The Value of 9K-2K - Soundbites and Spin

[Al the Elf]

Lucky Al has been asked to pull together some collected learning from the small proportion of the registrations that have actually converted from 1994 to 2000 versions so far. I'm hunting for brief thoughts about the value that people believe (or should that be perceive) they have gained (or not). As an extension I'm also interested in anyone who has decided not to register to the new standard and why.

The group I'm working with has already decided it wants a management system, they just want to try to understand why so few in the world have adopted registration to 9K-2K.

I'm hoping my esteemed colleagues in the Cove can help out...

Cheers, Al.

[Claes Gefvenberg]

We'll go for 9k2k... The only reason we are not there yet is that we have been working flat out with our EMS. We're getting close to the certification audit now and next item on the menu is 9k2k...

We intend to merge EMS, QMS and H&S into one system.

/Claes

[M Greenaway]

We are also beginning the process. mainly delayed due to having to retain QS9000 certification, and consider TS16949 certification.

I suspect that most are leaving to the last minute, which kinda hints at the perceived value of it.

[Russ]

We have our first surveillance audit next week that starts our transition. Our delay is also the result of having to deal with retaining QS9000, for now. I'll have to post back here about what problems we face in this particular mix of standards.

I wish anyone luck if they have to retain QS and transition to ISO9K2K. It hasn't been fun so far!

[gpainter]

I had put up a post similar to this a while back. I believe Marc was going to respond on his experiences to date of the problems that he has encountered or anyone else for that manner.

[David Mullins]

Al,
I believe the main ingredient is time.
They've given us 3 years to comply, and by golly we'll take the whole three years !

With the '94 version we got one year and everybody jumped.

[Mike S.]

Al,

Some good thoughts have already been presented. If you read through some of the other recent threads in the Cove I think you'll find several additional reasons that many companies have not moved to 9001-2000. Just a couple of personal thoughts/opinions FWIW:

One of the "new" (improved?) things about 2000 is that it allegedly requires continuous improvement (there's even some debate on that -- see the other recent thread) . However, any company that doesn't try to continuously improve already is not likely to be swayed by the requirement of the standard and is also not likely to survive to implement 2000. So, some may look at it as not too much of a change, except for more records required to prove improvement.

Also, especially with the poor economy/state of business in many market sectors, money is very tight and personnel are stretched thin. Upgrading to 2000 costs time and money and unless management truly believes that the switch will pay-off for them, why do it now? Like any other business decision, it is based on the perceived cost vs. benefits.

Just MHO.

Mike S.

[Marc]

gpainter said:

I had put up a post similar to this a while back. I believe Marc was going to respond on his experiences to date of the problems that he has encountered or anyone else for that manner.

I've addressed the upgrades in a number of threads. The bottom line is I have done 4, one of which added ISO 14001 at the same time. All were former clients which I worked with during their original implementation. None had to add any systems or such. None took over 5 working days to change documentation and such. But - 2 were very small companies and the other 2 were under 300 people.

I personally believe the biggest change is in the ISO and consultant rhetoric. My opinion is people are reading much too much into the 'changes' - over interpreting. Seeing things they want to see which aren't there (see recent thread on Continuous Improvement).

It is interesting to look back at companies I worked with during their registration. In fact I'm sitting at a desk in the same company I started playing with ISO with 10 years ago. I'm not here for ISO - I'm completing a number of PPAPs and working with several customers in the Corrective Action end of things. But as I think back over the upgrades at other companies I worked with and I think of what they were and what they now are - heck, I can show tons of continuous improvement totally unrelated to ISO. Companies evolve and to survive (compete) they either corner the market (ala Enron), have political ties (ala Carlisle and the military industrial complex) or they continuously improve.

None of the companies are particularly unhappy about their ISO trip, but none any longer sees ISO as a tool. They say ISO 9K was most useful during the implementation phase - new thinking, new set of eyes and all that. But now - it's just a yearly game where you Pay The Man. As one company owner said: "If the auditors would just take the money and not come it would be fine with me."

I will also say all 4 - registered for a number of years now - have entirely classified their registrations as a business expense, although they were initially enthuseastic. It has become another business game.

Each of these companies was making good product when I first was involved with them years back (marketing and/or customer requirement came along) and nothing has changed there. ISO 9K has not improved anything they would not have anyway - or so they say.

(NOTE: Throw rocks now and get it over with folks...)