wynne – Forum moderator)
What indeed. What prevents auditors from addressing IT within the framework of process efficacy?
My response: Here’s what prevents them – it is not explicit in the standard; it is not commonly identified as a process within the QMS scope; auditors are not trained in and don’t know how to audit IT; and there is not enough time to audit anything outside the formally defined scope of the audit. Collectively, these are all shortcomings of an ISO bureaucracy originating with a standard that has a limited scope.

I think that perhaps the only thing we disagree on is the scope of the standard; as Sidney has pointed out, the limited scope was intentional, and well-advised, imo. Once you get beyond a certain point there are too many subjective variables for a comprehensive management standard to be effective. In fact, if history has taught us anything, it's that overly-restrictive central control has a decidedly negative effect on creativity and innovation.

ISO 9001 was not intended to be a high level, world class list of requriements. It is intended to be MINIMUM requirements. Anyone suggesting that ISO 9001 is limited is correct. It is meant to be a minimum set of business requirements. It is not Baldrige, or any other high level model.

Also, please don't confuse certification / conformity assessment with the standard. The standard was meant to be an improvement tool and NOT a conformity assessment thing. The industry of conformity assessment has grown around the standard. Now everyone equates "ISO" with conformity assessment to ISO 9001.

ISO 9001 is a minmum - not a majic pill or high level of business requirements. Please, please make critical comments either about the document itself or conformity assessment. Please, please do NOT make critical comments about the document (ISO 9001) that are really comments about conformity assessment.

ISO is the International Organization for Standardization. Their main product is product standards. Management systems, at least in quantity of documents, is not ISO's main product.

Making assumption on the intent of the standard may be the source of some of the confusion in the last part of this thread. Also, I think all have made valid and interesting points to consider.

Regards,

Dirk

...I see that Art and I agree in one fundamental underlying issue. ISO 9001, contrary to what many people mistakenly believe (and profess here at the Cove), is NOT a Business Management Standard. It is simply a Quality Management Standard.

Quality Management is (albeit critical) a single facet of a Business Management System, and Art listed many aspects of managing an organization that ISO 9001 does not address (on purpose).....


However, I don't think that general scope prevents the many companies that chose to use it as the basis for their business management system. I have many clients that chose to take it there.

If ISO allows them to define their processes, without being itself prescriptive, it does not mandate where they have to stop. They can take it as far as they wish, i.e.: Safety, EMS, Administrative processes, and yes, even IT, if they wish to.

If ISO allows them to define their processes, without being itself prescriptive, it does not mandate where they have to stop. They can take it as far as they wish, i.e.: Safety, EMS, Administrative processes, and yes, even IT, if they wish to.Sure. I can use a screwdriver to drive a nail into the wall too.:tg:

Sure. I can use a screwdriver to drive a nail into the wall too.:tg:


Now why would you want to be so pejorative?

I know a number of companies that have put SOLID ISO or TS systems in place. They chose to integrate their business processes into it. It is their system, after all.

They post FABULOUS performance metrics, run world class operations, and have benchmarks that would bring most companies to absolute shame.

Further, ISO encourages integrating environmental with ISO 9001. They are now working on safety and social responsibility, which will also likely be designed to be integrated...gee, do I sense a trend toward integrating systems into a business system here...

A few days ago, I posted a request for Covers to post some metrics, and out of thousands of regular viewers, not a single one had the guts to post any benchmarks. Not one. I've got three clients who provided me with their benchmarks, and I'd put them up against anybody.

Who am I, or you, or any other auditor to tell a company with this level of process performance parameters that, oops, sorry, you are doing it wrong? ...It just doesn't make sense. :nope:

I have a lot of respect for your factual knowledge, Sidney, but when it comes to opinions, yours are no more accurate than anyone else's, especially a company who has earned their stripes with excellent systems that work. I've even seen some that would have satisfied many of Art's challenges.

Further, ISO encourages integrating environmental with ISO 9001. They are now working on safety and social responsibility, which will also likely be designed to be integrated...gee, do I sense a trend toward integrating systems into a business system here... First, ISO is not working on a safety management system standard.


0.4 Compatibility with other management systems
This International Standard has been aligned with ISO 14001:1996 in order to enhance the compatibility of the two standards for the benefit of the user community.
This International Standard does not include requirements specific to other management systems, such as those particular to environmental management, occupational health and safety management, financial management or risk management. However, this International Standard enables an organization to align or integrate its own quality management system with related management system requirements...


