Has East met West yet? Perceptions of quality, business practices, system maintenance

[WALLACE]

I'm intrigued by the recent heated dialog that Damian initiated at the cove and, this has got me thinking (Can be very dangerous for me) .
Has East truly met West yet regarding perceptions of quality, business practices and the perception of system maintenance, improvement and inovation? Are the two systems of thought really compatable?
Looking at the fact that ISO9001, as good as it is regarding infusing system thinking, maintenance and improvement, enforces or (for want of a word) evolves change every 5 years or so. Is this change quick enough for those who sincerley use the ISO system and dare I say, should the ISO9001 standard be more open to rapid changes to the status quo of the current business management practices?
IMO, FWIW, I firmly believe that we are living in a century when change is more rapid and continuous by nature of the financial, technology and information economies of this day. Can ISO 9001 deliver what business management needs regarding standardised systems of business practices.
Wallace.

[Wes Bucey]

Originally Posted by WALLACE

I'm intrigued by the recent heated dialog that Damian initiated at the cove and, this has got me thinking (Can be very dangerous for me) .
Has East truly met West yet regarding perceptions of quality, business practices and the perception of system maintenance, improvement and inovation? Are the two systems of thought really compatable?
Looking at the fact that ISO9001, as good as it is regarding infusing system thinking, maintenance and improvement, enforces or (for want of a word) evolves change every 5 years or so. Is this change quick enough for those who sincerley use the ISO system and dare I say, should the ISO9001 standard be more open to rapid changes to the status quo of the current business management practices?
IMO, FWIW, I firmly believe that we are living in a century when change is more rapid and continuous by nature of the financial, technology and information economies of this day. Can ISO 9001 deliver what business management needs regarding standardised systems of business practices.
Wallace.

Are you suggesting the Standard needs to be "changed" more frequently than 5 years? Are you taking into account the "continuous review" and interdisciplinary dialog that takes place among the various technical committees in the intervening period, culminating in the approximate revision cycle of five years?

Are you also taking into account the concept individual organizations should have organization-specific plans for continuous improvement?

What might be the economic repercussions of more frequent revisions of Standards? How might this affect organizations which are having difficulty in stabilizing their organizations within the current 5-year cycle?

Statistics experts often tell us a process should be stable and in control before conducting experiments for improvement. How would such a point of view conflict with more frequent Standard revisions which might preclude stabilization of processes?

[WALLACE]

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey

Are you suggesting the Standard needs to be "changed" more frequently than 5 years? Are you taking into account the "continuous review" and interdisciplinary dialog that takes place among the various technical committees in the intervening period, culminating in the approximate revision cycle of five years?

Are you also taking into account the concept individual organizations should have organization-specific plans for continuous improvement?

What might be the economic repercussions of more frequent revisions of Standards? How might this affect organizations which are having difficulty in stabilizing their organizations within the current 5-year cycle?

Statistics experts often tell us a process should be stable and in control before conducting experiments for improvement. How would such a point of view conflict with more frequent Standard revisions which might preclude stabilization of processes?

Nope! I'm certainly not suggesting the standard be changed more frequently. Changing the standard more frequently would certainly cause IMO, a wholesale rejection of the standard.
When we speak solely of the ISO 9001 standard, the CI initiatives alligned to the standard practices and structures could certainly exist outwith the certification scope of many organizations. ISO 9001 is an excellent business management model and that's how it is being used by many organizations.
I'm looking at these issues from a Kaizen angle. NO, I'm not on some kind of Kaizen trip Wes, I'm trying to see the objection to the use of the ISO9001 model and having a hard time justifying it.
Looking at the Kaizen philosophy, I see that using the ISO 9001 standard runs counter to the CI initiatives associated with Kaizen and, it's clear that the ISO9001 standard may indeed impede the adoption and use of the ISO 9001 standard as a business model due to, the incrimental changes relating to a Kaizen initiative. According to my current knowledge of Kaizen, I view a Kaizen initiative improving upon the current state of the ISO 9001 standard. The very nature of Kaizen implies that the standard would be improved beyond the current technical committees review processes.
I'm just struggling to get a balanced understanding of the Kaizen versus ISO 9001 angle.
Wallace.

[Wes Bucey]

Originally Posted by WALLACE

Nope! I'm certainly not suggesting the standard be changed more frequently. Changing the standard more frequently would certainly cause IMO, a wholesale rejection of the standard.
When we speak solely of the ISO 9001 standard, the CI initiatives alligned to the standard practices and structures could certainly exist outwith the certification scope of many organizations. ISO 9001 is an excellent business management model and that's how it is being used by many organizations.
I'm looking at these issues from a Kaizen angle. NO, I'm not on some kind of Kaizen trip Wes, I'm trying to see the objection to the use of the ISO9001 model and having a hard time justifying it.
Looking at the Kaizen philosophy, I see that using the ISO 9001 standard runs counter to the CI initiatives associated with Kaizen and, it's clear that the ISO9001 standard may indeed impede the adoption and use of the ISO 9001 standard as a business model due to, the incrimental changes relating to a Kaizen initiative. According to my current knowledge of Kaizen, I view a Kaizen initiative improving upon the current state of the ISO 9001 standard. The very nature of Kaizen implies that the standard would be improved beyond the current technical committees review processes.
I'm just struggling to get a balanced understanding of the Kaizen versus ISO 9001 angle.
Wallace.

