I was sitting here reading a promo on a web site where the consultant says "We have an unprecedented 100% success rate with the registrars of their choice." I sat back and thought - Hmmm, unprecedented? Registrar of their choice?

So now it's up to you. What's your EXPERIENCE?

NOTE: This is a BLIND (anonymous) poll. No user name is connected to a poll vote so who voted and for what is not tracked - Only the totals are tracked.

Marc,

How would you define "failed"?

Failed Def. 1: Multiple major nonconformances, complete (full audit days) re-audit required.

Failed Def. 2: Major nonconformances, follow up audit (1 day) required.

By definition 1 I have never had a failure. By definition 2, one out of about 50.

Tom

I define 'Failed' as "...the registrar found / assigned a Major..." whether by absence of a system, failure / breakdown of a system or the number of minors found.

I wouldn't consider it a failure per se if you knew about the problem and warned the company and the company thumbed their nose at you. I did have that happen to me a couple of times but it was always caught during the pre-assessment so by the registration audit the company had decided I was right, seeing as the registrar backed me up, and 'fixed' the problem. Maybe I should have put that option in. I remember back around 1994 one company president telling me it was none of ISO's business whether or not he did management review. After the registrar's auditor did the pre-assesment and told the guy it wasn't a choice he was allowed to make if he wanted his company registered, the guy streightened his act up.

Wow! No 'votes' yet from any company which used a consultant! I'm somewhat surprised.

I can't answer the poll, we have not had an audit yet. We are using a consultant who says he has never had a company fail an audit. It's no wonder! He moves so slow and beats every process to death before he agrees we should consider it implemented and start work on another. :mad: He says he wants everything right so there are no deficiencies. Seams he's just padding his hours. Upper management has called him on it. We'll see how things go from here.

Is it really a bad thing if deficiencies are found during an audit? We are using ISO9000 to improve our processes not because a customer is making us. Part of learning is trying and failing. The consultant may learn our way meets the standard just as well as his.

bobsedon,

You make some interesting points, and it goes along with concerns I have had with using consultants for years. If they are paid to help you pass an audit, they will dot every i, cross every t, and strike-through every z just to ensure you have NO NON-CONFORMITIES - that you pass the audit, at whatever cost in dollars and time to the company.

The only successful contract with a consultant is a long term one, where they are paid to make your QMS an effective one in the long run. Other Cove contributors, that are consultants, can explain it from their angle.

If you have a good knowledge of your business system, and a decent understanding of the standard, you may not need your consultant, especially if you don't mind getting 'dinged' a few times on your first audit.

bobsedon,

Other Cove contributors, that are consultants, can explain it from their angle.



And so I shall. I too can say that I have 100% pass rate. However, I have also had several companies that have decided not to go through the registration process. I have also had companies that I have fired because they would not take their QMS seriously. Do I have a 100% success rate? No, not even close. But those who wanted to succeed, did.

Many of the companies I’ve worked for did not really need a consultant. I tell each of my clients that they don’t need a consultant. However, sometimes it is less expensive to use someone who knows the ropes to assist the company in getting their QMS off the ground.

I will argue your point that “The only successful contract with a consultant is a long term one”. My goal is for the client to have an effective QMS in the long run, however, I want their QMS to operate without my continual input. I do offer to come back once a year, or so and do an audit, but that is about it. I am rarely around during the registration audit. By then, they should be on their own and their system fully functional. Of course, I’m always available to answer questions.

Dave, I condemn all consultants except for the ones reading, or that will ever read, this posting. :biglaugh:

So present company is excepted. Seriously, though, there are many consultants, like yourself, that do an excellent job - and truly care that the company is successful in the future (I have also done consulting off and on over the years). But I have heard of, and been a "side-line witness" to too many consultants that go for OVERKILL, simply to ensure a passing grade (a certificate on the wall). They get paid, and move on, without looking back at the long term damage of an unmanagable system.

I think that might be the case with bobsedon.

Bobsedon,

Perhaps you should have your consultant provide you a list of what he considers the remaining open issues (along with the clause they apparently fail to meet) and go over them with your management team. For each issue, can we explain "our way", can we leave it alone and take our chances, or should we do something about it? Whatever you do, GET CLOSURE. Get your consultant to commit to a specific timeline.

Thanks, Rob. Our upper management has recently asked for most of what you suggest. I'll make sure the caluse is included.
:thanx:

Interesting topic. I don't use consultants, so I can't vote, but I'm very interested in the results. Marc, is there a way that I can see the results? I weasle information and samples of stuff from anywhere I can. As a matter of fact, I found the cove as a result of a google search for "Quality Policy Manual" when we were upgrading to yk2k.

:topic: Marc, is there a way that I can see the results?
There options in the poll for companies which don't (or didn't - whatever) use a consultant.

