ISO 9000 and TQM (Total Quality Management) in Small Companies

I am currently writing a dissertation where I am proposing that there are more immediate benefits to be had by smaller organisations implementing the requirements of ISO14001 and TQM first as opposed to a formal ISO9000 QMS. My argument is that environmental programmes which reduce energy and waste costs coupled with TQM tools and techniques will be of more use than a compliance driven ISO9000 system. I realise that there are market pressures on companies to adopt ISO9000 systems but I have read numerous reports which indicate that smaller companies with strong relationships both internally and externally find the formality of ISO9000 of less benefit than larger more hierarchical companies. What do the forum members think?

[Kevin Mader]

You may be right. However, I think that the key ingredient to your formula is TQM.

The TQM philosophy coupled with either ISO standard could produce very similar results. I believe that you may be right in assuming that 14000 would bring in aspects of the Communittee much sooner into the picture.

This question has me thinking about Don Winton's example of Circular vs. Linear thinking. ISO9000 always struck me as being more linear than the 14000 model. Aspects of the environment and communittee being included in the 14000 model lead me to believe that a more circular approach would be had in creating and implementing a TQM QS.

Regards,

Kevin

[Don Winton]

<font COLOR=RED><BLOCKQUOTE>…I have read numerous reports which indicate that smaller companies with strong relationships both internally and externally find the formality of ISO9000 of less benefit than larger more hierarchical companies.</BLOCKQUOTE></font>

Whilst this may be true, I would suggest that those companies worried more about the letter of ISO 900x than the intent. There is nothing in ISO 900x that indicates that a formal structure is required, just a documented one. The organization is required to document its practices. Those practices, however, are entirely up to the organization in question.

<font COLOR=BLUE><BLOCKQUOTE>This question has me thinking about Don Winton's example of Circular vs. Linear thinking.</BLOCKQUOTE></font>

That is part of my point. Organizations tend to read ISO 900x and think the key to compliance is a rigid, top-heavy, bureaucratic system while the opposite is true. But, the key to an effective organization is quite the opposite. The ISO 900x model coupled with the philosophy of TQM, if implemented correctly, is a more effective route.

Qualityworld, I have a few papers on TQM, ISO 900x and other stuff at my site. Just click on my name below and let me know if any of it is useful.

Regards,

Don

[Andy Bassett]

Hello Qualityworld

Your question is does it make more sense to jump direct to 14000=TQM and avoid the ISO step?

First point is that with any implementation of a Quality Model you will get better results if you can also focus on the soft issues. (Bundled into a TQM programme if you will).

Secondly, i cant help but feel that their is a real-life issue here. The time and money needed to implement an ISO programme with commitment is 5 times smaller than the time and money needed to implement a programme without commitment (at least thats what i always tell the management of my customers).

So the question is "How much can your customers swallow in one go"?
Some companies may need a progressive approach to implementing any form of QMS s whilts more committed companies maybe able to go the whole hog in one go.

Regards



------------------
Andy B

I think you may be right in implementing the environmental management system in conjunction with TQM first, in that you might achieve immediate returns through waste reduction. This would make the change more palatable to senior management. However if you really have the commitment of the CEO to introducing a documented management system and TQM, I would go for ISO9000 certification, as the major objective of your organisation is probably to make a profit by satisfying your customer needs. The ISO9000 system is directed at optimising supply of your product or service. I don't know about circular thinking, however I think you need to develop your mission and vision statement and policy manual for the major operational risk areas first (quality, safety, environment, security). Then choose where to start your implementation. I know what is meant by linear thinking, in respect of the quality system, however I believe lateral thinking is required and an appreciation of the big picture. I suggest you base your procedures on a flowchart of the product delivery process.

[Marc]

The ISO stuff is one thing. TQM is another (a philosophy and a set of tools). I would do ISO 9 & 14 together. Also determine what TQM tools you want to implement and decide how much you can do at once. Doing ISO14 and then ISO9 (or the other way around) will just lead to integration problems later. Much of the two are the same or complimentary anyway.

[Kevin Mader]

“My argument is that environmental programmes which reduce energy and waste costs coupled with TQM tools and techniques will be of more use than a compliance driven ISO9000 system. I realise that there are market pressures on companies to adopt ISO9000 systems but I have read numerous reports which indicate that smaller companies with strong relationships both internally and externally find the formality of ISO9000 of less benefit than larger more hierarchical companies.”

I must admit that I haven’t read anything similar. Regardless of an organization’s size, the key in my mind is the mindset of the executive level. ISO14 or 9 are good models. But they aren’t enough by themselves. You still need a philosophy on how to manage, TQM or any other . The models are tools that help formalize/standardize organizational practices. As for 14 being of more benefit than 9, it is as subjective as anything else. 9000 brings in aspects of the customer, the organization, and the supplier. 14000 brings in regulatory considerations (which 9000 provides for, but does not mandate). I think many would agree that a registered organization does not guarantee success of any kind. Organizations that succeed do so for many reasons, but not by any one tool or philosophy. It may be pure luck! Organizations that discover ‘balance’ increase their competitive position and improve their position for success, but again, no guarantees.

TQM is a good philosophy. It includes everyone in the organization and those external to it. It provides tools to help deploy the philosophy and create the mindset. It also lacks the formalization of the business practices. I suppose this is where some balance of ISO anything plays an important role. All just part of the PDSA. The inclusion of this cycle in 9000:2000 (it’s been there all the time, but now it is clearer IMO) makes this standard more practical. This is true of large and small organizations.

Back to the group…

Kevin

[Marc]

Regardless of an organization’s size, the key in my mind is the mindset of the executive level. ISO14 or 9 are good models. But they aren’t enough by themselves. You still need a philosophy on how to manage, TQM or any other .

I quite agree.