John Seddon gets more ink in the British media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/05/13/ccstan13.xml&sSheet=/money/2004/05/13/ixcoms.html

I would like to know from John Seddon, who now has decided to use Toyota as proof that ISO 9001 does not work, who coerced Toyota to use ISO 14001?
Let's see the similarities about ISO 14001 and 9001. Set policies, set objectives, deploy, learn, correct, improve. What a terrible concept!!!!!

And another British program: IiE Investing in Excellence.

http://www.quality-foundation.co.uk/rec_investorsinexcellence.htm

I love it, I was judge reading the chapter in The Dilbert Principle on ISO 9000, and along came this. Scott Adams says "My theory: A group of bored Europeans had a few too many Heinekens and decided to play an elaborate prank on the big companies of the world". I don't know who has the better explanation - Scott or John. :lmao:

- Steve

I love it, I was judge reading the chapter in The Dilbert Principle on ISO 9000, and along came this. Scott Adams says "My theory: A group of bored Europeans had a few too many Heinekens and decided to play an elaborate prank on the big companies of the world". I don't know who has the better explanation - Scott or John. :lmao:

- SteveActually, it was not only the beer, but that marvelous pear brandy they make in Switzerland. They put a bottle over a flower bud and let the pear grow into the bottle, then when the pear is ripe, fill with brandy.

When you have a few snifters of that brandy, a lot of foolish things start to look plausible and sensible.

So...........What's new about all this??

Does the end justify the means or the means justify the end?

I would like to know from John Seddon, who now has decided to use Toyota as proof that ISO 9001 does not work, who coerced Toyota to use ISO 14001?
Let's see the similarities about ISO 14001 and 9001. Set policies, set objectives, deploy, learn, correct, improve. What a terrible concept!!!!!
And another British program: IiE Investing in Excellence.
Regardless of Toyota's use of ISO 14001, they apparently still have no need for the ISO 9001. :mg:
I'm intrigued to know if Toyota merely use the ISO 14001 standard or, do they actually have an environmental system certified and registered? :confused:

I've just came to the Cove from another forum and Jim Wade writes that ISO 9004 was intended as the standard for management rather than the ISO 9001 standard.
My postings regarding "Auditing the task process elements" found in Auditing the Task (Process) Elements - Visual Map Attached (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7678)
alludes to the intents of the 9004 management model.

Apparently in the UK, there is auditng training available for assessment of the management principles of ISO 9004.
Wallace.

Attached is a pdf doc that a past member of the Cove has recently written.
I was a great read.
The recent discussion at another forum, asked the question, are you using the guidelines of ISO 9004 in conjunction with your established ISO 9001 business management system?
The author of the attached article disagrees with the assumption that, if you are using the ISO 9001 standard, you would then naturally use the guidelines and intents of ISO 9004.
Intriguing though that, the ISO 9004 document was, as the author states, "meant to be the initial and first step in creating and developng a business management system.
Lots of food for though here. I'm still mulling the article over in my ever decreasing size of a brain.
Wallace

Attached is a pdf doc that a past member of the Cove has recently written.
I was a great read.
The recent discussion at another forum, asked the question, are you using the guidelines of ISO 9004 in conjunction with your established ISO 9001 business management system?
The author of the attached article disagrees with the assumption that, if you are using the ISO 9001 standard, you would then naturally use the guidelines and intents of ISO 9004.
Intriguing though that, the ISO 9004 document was, as the author states, "meant to be the initial and first step in creating and developng a business management system.
Lots of food for though here. I'm still mulling the article over in my ever decreasing size of a brain.
WallaceActually, Jim Wade wrote that article about two years ago. Some of the "predictions" have an interesting take when using our 20-20 hindsight:
And this is exactly what has happened in many – I suspect most – ISO 9000 implementations to date: objectives are, typically, completely absent. This means the system has no purpose and that the organization, having no clear quality standards, cannot measure whether or not it is improving. It also means that a majority of organizations have been issued with a certificate for a system with a major nonconformity! ISO 9001:2000 should help redress this situation, provided that its requirement for the newly rediscovered concept of measurable objectives is taken seriously. My take is: too many organizations have adopted management by objective, but that the objective is to satisfy customers by achieving registration/certification, NOT by creating better value and quality of products and services. Customers have contributed to this disconnect between Quality and registration/certification to a Standard by their own single-minded focus on a supply chain which is nearly 100% registered and, further, those same customers cut no slack for suppliers who are 100% compliant, though not registered, to those same Standards.

