I'm intrigued by the recent heated dialog that Damian :frust: initiated at the cove and, this has got me thinking (Can be very dangerous for me) :rolleyes: .
Has East truly met West yet regarding perceptions of quality, business practices and the perception of system maintenance, improvement and inovation? Are the two systems of thought really compatable?
Looking at the fact that ISO9001, as good as it is regarding infusing system thinking, maintenance and improvement, enforces or (for want of a word) evolves change every 5 years or so. Is this change quick enough for those who sincerley use the ISO system and dare I say, should the ISO9001 standard be more open to rapid changes to the status quo of the current business management practices?
IMO, FWIW, I firmly believe that we are living in a century when change is more rapid and continuous by nature of the financial, technology and information economies of this day. Can ISO 9001 deliver what business management needs regarding standardised systems of business practices.
Wallace.

I'm intrigued by the recent heated dialog that Damian :frust: initiated at the cove and, this has got me thinking (Can be very dangerous for me) :rolleyes: .
Has East truly met West yet regarding perceptions of quality, business practices and the perception of system maintenance, improvement and inovation? Are the two systems of thought really compatable?
Looking at the fact that ISO9001, as good as it is regarding infusing system thinking, maintenance and improvement, enforces or (for want of a word) evolves change every 5 years or so. Is this change quick enough for those who sincerley use the ISO system and dare I say, should the ISO9001 standard be more open to rapid changes to the status quo of the current business management practices?
IMO, FWIW, I firmly believe that we are living in a century when change is more rapid and continuous by nature of the financial, technology and information economies of this day. Can ISO 9001 deliver what business management needs regarding standardised systems of business practices.
Wallace.Are you suggesting the Standard needs to be "changed" more frequently than 5 years? Are you taking into account the "continuous review" and interdisciplinary dialog that takes place among the various technical committees in the intervening period, culminating in the approximate revision cycle of five years?

Are you also taking into account the concept individual organizations should have organization-specific plans for continuous improvement?

What might be the economic repercussions of more frequent revisions of Standards? How might this affect organizations which are having difficulty in stabilizing their organizations within the current 5-year cycle?

Statistics experts often tell us a process should be stable and in control before conducting experiments for improvement. How would such a point of view conflict with more frequent Standard revisions which might preclude stabilization of processes?

Are you suggesting the Standard needs to be "changed" more frequently than 5 years? Are you taking into account the "continuous review" and interdisciplinary dialog that takes place among the various technical committees in the intervening period, culminating in the approximate revision cycle of five years?

Are you also taking into account the concept individual organizations should have organization-specific plans for continuous improvement?

What might be the economic repercussions of more frequent revisions of Standards? How might this affect organizations which are having difficulty in stabilizing their organizations within the current 5-year cycle?

Statistics experts often tell us a process should be stable and in control before conducting experiments for improvement. How would such a point of view conflict with more frequent Standard revisions which might preclude stabilization of processes?

Nope! I'm certainly not suggesting the standard be changed more frequently. Changing the standard more frequently would certainly cause IMO, a wholesale rejection of the standard.
When we speak solely of the ISO 9001 standard, the CI initiatives alligned to the standard practices and structures could certainly exist outwith the certification scope of many organizations. ISO 9001 is an excellent business management model and that's how it is being used by many organizations.
I'm looking at these issues from a Kaizen angle. NO, I'm not on some kind of Kaizen trip Wes, I'm trying to see the objection to the use of the ISO9001 model and having a hard time justifying it.
Looking at the Kaizen philosophy, I see that using the ISO 9001 standard runs counter to the CI initiatives associated with Kaizen and, it's clear that the ISO9001 standard may indeed impede the adoption and use of the ISO 9001 standard as a business model due to, the incrimental changes relating to a Kaizen initiative. According to my current knowledge of Kaizen, I view a Kaizen initiative improving upon the current state of the ISO 9001 standard. The very nature of Kaizen implies that the standard would be improved beyond the current technical committees review processes.
I'm just struggling to get a balanced understanding of the Kaizen versus ISO 9001 angle.
Wallace.