On the right side of the bottom of each poll there is a link which says something like 'View Poll Results'.

I typically add an 'opt out' where someone who doesn't want to vote, or it's not really applicable to them, can put in an entry so that when they visit the thread the poll results show automatically. I'll add one here.

:topic:
On the right side of the bottom of each poll there is a link which says something like 'View Poll Results'.

Doh! :bonk:
Thanks.

I voted that as a consultant I have never had a company fail, and they chose the assessing agency. But I would think that another "failure" mode would be having the consultant "create" a canned QMS that may pass certification, but either does not meet the needs of the company or may not include the most efficient processes.

I have witnessed several of these canned QMS implementations that are burdensome to the organization, both in the labor to maintain the documentation created and in the process of forcing people to follow cumbersome processes that are foreign to them.

When the consultant leaves, the result should be an efficient definition of the processes that the company had in place, as well as processes that have been created/defined by the company personnel to fill in the gaps. This I would consider success.

The only successful contract with a consultant is a long term one.
Sometimes this is the case. I know of a company which is small and has a person who technically is a consultant but is classified as a part time employee. The person comes in a few days a month and does required enviromental reports and such. I know several companies which have 'part time' equivalents of what I call a quality manager. In this scenario the companies have no need for a fulll time person and have no desire (running lean) to take time from one or more employee who already has 'enough on his/her plate' to learn the requirements and then to take on the responsibilities in house. I have seen companies which have no GD&T person in-house so they 'contract' out certain parts of their contract review process (guess which part :rolleyes: ).

In the implementation projects I have been involved in I have acted more as a project manager than as a consultant per se. It depends upon how you want to define consultant. I have always told my implementation clients I can't do everything for them AND that success for me is to be able to walk out the door as soon as they are ready in my eyes and that they should not need me again. In fact, I have told each client whether I should even be at the registration audit based upon my opinion of their having someone who understands the requirements (the language of the standard and how it applies to their specific company). A few companies that I told they did not need me at their registration audit listened and did fine. Most, however, wanted me there 'regardless' - So sometimes I would get paid for basically doing nothing for a day to a week.

Each consultant has their way of doing things. Without actually being there and seeing what bobsedon (and bobsedon's consultant) is experiencing I can't voice an opinion there. I've seen some pretty slow projects where people just do not get done what they have to get done. Not much I could do. And yes - I have to ensure they dot their i's and cross their t's because if they don't and get nailed in the registration audit they'll blame me for the failure. This said I have no idea whether bobsedon's consultant is 'slow' or the company is.

As it is in EVERY profession, there are 'bad' consultants. But before anyone get's on their high horse and complains about 'bad' consultants, put in perspective I bet there are as many (as a % of the profession) 'bad' doctors, lawyers, plumbers, companies - whatever - as there are 'bad' consultants.

...having the consultant "create" a canned QMS that may pass certification, but either does not meet the needs of the company or may not include the most efficient processes.
I have seen this and have yelled about it for many years. Perry Johnson has a 'We do it while you sleep' sales pitch.

The company I work for now didn't use a consultant exactly, but they were using a company that came in and wrote their documents for them. I hesitate to throw the name out there, but the first thing I did when I got here was re-write everything! I started working here exactly four weeks prior to their registration audit (they had already had their pre-assement) - by then I had the policy manual and about half of the procedures re-written. There was some grumbling about the wasted money, but there was no denying that the documentation was useless. It was all canned - "insert company name here" stuff. What a waste of money!

The consultant was hired before I started here. The registrar was handpicked by the consultant.

I've learned that for most clients of the consultant, they use the same registrar and yes we've all passed.

I didn't realize we'd bought a "canned" version of a QMS - I was told that the consultants came in and helped our people create it. Out of curiosity I asked a friend for his QMS - his company used the same consultant - and lo and behold his is word for word exactly like ours! Same forms, same procedures, exactly the same.

:soap: So I lost faith in the whole consultant idea - jumped right in with both feet and told my boss that we didn't need them anymore. Going through old notes of my predecessor I saw where our employees made suggestions and the consultants either ignored them or sweet-talked them into going along with their version...what a crock. I'm disillusioned and bitter for sure, but I do have faith that there are good consultants out there who actually help their clients and not just pretend to help while they go through fake motions.

Wow! No 'votes' yet from any company which used a consultant! I'm somewhat surprised.

Okay, time to break the cycle...lol. As a new Quality Manager several years back, I was hired to implement ISO 9000:1994. I was told at the time of hire that I would be working with a consultant that they had already hired, which sounded great at the time. To make a long story short, we had our registration audit 3 months after I hired, because the consultant said we were ready (he chose the registrar). I had already expressed serious misgivings with the president/owner of the company about the readiness of the company. Well, we failed the audit miserably, the president/owner fired the consultant, and 6 months later we were registered to ISO.