It seems to me, then, Jim has taken out on a Crusade against the wrong culprits and has completely missed a trend which was apparent to many who were writing in the ASQ Forums about the same time Jim's article first appeared on the ISO website. It further seems to me the suppliers who pursue registration are, in fact, VERY "customer-centric" and have accurately defined and satisfied the TRUE requirements of their customers.

I was judge reading the chapter in The Dilbert Principle on ISO 9000...
Is this in a Dilbert book? If so, is this the book name or what? If it's 'public' do you have a link?

I did a Google on "The Dilbert Principle on ISO 9000" and came up with nothing.

Is this in a Dilbert book? If so, is this the book name or what? If it's 'public' do you have a link?

I did a Google on "The Dilbert Principle on ISO 9000" and came up with nothing.Right! The curse of inadequate punctuation and highlighting.
The book is:
The Dilbert Principle: A Cubicle's-Eye View of Bosses, Meetings, Management Fads & Other Workplace Afflictions
by Scott Adams
Chapter 20 is on the topic ISO 9000.

Hope this clarifies Steve's post.

Yes - Found the book. One of the things I think of is Point-of-View. I still see most of this (ISO 9000, Six Sigma, 5S, TPM, etc.) as Snake Oil. In a 'good', 'successful' company, one doesn't need a standard. The people running the company and the employees (following upper management's example) have the 'vision' (or whatever you want to call it) that keeps the company improving. They surely do not need a standard to require them to 'focus' on customer satisfaction, for example. Most important is are they 'keeping up' with respect to technology. One client of mine had been making the same metal cleaning chemical products for over 40 years. The technology has not significantly changed in many years. They are ISO 9001 Registered because of a customer requirement, but ISO 9001 has done nothing for them in so far as improvement beyond what they were, and are, doing as a matter of generally good business sense. It is nothing more than a business expense.

Intriguing though that, the ISO 9004 document was, as the author states, "meant to be the initial and first step in creating and developng a business management system.
I agree this is true about the current ISO 9004, but if one looks at the history of the ISO 9000 series standards in general, going back to 1963 through 1978, the intent had more to do with defining liability issues than anything else. During the 1960's and early 1970's the ECM (European Common Market) was envisioned and 'started'. By 1977-8 it was seen that there had to be a way for liability issues to be resolved. Say a person in Germany bought something made in France and finds the product defective. What relief did that person have? In large part it was an outgrowth of what were the various military 'specifications' which were looked at, as well as many other 'standards', and the main 'feature' of most of these were in defining systems basics and responsibilities.

In the courts, it was not going to just be a contractual issue. What about injuries and such? To address these issues they had to define responsibilities and such - which leads to the 'old' "say what you do and do what you say". The 'answer' was 'found' in the numerous quality specs - NATO's, the nuclear NCA1, Mil-Q-9858, etc. The International Standardization Organization formed Technical Committee 176 which, from 1978 to 1987, developed the ISO 9000 series. In short, the *vehicle* was a set of 'quality' standards which require defined systems, defined responsibilities, etc.

And don't forget, you have to take this on an international level. Without the basics of ISO900x, a complaint in a French (example) court would be problematic if the product caused a death in Germany, to say the least. The issue was how do you determine where responsibilities lie. We're seeing that to some extent now where, in Iraq, the responsibilities and liabilities of 'contractors' (are they exempt from international law? for example) has come into play.

When ISO was introduced to the US it was said to be a protectionism shield - set up to keep the US (and other countries) from entering the European markets. I don't believe that one bit. But, the US always accuses other countries of protectionism - which there is, but the US has similar policies so protectionism is really a moot point.