Nope! I'm certainly not suggesting the standard be changed more frequently. Changing the standard more frequently would certainly cause IMO, a wholesale rejection of the standard.
When we speak solely of the ISO 9001 standard, the CI initiatives alligned to the standard practices and structures could certainly exist outwith the certification scope of many organizations. ISO 9001 is an excellent business management model and that's how it is being used by many organizations.
I'm looking at these issues from a Kaizen angle. NO, I'm not on some kind of Kaizen trip Wes, I'm trying to see the objection to the use of the ISO9001 model and having a hard time justifying it.
Looking at the Kaizen philosophy, I see that using the ISO 9001 standard runs counter to the CI initiatives associated with Kaizen and, it's clear that the ISO9001 standard may indeed impede the adoption and use of the ISO 9001 standard as a business model due to, the incrimental changes relating to a Kaizen initiative. According to my current knowledge of Kaizen, I view a Kaizen initiative improving upon the current state of the ISO 9001 standard. The very nature of Kaizen implies that the standard would be improved beyond the current technical committees review processes.
I'm just struggling to get a balanced understanding of the Kaizen versus ISO 9001 angle.
Wallace.Can we agree on two major levels of kaizen?
Guys I respect have used the term "Kaizen Event" to describe incremental improvement changes as processes are "tinkered with" to improve them.

The same guys wax eloquent in praise of a "Kaizen Blitz" (I know, I know ~ mixing Japanese and German ~ it's their term, not mine) to describe a "shocking breakthrough."

In a manner of speaking, throwing the emphasis in ISO9k2k on Customers instead of prescriptive documents was something close to a Kaizen Blitz.

Now, if only we can find some way to have customers look at ISO9k2k registration as just one of many alternates in qualifying suppliers instead of as a "knockout tool," then we might have a better chance of helping more organizations adopt a systems and process method of planning and operating their businesses. Once we remove the fear associated with "register or die!" mentality of many OEMs, we may see more organizations perceiving the real value in adopting the systems methodology of a Standard.

Now, if only we can find some way to have customers look at ISO9k2k registration as just one of many alternates in qualifying suppliers instead of as a "knockout tool," then we might have a better chance of helping more organizations adopt a systems and process method of planning and operating their businesses.

At my organization, we do have more than one way for a Supplier to get onto our Approved Vendor List...and more than one way for a Supplier to stay on there. However, more often than naught, you will see ISO 9001 registration as the methods used.

Why do we accept their certificate as enough evidence to support their "membership" on our AVL? Because, in this day and age of lean operations, multi-tasking positions, and justifying costs, we don't have the time/money/people...nor can we justify the time/money/people...required to visit suppliers, analyze data 8 hours a day, or accept extensive travel costs.

Our job is to make a product that meets our Customers requirements, as well as regulatory and legal requirements. Our suppliers' job is to make a product that meets their Customers requirements, as well as regulatory and legal requirements. We are their Customer. This method has served us well...we have had no major problems to date (knock on wood). If a situationd does develop, then we focus on the supplier until a resolution (accepted by all) is developed.

All of that being said, I do admit that our improvement projects have not come about because of ISO 9000. Improvement is simply a philosophy of our organization. We do not accept that where we are today is as good as we can get...if we do, then it won't be long before our competition catches up (and passes us).

Our improvement approach is very formal, well documented, and is reviewed monthly for progress. We have countermeasures put into place when planned results are not achieved (i.e., this could be either a target not achieved or a task not completed). We document accountability and responsibility. And most important (at least in my view), everyone gets involved at all levels. We have projects with tasks with teams...these teams are comprised of operators from the floor. In some cases, it was the operators who even determined our goals for some projects. They do the job, they know what can be done...and the higher up people are there to provide the resources (technical or otherwise) to achieve the goal.

We have a Technical Agreement with a company in Japan who is deemed to be the benchmark in our industry. It is by no means an inexpensive Agreement, but we have sent over people from all levels. They travel to Japan with objectives to meet, areas to focus on and items to learn. When they return, they teach their new skills to their counterparts. This has helped us enormously!

We have realized that we will never be like the company in Japan until our cultures are more closely aligned. There is just too much of a difference between our work and social makeups. However, we are continually implementing more and more of their methodologies (with a Canadian twist) and we are seeing improvements.