Jonell

Okay, time to break the cycle...lol. As a new Quality Manager several years back, I was hired to implement ISO 9000:1994. I was told at the time of hire that I would be working with a consultant that they had already hired, which sounded great at the time. To make a long story short, we had our registration audit 3 months after I hired, because the consultant said we were ready (he chose the registrar). I had already expressed serious misgivings with the president/owner of the company about the readiness of the company. Well, we failed the audit miserably, the president/owner fired the consultant, and 6 months later we were registered to ISO.

Jonell


Having been a consultant for (probably too many) years, and having seen a whole host of standards, I must confess to having undertaken assignments which I personally regarded as failures. Fortunately, to fewer than the fingers on one hand do they total.

The "failures" have all occurred for the same reason: lack of top management support. In each case regardless of how hard I worked, how much persuasion I offered and reasoned argument for the business case of a sensible quality program, the CEO failed to provide the drive, leadership, resources etc for the client's staff to do what was required.

Any consultant who claims he or she "will put in the program" is being thoroughly disingenuous. One can advise, one can give case stories, one can assist with the development and improvement of the processes/ systems/ organizational arangements etc., but one CANNOT force the process owners to actually implement the stuff, one CANNOT coerce the CEO into enforcing compliance with the systems etc the client ityself has decided upon for the registration or for the quality program. As much as on those (failure) occasions I YEARNED for the kind of authority that comes with process ownership, that nevers occurs: and that is the sad nature of consulting.

The great puzzle is why did those CEOS bother to engage one's services if they had no intention of moving from the status quo or supporting what was required?

And, those who want the "instant-buy-it-off-the-shelf", ready to go CD of procedures, documents and all that you need assignment are not the ones I ever deal with.

If a consultant "picks" the registrar, that is unprofessional. If the client wants the consultant to "pick a registrar you know will pass us" - run for the hills: your reputation is ultimately at risk.

I believe it was Thomas Edison who said,

"I have not failed. I have only found 10,000 ways that don't work."

I didn't realize Edison was a consultant. :D

I voted that the poll did not apply to us. I use a consultant for consulting and have not used them to take us through the registration process. In fact I have not had them implement any part of our system ever. I do use them for an audit if it is a new system and to get juices flowing on areas that we may be a little rusty in. I also, use them to help convince management of the necessity and usefulness of things like management review, training records, quality objectives(measurables), etc...
I am the one that helps makes the decisions for the QMS and I evaluate the input of the consultant. I take any choices or decisions to management. I am the one who heads up any issues in the QMS at registration and insures that the QMS meets the standard. I know my companies needs and practices better than any consultant. A consultant is just an outside professional opinion nothing more for me, and I choose if we will use the opinions or not.

Mark

Wow, I can't resist a reply here, not that I have a vote but because I have a comment about consultants. Here is my issue/observation; most consultants for ISO, CMM, CMMI, etc. tend to drive the documentation / process to be easy for the auditor/appraiser – not for the user. A consistent battle in my organization is to make sure were are developing and documenting processes to make them easier for the user community, not auditors, assessors, etc. Eventually people catch on that saving the user time for their everyday operation usually results in more cost savings/avoidance than the extra time some of us need to spend to find the objective evidence that we are meeting the requirements.

Not sure where the original saying came from, but it holds true today – “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” If “quality professionals” would remember this as they develop or assess processes, acceptance of doing things right and being perceived as a team player would surely follow.

Well, I see you just registered, so I will try and be nice. But please see this thread:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=97781#post97781


I won't go into tons of detail and repeat myself here, but when a consultant does the 'right' thing for an organization, and gets an auditor that 'thinks its hard to audit' the organization is left wondering if they hired the 'right' consultant. Don't get me wrong, I haven't been run out of any companies yet, but I definately DO NOT write manuals and procedures to fit the auditor, and found an auditor that said "Do me a favor, renumber this manual and procedures to meet the standard" so I know where to find everything. The client was so scared, they were ready to do it. In the end they didn't, but I guess my final comment is I'm not sure who is driving the behavior you refer to, the consultant or the auditor...or maybe someone who is a contract auditor, and play consultant too. I don't know, but I know all consultants aren't the same, and you do too, because you said "most" consultants.

I have been a consultant for twelve years now.

I haven't had a failure, mainly because of the good work methods our company uses. We are certified ourselves by the way.

The only times I have ever come close to having a major nc is when I have come in towards the end of the process, that is, where the company decided to go it alone (or with someone else) and finally called me in out of frustration.

I have usually urged them to choose an assessor and set the audit date. Companies will often not go to audit because they believe they are not "perfect" yet.