Standards reviewed included those such as the British Standard BS 5750. Military (including NATO) standards were reviewed, as were numerous commercial standards. ‘Quality’ related standards were eventually arrived at as the best way to address these issues. This is in part because of their 'inspection and test' aspects including documentation which required people to take responsibility for their decisions such as during inspections. There is a long history of fraud and bribery going back - well, for all of recorded history - which this aspect was supposed to address. I will cite the ValueJet crash in Florida some years back where it was determined that the failure was determined to be a sub-contractor fraudulently labeling full oxygen canisters.

The list on the right side of the slide ISO 9000 and Liability (http://Elsmar.com/Imp/sld016.htm) is a list of several US Military documents which were reviewed. Most of them are now obsolete. In fact, ISO 9001 has replaced Mil-Q-9858, Mil-Std-1520, Mil-Std-45662 (to name a few) in military procurement requirements. See Mil-Spec_Reform.pdf.

I keep thinking of the 'cement life preserver' arguement. It was a smoke screen. If a company designs a cement life preserver, the question REALLY is what is the Intended USE of the product? Using the phrase 'cement life preserver' it was simply putting into someone's mind the thought of a brick tied to someone. It did not address the intended use. What about lawn orniments and other decorative applications? And, in fact, it is possible to design a cement life preserver which floats. I remember the WWII cement barges I saw in LaHavre back in the 1960's and my dad telling me about the steel shortage back in the late 1930's and 1940's when barges were often made of - yes - cement.

I'm obviously not a Jim Wade fan personally - his multiple personalities problem and posting of pornographic photos here in these forums ended up to be a significant problem - but I do not disagree with some of his beliefs. And I see Seddon's points. One can say what one wants but ISO 9001 registration doesn't reflect much other than defining responsibilities. If a company's Upper Management is really so stupid as to not understand things like Customer Satisfaction and they need a 'standard' to guide them, they have some very basic personality problems that I do NOT believe a 'standard' will change.

Just some thoughts...

I keep thinking of the 'cement life preserver' arguement. It was a smoke screen. If a company designs a cement life preserver, the question REALLY is what is the Intended USE of the product? Using the phrase 'cement life preserver' it was simply putting into someone's mind the thought of a brick tied to someone. It did not address the intended use. What about lawn orniments and other decorative applications? And, in fact, it is possible to design a cement life preserver which floats. I remember the WWII cement barges I saw in LaHavre back in the 1960's and my dad telling me about the steel shortage back in the late 1930's and 1940's when barges were often made of - yes - cement...

:topic: Marc,
When I was in the Navy (late 70's and early 80's) and we would 'Ammunition Ship' (take on ammunition before deployment) and it would all come alongside in Cement Barges. They were used because they were nuetral and did not promote fire or sparks. We also used them as 'Floating Targets' out at sea. Because they would take a lot of damage before sinking. The concrete was porous and they floated very well indeed.
PS: I joined the Navy at 15 if people were trying to work out the timeline

Greg B

Interesting. I remember how surprised I was - didn't fit my then young mind's concepts about properties of concrete. I knew a bit about boyancy but concrete and floating didn't make sense to me until it was explained.

Interesting. I remember how surprised I was - didn't fit my then young mind's concepts about properties of concrete. I knew a bit about boyancy but concrete and floating didn't make sense to me until it was explained.So now my intellectual curiousity is aroused.
I understand all about displacement versus equivalent weight of water displaced and certainly concrete can be made waterproof despite its porosity. I presumed the concrete was reinforced with metal bars to add tensile strength so craft didn't break apart in wave action. (I think of all the cracked sidewalks I ever tripped on.) Google research has confirmed this.

Was there an additive to the concrete to discourage sea life (barnacles, coral, anemones, etc.) from attaching to the concrete substrate and slowing the craft's progress?

I did a little Google on the topic. Here's an interesting item to show concrete shipbuilding industry is over 150 years old.
sandiegohistory (http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/95spring/shipbuilding.htm)


The first vessel made of concrete in Europe was a skiff built by Maurice Lambot at Carces, France on the Argens in 1849. It was exhibited at the World Fair, Paris, in 1855.

