The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001 - Page 2


Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

View Poll Results: What Do YOU Believe About ISO 9001?
ASQ Member - Yes I read it. 29 26.13%
ASQ Member - Didn't read it. 17 15.32%
Not an ASQ Member 23 20.72%
Agree - It's Snake Oil, a Scam. 13 11.71%
It has Become a Scam, but is Good Business Practices 57 51.35%
Disagree - Hoyer is way off base. 5 4.50%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 111. You may not vote on this Poll because you are not Logged In.


Some Related Topic Tags
value added, iso 9001 - quality management systems
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 4.67 average. Display Modes
  Post Number #9  
Old 18th March 2002, 04:18 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc

 
 
Total Posts: 26,552
Read This!

More and more people appear to be seeing things as I have for some time.

If you're an ASQ member, see http://www.asqnet.org/perl/forums/ge...l?msg_id=13121

In part it reads:
Quote:
2. All Six Sigma and ISO 9000 like programs have offered, though, to the outcast Quality Manager, an opportunity to get some resources (otherwise not available) to use for systems and process improvements.... Most of the CEO's are as short term oriented as the (in)famous Jack Welch and would not have otherwise spent money on Q.A. related issues unless it was necessary immediately for furthering business operations. Deming's concepts are as alien to most business "leaders" as a 10-year ROI.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #10  
Old 1st May 2002, 12:12 PM
Fire Girl's Avatar
Fire Girl

 
 
Total Posts: 112
Laughing

Quote:
db said:
(I often say that much of ISO 9001 fall into the “well duh” category)
You really could say that a lot of ISO 9001 should be common sense. But we all know how common that is! You would think ( for example) that people would know that they would have to calibrate equipment, document it, etc. Why would we even need procedures on THAT. However, people get nailed (including myself ) all the time for that. I really do think it's important to document stuff. NEVER take for granted that people will know what to do. At least if it's written down, you have something to fall back on when they come up with their, "Where does it say I have to do that" line.

ISO really covers a lot of basic business concepts. That's the thing a lot of people may not realize- it's a MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. You really should be going beyond ISO.

Just my thoughts.

FG
  Post Number #11  
Old 1st May 2002, 12:28 PM
db's Avatar
db

 
 
Total Posts: 2,590
Well Duh

I agree Fire Girl. When the standard says that purchased product must meet requirements, I say “well duh!”. If making this happens takes a level 1, 2, or 3 document, then you need the appropriate document. If it takes an act of Congress, then I guess you need that as well. This shouldn’t be hard stuff, but for a lot of us it is.

What it takes is for all involved to believe it is required, and to believe that they need to do it. If everyone thought this stuff was a great idea and embraced it, it would not only be easy, but it would work extremely well. I have seen it happen in more than one company. In those cases, the owner’s comment was: “Why wouldn’t we want to do this?”. The “well duh”s become valid and workable.
  Post Number #12  
Old 2nd November 2002, 03:54 AM
Marc's Avatar
Marc

 
 
Total Posts: 26,552
Thumbs up

Also see this discussion thread: Is ISO 9001 More of a Hinderance than Help?
  Post Number #13  
Old 20th September 2003, 06:18 PM
Godfrey Partridge - 2003

 
 
Total Posts: 9
Supplier Audits and Assessments

I fully agree with H Fowlers comments on suppliers being worthy of more attention under ISO900:2000 and for the benifit it brings to the overall operations in a company. Most organisations spend 50% of their tunover with outsourced and materail requirements. We are what we eat and a comapny is judged by what it buys in particular with stockist and wholesale activities and sectors.

A recomendation which brings customer and suppler aspects of 9K2K into prospective. My clients have now included in the suppliers assessment records a record of if the supplier has sent us a customer questionair. Think about it?

Godfrey Partridge
Isobiz.com

Last edited by Godfrey Partridge - 2003; 20th September 2003 at 06:21 PM.
  Post Number #14  
Old 10th October 2003, 03:37 PM
Wes Bucey's Avatar
Wes Bucey

 
 
Total Posts: 11,156
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by db

I am one (okay the only one so far) of the ASQ members that did not read the article. I started to, but after a few paragraphs, decided I had no interest in reading the reminder. I have worked with enough companies to discover several things. First, there are those who only want the flag, and will skirt any requirement they can. For them, it is snake oil. There are others that have taken these good business practices (I often say that much of ISO 9001 fall into the “well duh” category) and have run with them. For these companies, ISO 9001 is the oil that lubricates their business. The third group wants to do the right thing, but struggled before 9K, and still struggles. For them it is the castor oil that prevents their business from getting sicker.