I put a lot of effort into continual improvement methodology, NC's CAR's Internal Auditing, management review and so on and this often sways the auditor whose perception will change from "they're not ready" to "they've started the journey".

Admittedly my contract with my clients is based on getting the certificate nailed to the wall but my emphasis is always on that being just the first milestone.

Here is my issue/observation; most consultants for ISO, CMM, CMMI, etc. tend to drive the documentation / process to be easy for the auditor/appraiser – not for the user.

Although I kinda agree with this statement, I've also noticed a dramatic shift the opposite direction over the last few years. "Make it work for you" is the new mantra for ISO consultants. I think the 2K revision did a lot to begin the transition.

Although I kinda agree with this statement, I've also noticed a dramatic shift the opposite direction over the last few years. "Make it work for you" is the new mantra for ISO consultants. I think the 2K revision did a lot to begin the transition.


db, I agree completely. I have not counted, but the word "effectiive" and "effectiveness" appear very often in the 2000 revision, and I believe that has gone a long way towards changing the spirit of the standard. Changing it very much for the better, I might add.

Is it perfect? Nope, but it sure is an improvement over what we had before, IMHO. As far as being a roadmap to become a better company, the 2000 version is indeed itself more effective.

I agree with db and Craig. I guess the same as the orignally post was about 'most consultants' I can say that 'most auditors' have started to turn around. I would appear that consultants, and probably some registrars are driving the change. I just took on a new client, and when we were discussing something regarding numbering and procedures, the client said "Wow, that's interesting, because, quite frankly, another consultant that we interviewed said we needed to change that to make it easier to audit...."

I guess the fact that I got the job settles the question - eh?

Laura

Thought in passing. Many of the same issues that make a process hard to follow, also make it hard to audit. Ideally, as we make our documentation more “user-friendly”, we should also be making it more “audit-friendly”. So perhaps, and just perhaps, making the system “easier to audit” and “making it work for you” might kinda head in the same direction.

Of course, I've just walked out of teaching a TS internal auditor class, and I am very tired!

I am working as a conslultant for last eight years and given consultancy to 150 plus companies. So far, my success rate is 100% first time.

My working in India's National Standards Body has helped me prepare system documentation and getting the same implemented by the client organization. While preparing the documentation, the underlying principle has been to prepare user-friendly documentation for the lowest level of working personnel. Most of the documents are translated in to local language. It has also been the endeavour to ensure that external auditors find it friendly and need to ask minimum questions, so that they can devote more time for auditing system implementation to determine its effectiveness and ability to affect continual improvement in business performance of the client company. My systems have always been appreciated by certification/accreditation body auditors.

One most important thing which I learnt in my 25 years association with NSB is to read the standards as a text book. I have tried to pass on the benefit of this experience to my clients.

Perhaps we need another poll......did you fail the next surveillance audit once the consultant had gone ? Incidentally, in Great Britain the word "fail" is frowned upon. The politically correct prefer "deferred success"

...the word "fail" is frowned upon. The politically correct prefer "deferred success" :lol: That is just great!

I think the poll results are interesting so far. From a "company's" view, 25 passed the first time using no consultant, whereas 0 failed the first time using no consultant (100% pass w/no consultant), and two had "success deferred" using a consultant. From the view of consultants, clients pass 100%. Not a scientifically precise survey, but interesting nonetheless.

Here is my issue/observation; most consultants for ISO, CMM, CMMI, etc. tend to drive the documentation / process to be easy for the auditor/appraiser – not for the user. A consistent battle in my organization is to make sure were are developing and documenting processes to make them easier for the user community, not auditors, assessors, etc.

From the 3rd Party Registrar Auditor side, when the consultant has been present during my audits, it is clear they have written most of the documentation (I know this because I make sure to "test" folks on how to use what is suppose to be "their" QMS, and many require coaching from the consultant). I have found, in these cases, the consultant seems to use a formulaic approach to the documentation, and I've not felt it was necessarily serving either the customer or the 3rd Party Auditor. Rather, I think its' what that consultant was comfortable developing and using with many clients. One of many reasons, I think its' very important (as you have indicated) that the end user develops their own documentation :agree1: . It's not that hard and is a real eye-opener for some folks, when they discover people within the same dept are doing things differently. It's also a good way to build consensus and ownership of the QMS, as well as, develop "best practices".

With a degree in Business Administration and no real knowledge of ISO, I was hired to assist our company with streamlining operations and to develop an ISO 9000 certified QMS. Streamlining was a peice of cake - the QMS has been another story. No matter how much I learned and tried to share with management about what we needed to do to be compliant to the standard, I simply couldn't get any significant cooperation from the company's owner and CEO. ( :bonk: We want that ISO banner - but we really don't want to have to do the work - nothing new here.)