In 1859-60 in Holland, Fabriek von Cement-Iger Werken was producing concrete barges for canal traffic. These were meant for lading, the largest being 648' x 48' and capable of 55 tons carriage. Cellular compartmentation by longitudinal and transverse bulkheads six feet apart lent tremendous strength to the hulls, which were virtually unsinkable. About the same time a Dutch enterprise used "ferro-cement" in a recreational motorboat. In that process, a steel framework of rods covered with a mortar yielded a hull 1/2" thick. Hence, the elements for reinforced concrete ship construction were in place 150 years ago. Not yet in existence, however, was the technology for high-volume, high-quality concrete shipbuilding. Nor were there design manuals or shipyard know-how to guide designers, engineers, and managers. Neither businessmen nor shipowners had enough practical insight to decide whether a concrete ship could sail at a profit.

In 1897, in Rome, Carlos Gabellini manufactured a series of scows, barges, rowboats, and pontoons. He used a ferro-concrete procedure to make hulls that were an elaborate lamination of rod netting, wire mesh, and troweled mortar. At Frankfort-am-Main in 1909, Germans produced a 220-ton freighter barge. In 1912 a concrete sailboat was launched at Dresden. And in England from 1912 to 1917, a fleet of canal barges, some with a capacity of 1400 tons, were in commercial service.

American construction in cement aggregate began in 1910 when a 525-ton scow was built in San Francisco along with some smaller barges for use in the Panama Canal. At Mobile in 1914, a 90'x62'x9' concrete barge as well as several 500-ton barges were built for local traffic.

The first ocean-going steamer built of reinforced concrete appeared on 2 August 1917 when the Norwegian Namsenfjord was launched by Fougners Stall-Benton Skibsbygnings Companie at Christiana. An 84-foot motorship designed by Nicolay K. Fougner, her plans had been approved by the State Director of Shipbuilding only in March. She sailed on her first commercial voyage on 31 August across the North Sea toward Harwich. Following classification by Lloyds in September, a half-dozen coasters were built, and all were found entirely satisfactory for short sea carriage by performance. Conventional standards for stability, watertight integrity, and propulsion efficiency were met and exceeded in these small freighters.

Chronology

1849 Concrete skiff made in France.1859 Concrete barges launched in Netherlands for canal use.1909 Freighter barge put in service from Frankfort-am-Main.7 Sep 1916 Congress creates U. S. Shipping Board.Feb 1917 Staff assembled for concrete ship design.20 Apr 1917 USSB contracts for first concrete ship.2 Aug 1917 Namsenfjord, first sea-going freighter, launched.1 Jan 1918 Concrete Ship Section established. 18 Mar 1918 Faith launched.3 Jun 1918 USSB contracts with Scofield Engineering Company,Philadelphia, to build ship-yard, channel, and vessels in San Diego. 12 Jul 1918 Common Council cedes land to USSB. 28 May 1919 First concrete poured in San Diego. 12 Jun 1920 Cuyamaca launched. 28 Jun 1920 San Pasqual launched. 15 Feb 1921 USSB yard transferred to Navy Department. 12 apr 1921 Concrete Ship Program canceled.</PRE>(In World War II, concrete barges and small naval oil tankers were built in National City. The record does not indicate whether the technology of the earlier building program was utilized.)

Is this in a Dilbert book? If so, is this the book name or what? If it's 'public' do you have a link?

I did a Google on "The Dilbert Principle on ISO 9000" and came up with nothing.

The book is "The Dilbert Principle" ISBN 0-88730-787-6, published 1996. Chapter 20 is titled "ISO 9000". This chapter does contain the cartoon referencing ISO 9000 certification as the "big honking binder".

Late edit- I see Wes already took care of this one. I see I did in fact type The Dilbert Principle on ISO 9000. Sorry for any confusion there.

