I am going to start this thread here, and we can move it as we see fit.

I believe we need a new, serious quality initiative, that the ASQ and the RAB does not have their hooks into.

I believe, STRONGLY, that we have the horsepower on this forum to put together a quality revolution. If Marc is game to support such an activity, I will volunteer to serve in whatever capacity the quorum sees fit.

Here are some of the initial critria I would find important:

Long term vision. What do we want it to look like in 10 years?
Universally applicable to any company, regardless of product
Applicable to ANY size company, from 2 to 2000
Following a REAL standard with little (preferably NO interpretation)
Standard available at no cost
Database of companies that are registered
NOT another repackaged Deming, Juran, TQM, ISO or Six Sigma initiative.

There is plenty more, but that should get the dialogue started.

It is time to stop finding fault with those initiatives we do not agree with, and start one that makes sense.

Your thoughts?

Carl Keller

Carl:

It would take a lot of work to get it right, but I'd be willing to help.

I'm just a poor, simple country girl, but I'm willing to help if you need me.

I know it will take some work, and we will not always agree on every point, but there is a LOT of common concern over the quality discipline here.

What do you say Marc?

Could this be supported with a seperate Forum board or private box we can log into?

Carl-

You've got a forum. Go with it.

Sounds interesting!!!

Carl, I believe that there are too many influences on what is happening in the quality arena. I always like to see QUALITY as a broader approach. Not just Six Sigma, QA/QC,etc. as separate strategies. The fact is that so called ""new approaches'"" are not new at all, but they are selling and making a lot of consultants to have work.

As an Industrial Engineer, I laugh when someone comes with a ""new"" idea related to either Lean or Six Sigma. All of it has been the basis for industrial engineering and basic quality statistics for more than 70 years...so what is new?

Also, MBNQA should be integrated to today's business strategies, not for the prize, but as part of the ISO implementation (I believe they work hand to hand). This is my recommendation: To blend ISO, MBNQA and Six Sigma into one sole standard or business strategy. Lean is just industrial engineering at work.

Not even the new ISO 9001:2000 version is NEW - it is just a resurrection of TQM. I wish they have come up with a more solid and specific standard (not to withdraw what was already included and gained on the 1994 version). Now it is too generic and subject to many interpretations. They should have streamlined ISO 9004:2000 and make it the real and only standard for quality systems (which included samples of what is expected). There are too many 'reference' standards which should have been either incorporated into the standard or formally referenced as arequirement in the new ISO 9001:2000.

Well, I guess I just shared my frustrations with you and did not gave you much to help your thread. The Quality movement can not continue to use the "flavor of the month" approach; it must evolve to a more practical and consistent approach.

Carlos

I may see one problem here that we need to address from the start. The current crop of ISO quality standards are copyrighted (trademarked too, I assume). This means that the holder of the copyright has a say in the use of the material. So, we need to protect our work as well, to keep it from being coopted and used against our intentions. Remember, recently we have had a Cove member's post used against them. There are some unsavory types lurking here. Thankfully, they are a very small minority, but one big jerk can make one big mess. We've seen it. How do we leverage the incredable knowledge here, while protecting that work from misuse and what I would consider fradulent acquisition?

Also, part of the problem appears to be the lack of real oversight of the auditors, and, therefore, the implementation of the standard(s). How, then, do we set about eliminating this problem in the design of the system? Can we?

So, we need to protect our work as well, to keep it from being coopted and used against our intentions.If you want to protect against copyright here, a special, limited access forum will have to be set up. I don't mind doing it, but it can not be available for viewing to unregistered users (as a minimum) and a 'special' copyright 'notice' will have to be posted. This is because I have made clear that this site as a whole, forums included, is copyright free - People may copy and paste, link to internally, etc. without asking.

The idea has been that this is a place to share and that it is in the public domain. If anything, I suggest any initiative be 'protected' by the model of Open Source Software. Basically it is that anyone can use it but any offshoot someone develops from it must be made freely available.

In terms of general concept, I like the idea of a "volunteer" and "voluntary" Quality Initiative.

Some practical considerations rear their ugly heads, though.

If we set up a FMEA to look at the proposal, what would be some of the factors we'd want to look at and resolve in the planning stage?

Here's some off the top of my head:

Standards published by many nonprofit organizations seem "overpriced" - what factors go into the pricing? which factors can we eliminate and which keep? (MIL STD were "free" to users, but everyone paid in taxes.)
Lots of folks (organizations) have tried to create their own Standards (MIL STD, automotive OEM, etc.) - why have they failed and come to use "consensus standards" from ISO and ASME and others? Even ISO seems to be losing ground in US - why? What lesson can we learn and incorporate in our own program?
Can one Standard truly cover all businesses from 1 or 2 man kitchen table shops up to huge multinationals? (Some have said, perhaps not so facetiously, we only need the Golden Rule.)

Anyone else have more questions to add to the FMEA?

Bottom line:
I like the idea and would be willing to contribute time and energy to the project.

First, I like the idea of open source.

FMEA topics? How about a failure concerning lack of acceptance due to the perception of little added value? Don't know quite how to approach that, though.

I am withdrawing my post on this matter

I guess I was thinking totally different lines here. Not so much reinvent the wheel and come up with yet another set of standards, but more start a grass roots movement to use what we have already for the betterment of our profession. I am not opposed to ISO, 6sigma, or any of the others. I just feel that we need to make a united effort to spread the word that these things are not mutually exclusive. They are only tools to be used and that Quality is not just product. Quality is (or should be) better business systems with customer (internal and external) satisfaction as its goal. That includes profitibility for "for profit" ventures and/or whatever other business goals that an organization has.

SteelMaiden is thinking along my original intent.

Forget ISO, TQM, etc. If YOU owned the company and had 6 months or a year to develop a quality system on paper before actual implementation, what would it look like?

I know there will be some problems concerning "one size fits all", but why not lay it out and require the elements to be spelled out in the scope?

The mom and pop shop scope states "elements 1, 3,4,5 and 7 apply" and the big corporation states "elements 1 through 9 apply". sort of philosophy.

C'mon, the people on the technical comittee that developed ISO are hardly rocket scientists. I know we can do better than them.

Carl-

Prior to all the quality standards in use today, I modeled and implemented quality systems based on Juran and Feigenbaum TQM concepts along with some MIL-Q-9858. These systems were just as successful as ISO or TS, but less prescriptive. These were adopted to match the business and customer base. Of course it depends on the top management committment, and support just as the current standards.

Here are some of the initial critria I would find important:

1. Long term vision. What do we want it to look like in 10 years?
2. Universally applicable to any company, regardless of product
3. Applicable to ANY size company, from 2 to 2000
4. Following a REAL standard with little (preferably NO interpretation)
5. Standard available at no cost
6. Database of companies that are registered
7. NOT another repackaged Deming, Juran, TQM, ISO or Six Sigma initiative.Item 1 will be all over the map.
Items 2, 3, and 4 will be - difficult to address, to say the least.

We have ISO 9000 and 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'. Should we call this new 'standard' the "Cove 3000 Business Management System"?