Donning my blinders and pushing on, I secured some grant money from our state's workforce development board and hired a "facilitator" from NC State College's Industrial Extension Service. He comes in every few weeks, reviews the work I've done, assists with the gray areas of the standard and - most importantly - acts as the outside authority on ISO. This has been instrumental in getting managment's attention. While he has plenty of written documents and procedures we can use as examples, I have written everything to be as specific to our company as possible. In fact, I have stressed from the very beginning that the only way we can do this successfully is to ensure that we put systems into place that will enhance and benefit our processes - not bog them down.

There is a flat fee to go through the program in which you are guided in the development and implementation of your QMS over a 12 month period. You choose your own registrar and they guarantee to stick with you until you get certified - no additional fees apply. It's a great program - but it's only as good as the people working with it. Our facilitator has done a terrific job guiding me through the process. Sadly, my company's owner has the attitude that I'll get it all written up, we'll get certified, then we'll be all done and he can keep doing things his own way. Grrr...yes, I'm getting a great education on the job - but, there's still no real support from the guy at the top and I have wonder if I'm wasting his money.

Are we writing our own documents and developing our own system that complies with the standard? :agree1: Yes. Has our "consultant" done a good job? :applause: Absolutely! Will we get certified? :confused: Probably. Will the system be in place a year later if I leave this company? :nope: I seriously doubt it. My point is that (and this is my humble, limited experience opinion) no matter how good or bad your consultant is, whatever you pay for is useless if your looking for a piece of paper to hang on the wall and not willing to commit to the QMS you develop (or buy).

No matter how much I learned and tried to share with management about what we needed to do to be compliant to the standard, I simply couldn't get any significant cooperation from the company's owner and CEO. Has our "consultant" done a good job? yes


This isn't unusual. I find that many times it isn't that the "consultant" isn't particularly more knowledgeble or adept at establishing the QMS, but rather the so called "expert" syndrome, i.e. if someone in your own company tells you it's broke ( and how to fix it), the management disregards it; if a 3rd party comes in, and says the same thing, it's a revelation!. :rolleyes:

My point is that (and this is my humble, limited experience opinion) no matter how good or bad your consultant is, whatever you pay for is useless if your looking for a piece of paper to hang on the wall and not willing to commit to the QMS you develop (or buy).

This may be humble, and from one with limited experience, but it is right on the money. It is that simple and that complex.

Somewhat off topic: :topic:

This morning I was supposed to go to an interview for a consultant position at George S. May International. Before leaving, I did the obligatory web search and found a number of very harsh comments about this group, both from clients and the consultants (ex-consultants when the comments were written).

I called and cancelled my appointment. The last thing I need is to quit my job, such as it is, and tarry after this questionable venture. :nope:

So, back to the tried and hopefully true job search.

Perhaps we need another poll......did you fail the next surveillance audit once the consultant had gone ? Incidentally, in Great Britain the word "fail" is frowned upon. The politically correct prefer "deferred success"

There are few cases when company after certificaion lost connection with the consultant and got major NC in the next surveillance audit. Company again hired same or other consulant and could successfully close the NC and was cleared in follow-up audit.

'

I have to reply to all the posts about using consultants to achieve ISO certification. I do take some offense at many of the suppositions that have been argued. This is because:
1) I am a consultant and I love my job. I truly enjoy helping a company succeed, not with just certification, but with overall improvement. For me it' snot just about the money.
2) I was an RAB/IRCA certified ISO/QS/AS9000 assessor for over 7 years. I know how other consultants can operate and I too have tested the system to see if it really belongs to the organization. I am very aware of the shortcuts as well as the over-describing of activities.
3) I have direct experience developing QMS in companies for whom I was a direct employee, including aerospaceand medical devices so I know how to establish a system that not only complies but that works.
4) I do not have a direct affiliation with any registrar - we select the best one with the client based on their specific accreditation needs, cost constraints, industry, location, general preferences.
5) I do not use canned procedures - for each client we develop a process overview and map all the major processes in the organization. Using this as a guideline, we develop the necessary procedures and work instructions to reflect the company's culture and industry-speak.
6) We charge a fixed price for all the activities in the implementation process including training and documentation preparation. We provide more on-site time than most consultants in our area to work closely with the clients and give them support.
7) My experience in industry spans over 20 years and I know a lot about a lot. I have worked with or in industries with over 40 SIC codes. My contribution to a company exceeds writing a procedure, sometimes I am reviewing the GD&T on drawings or assisting with an FMEA or developing a calibration system from scratch.

You know, cynicism may often be justified, but not always. There are those of us in the world that do what we do to make it a better place.

Peace out.

There are few cases when company after certificaion lost connection with the consultant and got major NC in the next surveillance audit. Company again hired same or other consulant and could successfully close the NC and was cleared in follow-up audit.