There is a HUGE difference between aligning management systems into a coherent business model and applying the same tool (e.g. ISO 9001) for all different management subsystems. Even though most management system standards follow the PDCA cycle, they have different approaches for dealing with their specific risks: environmental, quality, information security, food safety, etc.... That is the reason that we are seeing a proliferation of management system standards, such as ISO 27001, 22000, 20000, etc.... Integration does not mean using the same tool for all facets of a business.

Have to agree with Sidney on this one!
Now why would you want to be so pejorative? We all post in shorthand. It is a way of putting a point across without a load of waffle to wade through. The main point is to distill the facts and to argue / discuss those points

I know a number of companies that have put SOLID ISO or TS systems in place. They chose to integrate their business processes into it. It is their system, after all. To be fair there are a lot of business processes that affect the management of quality. The point is that the standard does not cover all business processes. If companies choose to cover their "other" processes under the documented system and call it a "Business Management System" then all well and good.

Further, ISO encourages integrating environmental with ISO 9001. They are now working on safety and social responsibility, which will also likely be designed to be integrated...gee, do I sense a trend toward integrating systems into a business system here... I can confidently predict it will not hapen in my lifetime - and I plan to live a long time. ;) There are trends to integrate systems and the CBs and ISO encourage it - but not the standard writers. The whole process of developing standards depends on consensus - hence you get some countries vetoing standards and watering down content because it doesn't suit them. No names here.

A few days ago, I posted a request for Covers to post some metrics, and out of thousands of regular viewers, not a single one had the guts to post any benchmarks. Not one. I've got three clients who provided me with their benchmarks, and I'd put them up against anybody. I'll have to have a look. Not so sure about the perjorative language here, though, H!;)

Who am I, or you, or any other auditor to tell a company with this level of process performance parameters that, oops, sorry, you are doing it wrong? ...It just doesn't make sense. :nope: As we have discussed ad nauseum in other threads (and probably this one) it is the auditor's job to tell the organization it has got it wrong ......IF they have - who else?

If their good performance is there you can sweeten the pill but an auditor's job is to assess the implementation of a system that meets the requirements of the standard. If they have failed to do that then it is the auditor's job to tell them ... in a nice way.:lol:

I have a lot of respect for your factual knowledge, Sidney, but when it comes to opinions, yours are no more accurate than anyone else's, especially a company who has earned their stripes with excellent systems that work. I've even seen some that would have satisfied many of Art's challenges.
Again the fact is that ISO 9001 is a standard specifying management system requirements for Quality. Full stop / period.

What we are all trying to do in the cove is come up with a common understanding of the principles behind (in this case) ISO 9001 and the elements that make up the standard. What most covers will do is argue the points, generally without malice and try and both educate and learn through the process.

Paul, if I ever become someone of a stature who could justify a spokesperson, I would like to offer you a job. :lol:

Pejorative? Not really. Using an analogy to make a point that you can use the wrong tool to accomplish some results.
It is a well known fact that many consultants that are really good at something, e.g., six-sigma, TQM, ISO 9000, behavioral change, etc... think that they can solve any problem with that tool that they are good at.

Paul, if I ever become someone of a stature who could justify a spokesperson, I would like to offer you a job. :lol: And you being one of the opposition too! You just don't know how lucky you are!

There is a HUGE difference between aligning management systems into a coherent business model and applying the same tool (e.g. ISO 9001) for all different management subsystems. Even though most management system standards follow the PDCA cycle, they have different approaches for dealing with their specific risks: environmental, quality, information security, food safety, etc.... That is the reason that we are seeing a proliferation of management system standards, such as ISO 27001, 22000, 20000, etc.... Integration does not mean using the same tool for all facets of a business.


I think I'm seeing where the difference in our statements are coming from. It may be semantics.

I think it would be more appropriate to characterize my approach as "...aligning management systems into a coherent business model."

I am not exactly sure what ..."and applying the same tool (e.g. ISO 9001) for all different management subsystems," would mean exactly.

When I consult, I frequently refer to the ISO 9001 framework as a toolbox with drawers. I suggest that the programs can and should be aligned.

They all have documents and records, they all should be measured and evaluated for effectiveness, management review would benefit by looking at them, may as well do internal audits on them. If gages are involved, they should be calibrated, etc.

