posted 30 March 2000 06:51 PM               

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,

posted 31 March 2000 09:38 AM               

Whilst this may be true, I would suggest that those companies worried more about the letter of ISO 9000 than the intent. There is nothing in ISO 9000 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.

This question has me thinking about Don Winton's example of Circular vs. Linear thinking.

That is part of my point. Organizations tend to read ISO 9000 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 9000 model coupled with the philosophy of TQM, if implemented correctly, is a more effective route.

posted 01 April 2000 04:15 AM               

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

posted 03 April 2000 08:57 AM               

I must admit that I havenât read anything similar. Regardless of an organizationâs size, the key in my mind is the mindset of the executive level. ISO14 or 9 are good models. But they arenât 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 Îbalanceâ 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 (itâs 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·

posted 03 April 2000 09:04 AM               

quote:

---

Regardless of an organizationâs size, the key in my mind is the mindset of the executive level. ISO14 or 9 are good models. But they arenât enough by themselves. You still need a philosophy on how to manage, TQM or any other .

---

posted 03 April 2000 08:54 PM               

9000 and 14000 require a management systen that is based around:
1. say what you do (document system)
2. Do it and document it.
3. Check that what we did conplies with what we said we would do.

Basically it is my belief that all management systems require a sound document control and distribution/access system for it's foundation. ISO 9000 merely creates the foundation from which TQM can grow SUCCESSFULLY. It is a beginning, not an end.

ISO 14000 is in the same boat, in that it provides the foundation.

TQM, 9000, 14000, they're all just management systems with varying scopes. If you didn't care about the certification/registration then you could make your own quality system (which I have done before) based on the principles of management that are important for success for your organisation. Surely such a system would create more ownership and provide greater succcess than any pre-fab model.

Oops, my bottles empty ......... hic!

posted 26 April 2000 03:30 PM               

While I cannot presume to speak for Dr. Deming, I believe Point 11 should be interpreted like this. If your quota requires employees to produce X amounts of widgets for Y amount of dollars, yes that is a conflict with Point 11.

Dr. Deming did not advocate the elimination of production plans. But his intent was that if the employees were given the tools they needed to produce the X amount of widgets in the allotted time, then piece work could be eliminated.

One final point. The 14 points are a whole. Concentrating on one or two single points at the expense of the rest will result in failure.

posted 26 April 2000 06:40 PM               

Agreed. I'd like to add that systems yield what they will. No more, no less. If quotas are established without the knowledge of what the system is capable of, management is merely throwing darts. Management must understand the process, make it stable and predictable prior to establishing "targets".

Creating quotas to match customer need without consideration of the system producing the item can, and often leads to, unreachable goals (WED hated the word GOAL as it lacked a method to achieve it). This leads to worker frustration and worse. In order to make the rate, workers begin to cut corners out of necessity (a bad rating on productivity might mean a bad raise or worse)! Production Planning is not an evil or in violation of Rule #11 by itself. Only in the absence of System knowledge.

Don's example also mentions piece work. If annual rating systems are based on quotas (the size of your raise), who would have a poor rating? Everyone would do what it takes to make a nice paycheck, leaving the customer, the organization, and eventually themselves out of the equation. Surely will lead to lose, lose, lose. It is also a very Taylorist approach suggesting that the associate does not understand the work they perform, robbing the associate of Pride of Workmanship.

And,

"One final point. The 14 points are a whole. Concentrating on one or two single points at the expense of the rest will result in failure."

Very true! The WHOLE must be considered as a system is not the sum of its parts. Deming's 14 points and 7 deadly diseases are all parts of his System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK). Don's warning is right on the money!

Regards,

Kevin