'

I always contact my clients approaching their first surveillance audit to see how they are travelling.

I offer to assist with their first "on their own" Internal Audit or help fix up any nc's from the external audit, whatever they would like me to do that is reasonable.

I don't charge for this, I call it the warranty period on our product (consultancy).

(Most of my work comes from further ongoing support by the way).

I have to reply to all the posts about using consultants to achieve ISO certification. I do take some offense at many of the suppositions that have been argued. This is because:...You know, cynicism may often be justified, but not always. There are those of us in the world that do what we do to make it a better place.

Peace out.With many good points you remind us, as do others, that there are indeed many good consultants out there.

I have also noted some caginess among potential clients and derision among this esteemed body of professionals, and I can surmise that there are lots of opportunties for what could have been a good experience to fail. I have wished for better consistency and brand recognition for quality, and less required effort for each private consultant to create him/herself like it was being done for the first time. Some arguably should not be running their own businesses, being everyone for everybody.

Lots of consulting and misuse (such as in client's business leaderships not able to transform patriarchal philosophies) mistakes were made with TQM, and the system as a whole is trying to do better with 6S's more structured approach. Again, this doesn't always work and when it doesn't, I imagine the consultant gets the blame--deserved or not. Mention TQM and don't the collective eyes roll?

So it seems to me there are a zillion facets involved with this whole thing and the sad result is that consulting is suffering from the difficulty in branding as a solidly value-added model.

I have to reply to all the posts about using consultants to achieve ISO certification. I do take some offense at many of the suppositions that have been argued. This is because:
1) I am a consultant and I love my job. I truly enjoy helping a company succeed, not with just certification, but with overall improvement. For me it' snot just about the money.
2) I was an RAB/IRCA certified ISO/QS/AS9000 assessor for over 7 years. I know how other consultants can operate and I too have tested the system to see if it really belongs to the organization. I am very aware of the shortcuts as well as the over-describing of activities.
3) I have direct experience developing QMS in companies for whom I was a direct employee, including aerospaceand medical devices so I know how to establish a system that not only complies but that works.
4) I do not have a direct affiliation with any registrar - we select the best one with the client based on their specific accreditation needs, cost constraints, industry, location, general preferences.
5) I do not use canned procedures - for each client we develop a process overview and map all the major processes in the organization. Using this as a guideline, we develop the necessary procedures and work instructions to reflect the company's culture and industry-speak.
6) We charge a fixed price for all the activities in the implementation process including training and documentation preparation. We provide more on-site time than most consultants in our area to work closely with the clients and give them support.
7) My experience in industry spans over 20 years and I know a lot about a lot. I have worked with or in industries with over 40 SIC codes. My contribution to a company exceeds writing a procedure, sometimes I am reviewing the GD&T on drawings or assisting with an FMEA or developing a calibration system from scratch.

You know, cynicism may often be justified, but not always. There are those of us in the world that do what we do to make it a better place.

Peace out.

I feel the same way you do, except from the perspective of being a 3rd Party Registrar Auditor. Believe me, we've taken abuse on this website as well, from all sides. Just take a look at some of the other threads. I, too, am one of the people in the world that do what we do to make it a better place. :frust:

Let me suggest that you simply ignore slurs aimed at "some" practitioners (consultant or auditor) if they don't apply to you.

Certainly, the folks who complain about "some" practitioners are NOT liars. It is human nature to complain when performance does NOT meet expectation. When performance just MEETS expectation, there is nothing remarkable to brag about as far as the customer is concerned. It is only when the performance EXCEEDS the expectation that customers are apt to say, "Wow! I got better service than I expected for the price I paid."

Apparently, if my premise is correct, more folks got LESS than they bargained for in the way of service than those folks who got MORE than they bargained for. That's why the ratio of complaints to praise seem so lopsided. If you go to McDonald's and buy a hamburger that is like every other McDonald's hamburger everywhere in the world, you might be prompted to praise the system that delivers such consistency, but you probably won't brag about how great the hamburger is because you had one just like it last week and expect one just like it next week, but get just one with a big piece of gristle and you'll probably scream loud and long at what a terrible sandwich it was.

Similarly for lawyers, Six Sigma, preachers, teachers, wives, and lovers. The real world contains people who complain to any and sundry who will listen when they feel they've gotten a bad deal.

Well said Wes. :applause:

Research by the Coca Cola Company (1981) noted that a single dissatisfied customer is likely to tell at least twice as many people as a satisfied one (Juran, 1986), particularly when the product is expensive or its quality impacts their comfort.

Solutions,

Why should you feel that you are being crticized? People are posting their views based on their experience.

Your mehodology is perfect. You are doing a very good job. I can say that because my methodology is also on same lines.

