posted 11 October 2000 10:27 AM               

I hope this reply isn't appearing twice. I was keying and my format disappeared. I'll try again.

I would contact the company, which provided the ISO training, and ask them what their business practice is concerning the ISO 2000 version upgrade.

As a Trainer I am providing the upgrade free of charge to those clients that recently received training to the 1994 version.

posted 12 October 2000 02:17 AM               

However, somebody inside the company needs to know the standard.
There seems to be some ongoing discussion about the use of Internal Auditors (ie should they audit against your procedures or against the standard), my guess is that a Certification Body will expect your Internal Auditors to have an understanding of the Standard, whatever your arguements are.

Coming back to your orginal question, it is very often said that if your company was doing what the standard originally intended, then the new ISO 9000:2000 is not greatly different from the old one, however my experience is that very few companies were doing what the standard intended,so i see quite a big difference in application and therefore some new training required.
I personally see absolutely no reason why the training could not be done by the MR, providing the training is of a good standard.

Regards

posted 12 October 2000 03:35 AM               

As far as internal auditors understanding the spec, it depends upon what you expect of them. My personal advice is to limit internal auditors to process audits. Let your MR do a yearly "Are our major systems still compliant?" audit. Like awareness training, internal audits are over-blown in their perceived importance. I personally believe internal audits are for companies which have a low level of control of their employees. Take a look at Toyota and Honda - no internal audit system. They don't need one. Ask yourself why.

> From: "JRT"
> Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
> Subject: Re: Toyota & ISO 9000
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:22:43 -0400
> Organization: AT&T Canada IES

> In my opinion the Japanese system do not require auditing because of
> the structure of the system. The Toyotas and Hondas employ "Lean
> Manufacturing" concepts where visibility of quality issues is front
> and foremost. JIT ensures that quality problems surface immediately at
> all levels. Using my company as an example: we would rather deliver
> substandard quality as a result of a fault in our manufacturing
> process rather than stop production and fix the problem...cost before
> quality. Whereas Toyota would not produce substandard product. They
> would fix the defect first and absorb the cost. AS far as ISO is
> concerned the principles are sound. The Japanese have nothing to gain
> from ISO because their systems are superior and that is the bottom
> line.
>
> JRT...

posted 12 October 2000 04:17 PM               

2. Cost is only relative to a class of cars and does not (should not) reflect a level of quality. You can have a 'quality' sub-compact and you can have a 'quality' luxury car.

3. In the cases of Toyota and Honda, they look at the situation from an integrated design / manufacturing environment. When those are done well there is no need for 'quality' systems.

I have a Mazda 626 in my drive - a 1989 with 245,000 miles - have had few repairs over the years. Still drives well, burns no oil (no major or minor overhaul, ever) and - well, it's a 2.2 litre turbo and its the best car I ever bought. Its it quality?

posted 13 October 2000 03:24 AM               

quote:

---

Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do). Just my lowly opinion...[/B]

---

ie 100% agree, but i wander if this also applies to quality standard, ie they are only needed in environments with low discipline levels. This would cetainly explain why Toyota dont need it.

Regards

posted 13 October 2000 08:41 AM               

And cost is relative. If I buy a certain 'class' of car, I don't always expect price parity among the contenders. +/- a couple of thousand isn't always a deal breaker.

No big deal. I just believe the 'internal audit' phenomena is 'over played' in its importance, particularly to well run companies.

posted 13 October 2000 08:50 AM               

They have consistently made money over the years, and out of proportion with their size. Many years ago when Mazda was rescued it was only done on condition that they adopted the Toyota Lean Production method.

I travel quite a lot and i am consistently hiring cars, Toyota's are definitely one of the best designed vehicles on the road. In my corner of Ireland the old cars that you see most often tramping along are Toyota's.

Their secret is a consequent displined approach to work, that i believe lies in their culture.

But if you beleived that, maybe consultants should be offering courses in 'How to run Disciplined Companies', instead of Baldridge, TQM, ISO 9000 etc.

The world is too complex and dynamic to say what makes companies succssful, which is why most management fads are just that. The only common factor that i have seen that exists in nearly every successful company is discipline.

Regards

Regards

posted 03 January 2001 09:03 PM               

Internal Audits are only as good as the people doing them and in some cases are very necessary. "Control" of employees or not.

Please be careful. Toyota is doing and has been doing a good job but only time will tell if they can continue. Internal audits proper conducted and sustained can only help.

posted 17 January 2001 03:32 PM               

I feel as long as people are aware of the procedures they are to follow, and verifiably follow them, they are meeting the standard.

Sure someone has to be trained.....but not everyone, and definitly not on every word.

Business is not in business to have training. Minimize and supply the basic information.