I am not sure whether you would consider that aligning, or applying the same tool. But, I can say, everyone I have seen that went that direction thought it was a great idea and never went back. It made their management more effective, the system more clear, and improved results...which I am certain would be consistent with the intent of ISO 9001.

Now, the standard does not mandate that a company goes this far. But, the standard does not mandate that a company try to optimize their processes. However, the profit is not in compliance, the profit comes from learning how to optimize. And, that is what I help my clients do. I think it's fun...:yes:

PS: Most large tier 1 companies that I audit have combined their health & safety programs into their ISO 14001 systems. Wasn't my idea, but I have to say it sure does work.

(Originally Posted by hjilling) I know a number of companies that have put SOLID ISO or TS systems in place. They chose to integrate their business processes into it. It is their system, after all.

(Quote by Paul Simpson) To be fair there are a lot of business processes that affect the management of quality. The point is that the standard does not cover all business processes. If companies choose to cover their "other" processes under the documented system and call it a "Business Management System" then all well and good.



I agree - that was all I was trying to say. It is not required. But, it is well and good, and does no violence to the standard.

Quote: (Originally Posted by hjilling) Further, ISO encourages integrating environmental with ISO 9001. They are now working on safety and social responsibility, which will also likely be designed to be integrated...gee, do I sense a trend toward integrating systems into a business system here...

(Quote by Paul Simpson) I can confidently predict it will not happen in my lifetime - and I plan to live a long time. ;) There are trends to integrate systems and the CBs and ISO encourage it - but not the standard writers. The whole process of developing standards depends on consensus - hence you get some countries vetoing standards and watering down content because it doesn't suit them. No names here.

Again, I agree. I was not implying the standards will be integrated. But ISO supports the idea that the implementations can be integrated.

...see, we can be friends...

: (Originally Posted by hjilling) Who am I, or you, or any other auditor to tell a company with this level of process performance parameters that, oops, sorry, you are doing it wrong? ...It just doesn't make sense. :nope: (Paul Simpson)As we have discussed ad nauseum in other threads (and probably this one) it is the auditor's job to tell the organization it has got it wrong ......IF they have - who else?

If their good performance is there you can sweeten the pill but an auditor's job is to assess the implementation of a system that meets the requirements of the standard. If they have failed to do that then it is the auditor's job to tell them ... in a nice way.:lol:



Certainly, we are to assess compliance to the requirements of the standard. However, we must be very careful, as auditors, when we begin to infuse our opinions into the conversation.

This comment was challenging opinions that went beyond the specific requirements of the standard. If we in this Cove can't agree on certains approaches and opinions, we must be careful imposing them on clients in an audit.

I always have serious misgivings whenever I see this thread resurrected. The original poster was apparently bored that week and was deliberately provocative, goading more than one normally even-keeled Cover into intemperate language.

Many of the posters have erred in taking individual examples of either good or bad applications and transferring the lessons learned to ALL applications, leaving no room for understanding a "range" of applications from good to bad. Whenever we begin a sentence with "my experience is . . ." we have to be careful not to imply that anyone not doing it that way is condemned to Perdition for all eternity. We also have to be equally careful not to imply everyone will have the same terrible experience we had.

Just as we expect variation in production processes, so should we expect variation in "people processes" like auditing and in interpretations of what is best for the organization.

As posters, therefore, we owe it to our own self image as well as to the sensibilities of our readers to limit the amount of pejorative language we use and ALWAYS to remember we never attack the individual and rarely directly attack the idea, choosing instead to offer a well-reasoned alternative and persuade the audience by logic (rather than emotion) of the value of our point of view.

...All that really counts is the core process that converts the needs of customers into cash in the bank. The organization and its system should all be helping the core process to add value faster (for customers) and prevent losses sooner (for investors).

I don't see how demonstrating conformity to requirements, ... or working to achieve local optimization via a "process approach," in any way shape or form adds value.


Wes' little admonition is on spot, and it made me curious as to where this thread began.

I am reluctant to dredge something out from several years ago, but the original post demonstrates a misunderstanding that is still prevalent today. I think it may bring some good thought to this thread.


The OP suggests that focusing on local optimization of each process is a waste of time, and everyone should focus on the core process.

This is one of the primary areas I focus on when working with clients. I certainly like putting cash in the bank, but this is the wrong way to go about it. A lot of managers believe this way. In my opinion, that is 180 degrees wrong. I think it may be one of the root causes of why so many Covers struggle to get their managers to buy in to their ISO and TS efforts.