I always contact my clients approaching their first surveillance audit to see how they are travelling.
I offer to assist with their first "on their own" Internal Audit or help fix up any nc's from the external audit, whatever they would like me to do that is reasonable.
I don't charge for this, I call it the warranty period on our product (consultancy).
(Most of my work comes from further ongoing support by the way).

I agree with you. It was yesterday only, when I contacted one of my clients approaching surveillance audit and offered to provide any guidance and assistance he may need. He said that he is comfortable and would approach me if needed. I am happy. He is happy. I ensured that he knows that I am there to help him if need arises. He knows that I am there to help if need arises.

Certainly, the folks who complain about "some" practitioners are NOT liars. It is human nature to complain when performance does NOT meet expectation.
Apparently, if my premise is correct, more folks got LESS than they bargained for in the way of service than those folks who got MORE than they bargained for. That's why the ratio of complaints to praise seem so lopsided. Similarly for lawyers, Six Sigma, preachers, teachers, wives, and lovers. The real world contains people who complain to any and sundry who will listen when they feel they've gotten a bad deal.

Relax, Wes. No one's calling anyone a liar, as I have often said, I don't doubt that people have had bad experiences. However, to assume your "premise" is correct, may be faulty. In my opinion, the ONLY true statement that can be made is that, apparently, out of the number of people who actually write a response on this website, it appears more people are dissatisfied than happy, with ISO, etc. Just maybe, the reason why more people seem to complain about consultants, auditors and ISO in general on the Cove, is that there is a "lopsided" number of folks who just happen to be drawn to this website, who have had a bad experience, with any of those groups, can't "vent" at work and who don't hesitate to express their opinion. Similarly (as you have noted above), satisfied people (whether they feel they got what they paid for or more) don't always crow about it. I've had experience with PLENTY of customers who feel they get their moneys' worth (and more) from ISO, 3rd Party Auditors or consultants...they're just not talking about it on the Cove (and I'm not even certain they know the Cove exists!!). :truce:

I certainly agree with your last statement, I've quoted above. Nowhere, does it seem to be more apparent, judging from SOME of the folks that frequent this site. :agree1: JMHO

OK, I'll buck the trend. I/we are happy with our external auditor, and they have provided some very good insight into our system, sometimes by asking "stupid" questions that are obvious to someone outside the system, sometimes through more in-depth analysis. Sure, we have our disagreements (very few) about interpretation, but overall the experience has been a good one. I won't "advertise" their name in this post, but if you are interested send me a PM.

We used a consultant because my boss wanted to keep my time free for other things. We selected one of the largest in the world.

Their consultants did not know the standard, insisted on things that are not in the standard, and wrote very poorly. I had to teach them the standard and finally had to re-write almost everything they wrote. Some of it was so bad I just deleted it and started from scratch.

When I asked for our money back their owner refused saying, "It's alright if some things aren't right. When the auditor finds them you just drop them into your corrective action system."

They were the worst consultants I have ever experienced on any subject. They absolutely costs us time and money, over and above their fees.

Jack Dearing
Otto Quality Manager

We used a consultant because my boss wanted to keep my time free for other things. We selected one of the largest in the world.

Their consultants did not know the standard, insisted on things that are not in the standard, and wrote very poorly. I had to teach them the standard and finally had to re-write almost everything they wrote. Some of it was so bad I just deleted it and started from scratch.

When I asked for our money back their owner refused saying, "It's alright if some things aren't right. When the auditor finds them you just drop them into your corrective action system."

They were the worst consultants I have ever experienced on any subject. They absolutely costs us time and money, over and above their fees.

Jack Dearing
Otto Quality ManagerI sympathize with your experience.
If it had been my vote, I probably would have filed suit for return of fees, damages for delay, and looked for other victims to file a RICO for treble damages. If they are big, they have deep pockets and it might have been worthwhile to pursue the matter.

:topic: I'm confused. Please explain Norm Black/Jack Dearing signatures and one company in Norm Black Profile and different company "Otto Quality Manager" in the post - Is this some foulup we Moderators or Administrators have to cure?

As a consultant I have had to "rescue" quite a few companies from the work of other consultants.

ISO Programs are different from many of the programs that consultants run; you have to achieve something.

Consultants used to feel good programs whose outcomes are not measured don't understand that you can't just read a book the night before and fluff your way through.

TRUE STORY:
WE entered a competitive tender to put a 9001/14001 system into a government authority. We were competing against two international firms.

Our price was a third of the others.

We even had a phone call from the authority telling us we must have made a mistake.

Our prices were much lower because we knew what we were doing. I turned out that the other two bidders couldn't supply the name of one company they had done these programs with successfully.

The authority didn't go ahead with the program because we confused the **** out of them.

Friends,

This is an older thread.