We have realized that we will never be like the company in Japan until our cultures are more closely aligned. There is just too much of a difference between our work and social makeups. However, we are continually implementing more and more of their methodologies (with a Canadian twist) and we are seeing improvements.

Roxy,

This is interesting to me. Can you send me a couple of examples of this? Not in the thread though. . .

Thanx Paul

Our improvement approach is very formal, well documented, and is reviewed monthly for progress. We have countermeasures put into place when planned results are not achieved (i.e., this could be either a target not achieved or a task not completed). We document accountability and responsibility. And most important (at least in my view), everyone gets involved at all levels. We have projects with tasks with teams...these teams are comprised of operators from the floor. In some cases, it was the operators who even determined our goals for some projects. They do the job, they know what can be done...and the higher up people are there to provide the resources (technical or otherwise) to achieve the goal.

We have a Technical Agreement with a company in Japan who is deemed to be the benchmark in our industry. It is by no means an inexpensive Agreement, but we have sent over people from all levels. They travel to Japan with objectives to meet, areas to focus on and items to learn. When they return, they teach their new skills to their counterparts. This has helped us enormously!

We have realized that we will never be like the company in Japan until our cultures are more closely aligned. There is just too much of a difference between our work and social makeups. However, we are continually implementing more and more of their methodologies (with a Canadian twist) and we are seeing improvements.

From what I understand of Kaizen, You seem to have implemented a kaizen initiative in tandem with your established ISO 9001 management system.
I'll definately be there in July Roxane.
Has any organization, supplier or customer actively benchmarked your improvement strategies?
Wallace.

Now, if only we can find some way to have customers look at ISO9k2k registration as just one of many alternates in qualifying suppliers instead of as a "knockout tool," then we might have a better chance of helping more organizations adopt a systems and process method of planning and operating their businesses. Once we remove the fear associated with "register or die!" mentality of many OEMs, we may see more organizations perceiving the real value in adopting the systems methodology of a Standard.

I totaly agree Wes.
Wallace.

From what I understand of Kaizen, You seem to have implemented a kaizen initiative in tandem with your established ISO 9001 management system.

Maybe...no one calls it that, though. If it is truly Kaizen or related to it, I wouldn't be surprised if we avoided calling it that in order to get buy-in. While I wasn't here for it, ISO wasn't warmly received at first here...it was deemed to be a flavour of the week/month/year. Granted, it has stayed and become part of our Business Management System (perhaps our name for Kaizen).

I'll definately be there in July Roxane. That reminds me...need to find out our shutdown dates in July. Don't want you to come over to find an inoperative Melt Shop...a tour's no fun without a little fire show!

Has any organization, supplier or customer actively benchmarked your improvement strategies?

Organization

Internally only. With over 10 locations in North America, we have become rather competitive amongst ourselves. We do take into consideration however, that each of our locations is unique. Different mills have different product mixes, so it is unfair to compare our mill (high product mix) to a mill that just makes a few sizes of rebar (low product mix) in certain categories.

We do, however, visit each other to see if there are any processes in place that can be modified for our respective locations. Sometimes it just isn't possible/feasible/practical to change what we do with our current workbase/energy resources/technology...but other times, it's worth the investigation. Case in point, a recent visit to a sister mill prompted us to investigate (and now install) a new piece of technology to inspect and verify product to an even higher degree of accuracy than our current process.

Supplier

To my knowledge, no. We have a good relationship with our suppliers and they know we won't hesitate to act if they don't meed our requirements. As for them coming in to learn how to improve their own processes...well, to be honest, we don't have the time. Look at the process you and I followed, Wallace, to arrange your visit. Between my travelling in March, training in April, auditing in May, and catching up in June...we're looking at July now. Our Purchasing Manager is responsible for 2 mills and coordinating the bulk supply orders for the 3 mills in Canada. We don't really have time to meet with our Suppliers to help "show them the way." :o

Customer

Customers ask questions during Steel School (scheduled for May 2004). This is their chance to learn what we do and what steps we take to ensure their requirements are met. They learn about refractories and melting and casting and rolling and shipping...but also about our management processes like Key Indicators and Annual Action Plans. If they want to learn more, they ask us...but usually they're too overwhelmed/impressed/waiting at the bar to do so. :D