Has an Implementation by a Consultant EVER Failed?

[Marc]

I was sitting here reading a promo on a web site where the consultant says "We have an unprecedented 100% success rate with the registrars of their choice." I sat back and thought - Hmmm, unprecedented? Registrar of their choice?

So now it's up to you. What's your EXPERIENCE?

NOTE: This is a BLIND (anonymous) poll. No user name is connected to a poll vote so who voted and for what is not tracked - Only the totals are tracked.

[tomvehoski]

Marc,

How would you define "failed"?

Failed Def. 1: Multiple major nonconformances, complete (full audit days) re-audit required.

Failed Def. 2: Major nonconformances, follow up audit (1 day) required.

By definition 1 I have never had a failure. By definition 2, one out of about 50.

Tom

[Marc]

I define 'Failed' as "...the registrar found / assigned a Major..." whether by absence of a system, failure / breakdown of a system or the number of minors found.

I wouldn't consider it a failure per se if you knew about the problem and warned the company and the company thumbed their nose at you. I did have that happen to me a couple of times but it was always caught during the pre-assessment so by the registration audit the company had decided I was right, seeing as the registrar backed me up, and 'fixed' the problem. Maybe I should have put that option in. I remember back around 1994 one company president telling me it was none of ISO's business whether or not he did management review. After the registrar's auditor did the pre-assesment and told the guy it wasn't a choice he was allowed to make if he wanted his company registered, the guy streightened his act up.

[Marc]

Wow! No 'votes' yet from any company which used a consultant! I'm somewhat surprised.

[bobsedon]

I can't answer the poll, we have not had an audit yet. We are using a consultant who says he has never had a company fail an audit. It's no wonder! He moves so slow and beats every process to death before he agrees we should consider it implemented and start work on another. He says he wants everything right so there are no deficiencies. Seams he's just padding his hours. Upper management has called him on it. We'll see how things go from here.

Is it really a bad thing if deficiencies are found during an audit? We are using ISO9000 to improve our processes not because a customer is making us. Part of learning is trying and failing. The consultant may learn our way meets the standard just as well as his.

[Rob Nix]

bobsedon,

You make some interesting points, and it goes along with concerns I have had with using consultants for years. If they are paid to help you pass an audit, they will dot every i, cross every t, and strike-through every z just to ensure you have NO NON-CONFORMITIES - that you pass the audit, at whatever cost in dollars and time to the company.

The only successful contract with a consultant is a long term one, where they are paid to make your QMS an effective one in the long run. Other Cove contributors, that are consultants, can explain it from their angle.

If you have a good knowledge of your business system, and a decent understanding of the standard, you may not need your consultant, especially if you don't mind getting 'dinged' a few times on your first audit.

[db]

Originally Posted by Rob Nix

bobsedon,

Other Cove contributors, that are consultants, can explain it from their angle.

And so I shall. I too can say that I have 100% pass rate. However, I have also had several companies that have decided not to go through the registration process. I have also had companies that I have fired because they would not take their QMS seriously. Do I have a 100% success rate? No, not even close. But those who wanted to succeed, did.

Many of the companies I’ve worked for did not really need a consultant. I tell each of my clients that they don’t need a consultant. However, sometimes it is less expensive to use someone who knows the ropes to assist the company in getting their QMS off the ground.

I will argue your point that “The only successful contract with a consultant is a long term one”. My goal is for the client to have an effective QMS in the long run, however, I want their QMS to operate without my continual input. I do offer to come back once a year, or so and do an audit, but that is about it. I am rarely around during the registration audit. By then, they should be on their own and their system fully functional. Of course, I’m always available to answer questions.

[Rob Nix]

Dave, I condemn all consultants except for the ones reading, or that will ever read, this posting.

So present company is excepted. Seriously, though, there are many consultants, like yourself, that do an excellent job - and truly care that the company is successful in the future (I have also done consulting off and on over the years). But I have heard of, and been a "side-line witness" to too many consultants that go for OVERKILL, simply to ensure a passing grade (a certificate on the wall). They get paid, and move on, without looking back at the long term damage of an unmanagable system.

I think that might be the case with bobsedon.

Bobsedon,

Perhaps you should have your consultant provide you a list of what he considers the remaining open issues (along with the clause they apparently fail to meet) and go over them with your management team. For each issue, can we explain "our way", can we leave it alone and take our chances, or should we do something about it? Whatever you do, GET CLOSURE. Get your consultant to commit to a specific timeline.