Any new insights, experiences that can be shared?

Stijloor.

1st company worked for out of college hired a full time "consultant" - his only job was coordinating ISO9001:1994 between corporate and three facilities.
All passed first try.
So - would that be considered a consultant or employee?

Current job - I used no consultant (aside from free advice from the denizens of the Cove, thank you all :D ) and we passed first time.

We had progressed and matured. Passing the initial audit or meeting the minimum requirements should not be a problem for most (if not all). The challenge is really in the implementation side - to have an effective system (it goes without saying that audit and all other continuous improvements activities contribute to this).

I have seen where consultants were a significant benefit to a company with no personnel experienced in implementation. I have seen unmitigated disasters by consultants who knew one industry trying to implement in another, or simply did not know as much as they thought. That's not good. But the saddest use of consultants is when upper management chooses to not trust the knowledge of their own employees, who may very well have been able to implement (or could with a little training), for the badge of expertise of a consultant. It demoralizes the employees and lessens the depth of implementation. :cool:

Friends,

This is an older thread.

Any new insights, experiences that can be shared?

Stijloor.

Thanks for reviving this old thread that is very apt :)

We are doing without Consultants and got certified to different system like ISO 9001, ISO 13485, ISO 14001 and TS 16949.

I've seen evidence of some previous attempts at implementation by some consultants that failed.

There's no 'certification' or qualifications for consultants, so caveat emptor (buyer aware) definitely applies.

I advise anyone who plans to use a consultant to pay a lot of attention to the process, & particularly checking out the experience of a few past (& relatively recent) clients. As a consultant, I'm more than happy when any prospective client chooses to do this, and respect them more for it.

I look on any selection of a consultant as having something in common with recruitment - and anyone hiring on 'gut instinct' isn't following one of the underlying principles of quality management: Decision-making based on fact.

…just only a thought, this is very rampant scenario in the Middle East…

…Department A of Consultant XYZ will be the one to develop the entire QMS of Company DEF including implementation… then during certification audit, Company DEF will be audited by Department B of (the same) Consultant XYZ …

…I guess, this scenario has been already discussed in another forum…

…my only point is, how the Consultant XYZ will fail if they will be also the one to conduct certification (and/or surveillance) audit… (even in the event of involving 2 or more different departments but under the same organization)…

… it’s like “cooking” with your own “cooking oil”… :magic:

As a consultant I have never had a client fail - I do NOT choose registrar.

There seems to be a mistake on my part while voting. I intended to vote for the above option and think I did, but when the poll results came in view (after voting) my vote (shown in italics to me) was reflected as 'Consultant - Have had a client fail - I do NOT choose registrar. ' If it is so, is it possible to change my vote?

Thanks

Can i just ask this question and need ya guidance !

EXPLAIN THE CAUSES OF MANAGEMENT RESISTANCE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT WITH THE REFERENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF TQM.

WHAT SHOULD I ACTUALLY STATE DOWN ?
NEED HELP URGENT ! GOSH !

Can i just ask this question and need ya guidance !

EXPLAIN THE CAUSES OF MANAGEMENT RESISTANCE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT WITH THE REFERENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF TQM.

WHAT SHOULD I ACTUALLY STATE DOWN ?
NEED HELP URGENT ! GOSH !

Not knowing the people involved, this is just a guess, but...

Often "old style" managers do not want to give up any of their power, and any allowance of independent thought or action by their underlings is thought of as a reduction of influence. Even when shown that they can become more powerful by empowering their people, their reaction to this is so deeply ingrained that it is a,most impossible for them to change.

Can i just ask this question and need ya guidance !

EXPLAIN THE CAUSES OF MANAGEMENT RESISTANCE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT WITH THE REFERENCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF TQM.

WHAT SHOULD I ACTUALLY STATE DOWN ?
NEED HELP URGENT ! GOSH !Sounds like a student assignment. Is it based on assigned readings or on the professor's lectures?

Actually, it is a topic covered extensively by business writers ever since Deming tried to convince top managers to adopt his System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) -

The point being to enable "empowerment" of employees, the employees need an extensive knowledge of the "big picture" of an organization to make rational decisions demanded by "empowerment."

Top managers FEAR the dissemination of that knowledge will diminish their own roles in the organization as "keepers of the knowledge."

Business writers comment about "failed initiatives" frequently. Most initiatives fail because managers only pay lip service to opening up the knowledge base.

Without knowledge, employees are mere robots - able to perform a function, but unable to discern systemic shortcomings or opportunities for improvement.

Hmmmmm.yea its a lectures project... bleah.
Thanks! any other pointers ? :D

Hmmmmm.yea its a lectures project... bleah.
Thanks! any other pointers ? :D

What have you personally found out so far?

Stijloor.