Can we agree on two major levels of kaizen?
Guys I respect have used the term "Kaizen Event" to describe incremental improvement changes as processes are "tinkered with" to improve them.

The same guys wax eloquent in praise of a "Kaizen Blitz" (I know, I know ~ mixing Japanese and German ~ it's their term, not mine) to describe a "shocking breakthrough."

In a manner of speaking, throwing the emphasis in ISO9k2k on Customers instead of prescriptive documents was something close to a Kaizen Blitz.

Now, if only we can find some way to have customers look at ISO9k2k registration as just one of many alternates in qualifying suppliers instead of as a "knockout tool," then we might have a better chance of helping more organizations adopt a systems and process method of planning and operating their businesses. Once we remove the fear associated with "register or die!" mentality of many OEMs, we may see more organizations perceiving the real value in adopting the systems methodology of a Standard.

[RCBeyette]

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey

Now, if only we can find some way to have customers look at ISO9k2k registration as just one of many alternates in qualifying suppliers instead of as a "knockout tool," then we might have a better chance of helping more organizations adopt a systems and process method of planning and operating their businesses.

At my organization, we do have more than one way for a Supplier to get onto our Approved Vendor List...and more than one way for a Supplier to stay on there. However, more often than naught, you will see ISO 9001 registration as the methods used.

Why do we accept their certificate as enough evidence to support their "membership" on our AVL? Because, in this day and age of lean operations, multi-tasking positions, and justifying costs, we don't have the time/money/people...nor can we justify the time/money/people...required to visit suppliers, analyze data 8 hours a day, or accept extensive travel costs.

Our job is to make a product that meets our Customers requirements, as well as regulatory and legal requirements. Our suppliers' job is to make a product that meets their Customers requirements, as well as regulatory and legal requirements. We are their Customer. This method has served us well...we have had no major problems to date (knock on wood). If a situationd does develop, then we focus on the supplier until a resolution (accepted by all) is developed.

All of that being said, I do admit that our improvement projects have not come about because of ISO 9000. Improvement is simply a philosophy of our organization. We do not accept that where we are today is as good as we can get...if we do, then it won't be long before our competition catches up (and passes us).

Our improvement approach is very formal, well documented, and is reviewed monthly for progress. We have countermeasures put into place when planned results are not achieved (i.e., this could be either a target not achieved or a task not completed). We document accountability and responsibility. And most important (at least in my view), everyone gets involved at all levels. We have projects with tasks with teams...these teams are comprised of operators from the floor. In some cases, it was the operators who even determined our goals for some projects. They do the job, they know what can be done...and the higher up people are there to provide the resources (technical or otherwise) to achieve the goal.

We have a Technical Agreement with a company in Japan who is deemed to be the benchmark in our industry. It is by no means an inexpensive Agreement, but we have sent over people from all levels. They travel to Japan with objectives to meet, areas to focus on and items to learn. When they return, they teach their new skills to their counterparts. This has helped us enormously!

We have realized that we will never be like the company in Japan until our cultures are more closely aligned. There is just too much of a difference between our work and social makeups. However, we are continually implementing more and more of their methodologies (with a Canadian twist) and we are seeing improvements.

[The Taz!]

Originally Posted by RCBeyette

We have realized that we will never be like the company in Japan until our cultures are more closely aligned. There is just too much of a difference between our work and social makeups. However, we are continually implementing more and more of their methodologies (with a Canadian twist) and we are seeing improvements.

Roxy,

This is interesting to me. Can you send me a couple of examples of this? Not in the thread though. . .

Thanx Paul

[WALLACE]

Originally Posted by RCBeyette

Our improvement approach is very formal, well documented, and is reviewed monthly for progress. We have countermeasures put into place when planned results are not achieved (i.e., this could be either a target not achieved or a task not completed). We document accountability and responsibility. And most important (at least in my view), everyone gets involved at all levels. We have projects with tasks with teams...these teams are comprised of operators from the floor. In some cases, it was the operators who even determined our goals for some projects. They do the job, they know what can be done...and the higher up people are there to provide the resources (technical or otherwise) to achieve the goal.

We have a Technical Agreement with a company in Japan who is deemed to be the benchmark in our industry. It is by no means an inexpensive Agreement, but we have sent over people from all levels. They travel to Japan with objectives to meet, areas to focus on and items to learn. When they return, they teach their new skills to their counterparts. This has helped us enormously!

We have realized that we will never be like the company in Japan until our cultures are more closely aligned. There is just too much of a difference between our work and social makeups. However, we are continually implementing more and more of their methodologies (with a Canadian twist) and we are seeing improvements.

From what I understand of Kaizen, You seem to have implemented a kaizen initiative in tandem with your established ISO 9001 management system.
I'll definately be there in July Roxane.
Has any organization, supplier or customer actively benchmarked your improvement strategies?
Wallace.

[WALLACE]

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey

Now, if only we can find some way to have customers look at ISO9k2k registration as just one of many alternates in qualifying suppliers instead of as a "knockout tool," then we might have a better chance of helping more organizations adopt a systems and process method of planning and operating their businesses. Once we remove the fear associated with "register or die!" mentality of many OEMs, we may see more organizations perceiving the real value in adopting the systems methodology of a Standard.

I totaly agree Wes.
Wallace.