I guess one person’s snake oil could be another person’s life oil. It is all a matter of perspective, and what you do with it. After all, even snake oil is great for roses!

I read the entire article. It didn't affect my thinking one way or the other. I don't recall Kevin Mader's letter (if you still have a copy, Kevin, email it to me.)

ASQ members who have visited the ASQ Discussion Forums are probably familiar with my observations on ISO9k2k.

Summarized:
  1. The Standard is a nice starting point
  2. Most organizations seek registration for wrong reason (marketing ploy)
  3. Rarely do top managements embrace the primary basis for ISO9k2k (pleasing and satisfying customer, secondarily having a more efficient organization - which would please ME as a customer!)
  4. Rarely do any organizations really have a system which they follow for continuous improvement
  5. Registrars are too disparate [differing] in the actual audit of an organization
  6. Some registrars are getting a reputation of issuing registration certificates regardless of what an impartial audit by another registrar might find
  7. Almost every customer which "demands" ISO registration (or QS or TS) is really too lazy or incompetent to do its own investigation of a supplier
  8. Few seem to understand that registration does NOT imply a "Quality" product or service
  9. Not enough value is given to an organization that "self-declares" compliance to the Standard and offers to let any customer do an independent assessment to see if "the fact matches the brag."
  Post Number #15  
Old 11th October 2003, 08:00 PM
WALLACE's Avatar
WALLACE

 
 
Total Posts: 759
Self declaration

Wes,
You make an excellent point when you highlight point 9.

[QUOTE]Not enough value is given to an organization that "self-declares" compliance to the Standard and offers to let any customer do an independent assessment to see if "the fact matches the brag."

I recently had the pleasure of being an observer of an audit performed by a "supplier" on thier "client". Yes you read right.
I experienced one of my best observations of a quality system audit to date. The organization of focus (I can't possibly name the company) has no intentions of registering their QMS with a registrar and, furthermore invites their clients and suppliers to independently audit thie quality business processes.
It works very well for them and, I have to say, after observing their QMS set-up, it was eveident to me and those auditing that, this arrangement certainly works in particular for the company of focus. Their QMS was for the most part extremely compliant to the ISO9001 standard and then some. Continuous improvement assessment processes were assigned to all aspects of their QMS.
I was impressed to say the least.
Wallace.
  Post Number #16  
Old 11th October 2003, 09:42 PM
Wes Bucey's Avatar
Wes Bucey

 
 
Total Posts: 11,156
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by WALLACE

Wes,
You make an excellent point when you highlight point 9. Not enough value is given to an organization that "self-declares" compliance to the Standard and offers to let any customer do an independent assessment to see if "the fact matches the brag." ... etc.
Thanks, Wallace. Every little affirmation helps!

When I was QM and de facto COO of a high tech contract machining company, we were searching desperately for the $$$ to get registered to ISO [1994] and QS 9000. One really sharp QM from a customer in California said, "Why pay that kind of money? We'd rather audit you ourselves and see the savings reflected in your prices." Another Q guy from an auto manufacturer said essentially the same thing. "You aren't a 'prime' - all you need to do is be compliant."

Thus encouraged, we created a "Self Assessment Manual" which listed the elements of each of the Standards in tabular form - the element in 1st column, our 'plain language' description of how we thought we met the element in Column 2, and the 3rd column left blank for the customer auditor to see if his assessment matched ours. We sent the SAM along to each new prospect. Fewer than 10% of customers ever came out to see for themselves. Most said, "If you have the chutzpah to lay this out, we're pretty sure you can back it up. We don't need to come out."

Those that did come out usually stopped about halfway through and said, "We're convinced. We don't need to see any more. By the way, do you mind if we copy this idea for our own company?"

Odd thing is, we had "customer satisfaction" on our list long before ISO and AIAG.

I think the key point was plain language description of how we thought we met the Standard. We did not use stilted language or parrot the Standard (which was already there in column 1 anyhow.)

We did say many times "we talk with our customer before, during, and after we produce a part to make sure it meets the customer's requirements."

Last edited by Marc; 12th October 2003 at 01:46 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tag and shortened quote.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001:2015 - Changes Discussion Marc ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13 29th March 2018 04:49 PM
Validity of ISO 9001:2000 Certificates - How to handle supplier ISO 9001 certificates ermoth ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4 10th February 2015 03:33 PM
ISO 9001 Quality Manual Validity Period alonFAI ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8 18th November 2013 08:50 PM
Validity of ISO 9001 Certification arin_23 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6 9th June 2009 10:21 AM
Ever come across an ISO 9001 certificate with more than 3 years validity period? cheahga ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 35 19th September 2007 04:15 AM



The time now is 12:52 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"