Notwithstanding the floatability aspects of concrete structures, this false legend that a company could be ISO 9001 compliant (and certified) even if they made life jackets out of concrete, as long as they followed the procedures, is simply W-R-O-N-G. I HATE this example, because it is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. :mad:

ISO 9001 has always required organizations to observe and comply with product regulatory and statutory requirements. Guess what? Life jackets are regulated products in most of the Developed World. Check http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/fed_reqs/equ_pfd.htm and http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/fed_reqs/equ_pfd2.htm

So life jackets made of concrete would NOT comply with regulatory/statutory requirements and, therefore, represent a MAJOR violation against a critical ISO 9001 requirement. It is that SIMPLE.

And, please don’t bother to bring the possibility of the Mafia ordering life jackets (old, old joke). They normally order concrete boots. :bonk:

ISO 9000 story: A few years back a relative sold castings for a foundry in South America. They proudly had an ISO 9000 banner in front of the foundry. They had their "big honking binder" of procedures.

It was all &@%#$!!! (crap). The way things got done in the foundry had nothing to do with what was in the ISO 9000 banner. They only got ISO 9000 so they could sell to unsuspecting companies in the US. Several heavy castings failed miserably in use. The foundry management tried to convince the customer it was due to the metal alloy they specified to be used. All the customer's fault. Reality was the heat-quench was not being done right. Castings were backlogged to get their heat application, and went too long before going through the cycle. Of course the big honking binder said to not let this happen. Workers had not a clue as to what the binder said, just did the best they could.

What were the costs to American customers because this foundry bought its ISO 9000 status to foist off bad product? We will never know the true costs, they are unknowable and unmeasurable, but real none-the-less.

ISO 9000 story: A few years back a relative sold castings for a foundry in South America. They proudly had an ISO 9000 banner in front of the foundry. They had their "big honking binder" of procedures.

It was all &@%#$!!! (crap). The way things got done in the foundry had nothing to do with what was in the ISO 9000 banner. They only got ISO 9000 so they could sell to unsuspecting companies in the US. Several heavy castings failed miserably in use. The foundry management tried to convince the customer it was due to the metal alloy they specified to be used. All the customer's fault. Reality was the heat-quench was not being done right. Castings were backlogged to get their heat application, and went too long before going through the cycle. Of course the big honking binder said to not let this happen. Workers had not a clue as to what the binder said, just did the best they could.

What were the costs to American customers because this foundry bought its ISO 9000 status to foist off bad product? We will never know the true costs, they are unknowable and unmeasurable, but real none-the-less.

This is meaningless. Unless of course you can provide names for the company registrar auditors,etc.

This is meaningless. Unless of course you can provide names for the company registrar auditors,etc.

I have sent an email to Sam with my relative's name, the company's name and location. I do not know who the registrar was. I did not feel it was appropriate to list my relative's name nor the company's name in a public forum. I would rather not get my relative in trouble.

- Steve

I have sent an email to Sam with my relative's name, the company's name and location. I do not know who the registrar was. I did not feel it was appropriate to list my relative's name nor the company's name in a public forum. I would rather not get my relative in trouble.

- Steve

Thanks for the feedback.

Regardless of Toyota's use of ISO 14001, they apparently still have no need for the ISO 9001. :mg:
I'm intrigued to know if Toyota merely use the ISO 14001 standard or, do they actually have an environmental system certified and registered? :confused:

Wallace.

Many business units and sites of Toyota are registered to ISO 14001. In North America, the vast majority of their Manufacturing, Logistics and parts distribution sites are ISO 14001 certified. In Europe there are dealerships that are certified as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/05/20/cciso20.xml&sSheet=/money/2004/05/20/ixcoms.html

Are we going to see purple powder being thrown here? :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/05/20/cciso20.xml&sSheet=/money/2004/05/20/ixcoms.html

Are we going to see purple powder being thrown here? :rolleyes:Golly, Sidney. We were just getting to the point where this could have been a riotous free-for-all melee and you had to inject a serious note.

The basic question, IMO, is whether the chicken or the egg came first.

We all subscribe to the notion that Quality requires commitment from top down.