That is the model the Big 3 still doggedly follow. The Toyota model focuses on improving every process, which also keeps improving the product...and puts cash in the bank.

The flaw in this approach is 1/3 of the employees don't touch the core process. A third of the people are not connected to the core process. If we don't give that group an improvement path, then they can't contribute improvement, if one holds this "Core Process" point of view.
Therefore, we can give them a speech or motivation, but since they can't focus on the core process better, there is no "improvement."

These folks work in the Support Processes which can certainly affect the product, even if they rarely see it.

They train, calibrate, handle customer service, measure, analyze, audit, solve problems, manage data, etc. How smootly and effectively these "Local Processes" perform plays a key role in how effective the "Core Process" will perform. That is the whole principle behind the process approach.

GM is a perfect example. Their products have become quite good, according to the stats. But the interchange in the supporting processes and managing the supply chain communication is horrendous. That ineffectivity in those supporting processes completely bogs down any product improvement they make. It actually drags down the quality of the product in some ways. Yet, it is caused by people who rarely see a core process in an assembly plant.

There are still a lot of copanies who think they have implemented a "process approach" because they have flowcharts and turtles. But managing via a "process approach" is much more than that. I don't hear companies where the whole management team gets it complain about it. When you understand it, it really does work well.

Hello all,
As I read through these posts I relate much of the sceptacism with the owner of my present company(small @ 100 employees)
Although ISO registration and compliance seems useless to some, in the grand scheme of organizational progress ISO is a tool to assist the company in standardizing its practices. ISO is not simply a thing to obtain and then it dies, ISO is a way of in my opinion achieving total quality within any organization. Quality both through consistency and continually(ONGOING) improving internal processes. ISO regiatrations may have declined, but I feel that this is primarily due to lack of understanding its benefits and even its appropriate company specific implementation. It is usually the Quality Manager who is responsible for ensuring company wide comprehension of what ISO means to them and to be the ISO representative that lives and breathes the standards. :evidence:
I have found that ISO can become a way of being, a means of operation in just about any orgnanization. The ISO way has truly become a way of life for me both personally and professionally. Standards by which to perform.
Thank You all for your insights and thoughts on this topic as I have been searching for just this type of thread.
:thanx:

I got give it to them, because they try...


The Value of Accredited Certification
Certification, registration, accreditation - the jargon of conformity assessment can be confusing. A white paper on the value of accredited certification (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/value.pdf) covers the basics and then some.

I got give it to them, because they try...


Interesting paper. I appreciate your sharing it. I was particularly interested in the "survey" on ROI. I think the results as reported were probably much lower than the actual return. ANAB has a tendency to try to be conservative.

I assume this "survey" was conducted the same as the polls here on Elsmar. The survey was probably a simple question of was your return 5-10, 10-15% etc.

Not many companies do a true analysis of their return on certification. The survey would reflect the opinions and biases of thse who answered. As an auditor, and particularly as consultant, I have a vested interest in the results. So, I pay close attention to metrics. If the respondents had a 10-20% ROI, there would be a small change in scrap, productivity, etc.

Most of my clients see dramatic improvements in metrics. Scrap cut by 50+%, productivity up 20, 30 or more percent. Labor hrs, etc. I have a hard time believing only my clients are enjoying dramatic improvements.

What do you folks say?

Most of my clients see dramatic improvements in metrics. Scrap cut by 50+%, productivity up 20, 30 or more percent. Labor hrs, etc. I have a hard time believing only my clients are enjoying dramatic improvements.

What do you folks say?

I say, how does this relate to the question? How does registration, per se, as opposed to compliance, result in significant ROI? It's really a rhetorical question, I think, because no one has ever offered anything other than anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of registration.

I say, how does this relate to the question? How does registration, per se, as opposed to compliance, result in significant ROI? It's really a rhetorical question, I think, because no one has ever offered anything other than anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of registration.


Jim, please let's not parse this topic again - certification vs. compliance. The OP was about ISO 9001, is it wasteful or beneficial? It did not distinguish between certification or compliance.

Neither is inherently bad. It is not one against the other. Of course you can get benefit from either - compliance alone, or from certification.

The benefit comes from implementation of the principles. Some find the extra discipline of audits drives the process a bit more.