Like my sometimes ridiculed Placebo Theory of Quality, often the real cause of the perceived benefit has nothing to do with the methodology grafted on to a company so much as on the drive, commitment, and leadership ability of the folks with ink in their pens to implement ANY methodology and "constancy of purpose" (Thank you, Dr. Deming) to keep at it.

This is very similar to the claims for 6S, and before 6S, for TQM, and for Zero Defects. When the successes are tallied and examined, we find good leaders with charisma and power to keep the company plugging on a forward track. When you have leaders like that, the naysayers who spout "flavor of the month" are swept along with the flow or blown off the field entirely.

When we here at the Cove carp and complain, it is not about companies in the midst of a hard driving improvement campaign, it is about the companies which SAY one thing, but betray the words with their actions.

If we look through many of the Cove threads, the sad truth is that the successes using and attributing their success to ISO9k2k or 6S or any other "system" are few and far between. If they weren't so rare, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

Luckily, the article Sidney cites isn't purple prose or magic powder:magic: , it's the result of ANY system, diligently and faithfully applied with constancy of purpose.

...the sad truth is that the successes using and attributing their success to ISO9k2k or 6S or any other "system" are few and far between. If they weren't so rare, they wouldn't be newsworthy.

Luckily, the article Sidney cites isn't purple prose or magic powder:magic: , it's the result of ANY system, diligently and faithfully applied with constancy of purpose.

Mr Bucey makes an key point - the take-up and success of ISO 9K.

As I see it, ISO 9K registration was introduced way back in 1988 or so, building (supposedly) on existing registrations to the likes of BS 5750. If one peruses the response to Mr Seddon's letter, in the UK's Daily Telegraph, from the CEO of the BSI, one notes he claims 561747 certificates issued in 159 countries.

If one goes to any local set of "Yellow Pages" one will find several thousand companies within one's own locale. So, as a fraction of the total number of firms doing business, in the USA, the UK or anywhere else, let alone combined and taking into consideration Mr Breeze cites only the number of certs issued as distinct from companies registered (some companies I am aware of have many sites registered each with their own individual cert), the international percentage take-up of ISO 9K registration after some 16 years is rather low, despite all the conferences, rhetoric, promotional efforts etc of registrars, quality bodies et al.

One knows well from experience if there is any tool or technique commonly proven to add value to the bottom line, top management adopts it in droves.

In any case, to add a little controversy to the matter, I am not aware of any CEO for whom ISO 9K is a topic under current discussion - when it is, the matter seems to be delegated, ever further down through the hierarchy.

There are far more important matters for the quality profession to discuss and it should move on.

In any case, to add a little controversy to the matter, I am not aware of any CEO for whom ISO 9K is a topic under current discussion - when it is, the matter seems to be delegated, ever further down through the hierarchy.

That is exactly the problem. ISO 9000 has been trivialized to facilitate it's commercialization, so it is delegated.

You are correct. Very few CEO's have ISO in their radar screen, just like very few CEO's have Quality in their radar screen, until a major Q problem/blunder happens.

I think it says a lot about true understanding about Quality from top managers. When it comes to Q, where does the buck stop?

That is exactly the problem. ISO 9000 has been trivialized to facilitate it's commercialization, so it is delegated.



Yes, and lets look for a second at the flip side of this. How many times here on the Cove do we get someone who has just been delegated the task of "implementing" ISO 9001? And what is the stock answer?

Look at what you have in place and see how it fits with what the standard is saying.

That is what is so frustrating. Most of ISO 9000 is likely already addressed, to some extent, in compaanies that have been around for a while. To me, the delegation situation is a result of poor marketing of the standard almost from the start. The number of quality fads over the years have not helped, either.

Outside of the Q arena, how many times have you heard ISO 9000 refered to as a management system? I cannot remember a single time.

I think the early impression that a company HAD to have ISO 9001 certification to do business in Europe resulted in the standard being equated with the IRS and our wonderful tax code (for those outside of the U.S., this is not at all a good thing). Being something that had to be dealt with as a condition of doing business had the opposite effect, IMO, than what was intended.

Of course, I have no data...

Craig