Why do we have to keep taking sides. Certification is not inherently bad. It adds a little expense, and many feel it adds further value for the money. It's a rhetorical debate.

Jim, please let's not parse this topic again - certification vs. compliance. The OP was about ISO 9001, is it wasteful or beneficial? It did not distinguish between certification or compliance.

Sigh. This is an old thread that got resurrected, and you were responding to Sidney's attachment, not the to the OP. Sidney's attachment is about The Value of Accredited Certification. And, btw, I commented because you said "What do you folks say?" If you don't want the dog to bite you, don't open the gate.:D

I assume this "survey" was conducted the same as the polls here on Elsmar. The survey was probably a simple question of was your return 5-10, 10-15% etc. The survey results can be seen here. (http://www.iaar.org/IAARCustomerSatisfactionSurveyResults-2006.htm)

Not many companies do a true analysis of their return on certification. The survey would reflect the opinions and biases of thse who answered. As an auditor, and particularly as consultant, I have a vested interest in the results. So, I pay close attention to metrics. If the respondents had a 10-20% ROI, there would be a small change in scrap, productivity, etc. I am always skeptical of these surveys. They are as biased as the ASQ surveys that demonstrate that ASQ certified professionals make significant more money than non certified ones. The people responding to these surveys are normally the same people that were responsible for implementation and certification of the system. In my experience, very few organizations keep accurate metrics and data that really demonstrate performance improvement prior to implementation and after certification.

Most of my clients see dramatic improvements in metrics. Scrap cut by 50+%, productivity up 20, 30 or more percent. Labor hrs, etc. I have a hard time believing only my clients are enjoying dramatic improvements.

What do you folks say?I say, with that kind of performance, whatever you are charging your clients, you should charge twice as much.

Sigh. This is an old thread that got resurrected, and you were responding to Sidney's attachment, not the to the OP. Sidney's attachment is about The Value of Accredited Certification. And, btw, I commented because you said "What do you folks say?" If you don't want the dog to bite you, don't open the gate.:D


Jim, you know I enjoy discussions with you. But, we've done this "value of certification vs. compliance" enough already. You can pursue that angle, but I am weary of it. Catch ya on the next one...

UKAS also has a campaign to promote the value of accreditation (http://www.ukas.com/information_centre/accreditation_awareness_campaign.asp) in the 3rd party certification sector...

They have brochures:read: :

Accreditation Matters (894KB) (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/Information_Centre/Brochures/Accreditation%20Matters%20Issue%203%20Final.pdf)

UKAS Corporate Brochure (2.40MB) (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/Information_Centre/Brochures/UKAS%20Corporate.pdf)

Reducing risk, increasing confidence (2.01mb) (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/Information_Centre/Brochures/Reducing_the_risk.pdf) - Information on accreditation for government and business

Who is doing your calibration work (1.47 mb) (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/Information_Centre/Brochures/UKAS_Calibration_.pdf)- a guide to purchasing calibration services.

Why Risk It (696kb) (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/Information_Centre/Brochures/Why_Risk_It.pdf) - Information for certification bodies and customers of certification bodies

Are your inspection services up to the mark? (http://www.ukas.com/Library/downloads/Information_Centre/Brochures/Insp_brochure.pdf) - A short introductory guide that explains why you should use a UKAS accredited inspection body for your inspection needs

It seems that ISO9001 usage and ISO9001 registration are being used as alternatives in some of these discussions.

Registration is a commercial decision and activity, while compliance is arguably one of good management.

It seems that ISO9001 usage and ISO9001 registration are being used as alternatives in some of these discussions.

Registration is a commercial decision and activity, while compliance is arguably one of good management.Since this was your first post, I take it that you have not had the time to research this site at length. We have had, over the years, numerous discussions about implementation and certification. Most enlightened Covers are fully aware of the difference, and the wise ones agree that most of the potential benefits lie with IMPLEMENTATION and NOT certification.

However, I do believe what I wrote in another post/thread: (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=159129&postcount=8)

Yes, we have to make a clear distinction about the standard and the certification process. But the truth is (Can you handle the truth?): Without the certification process associated with it, ISO 9001 would be just another obscure standard known by a handful of people in Europe. The ISO organization would be another obscure International organization based in Geneva. There would be no US TAG to ISO TC 176. Very likely, ISO 9001 would still be in it's first Edition (1987).

You are right!