Am I the only one who thinks ISO9001 isn't good?

[AndyN]

(1) ISO 9000 encourages organizations to act in ways which make things worse for their customers
(2) Quality by inspection is not quality
(3) ISO 9000 starts from the flawed presumption that work is best controlled by specifying and controlling procedures.
(4) The typical method of implementation is bound to cause sub-optimization of performance
(5) The Standard relies too much on people?s and, in particular, assessors? interpretations of quality
(6) The Standard promotes, encourages and explicitly demands actions which cause suboptimization
(7) When people are subjected to external controls, they will be inclined to pay attention only to those things which are affected by the controls
(8) ISO 9000 has discouraged managers from learning about the theory of variation
(9) ISO 9000 has failed to foster good customer-supplier relations
(10) As an intervention, ISO 9000 has not encouraged managers to think differently

As you know, ISO 9001 requires analysis of data. Can I ask what data you used to come to these statements?

 

[TPMB4]

Not hostility just different views.

I was once told, a long time ago before ISO9001 back in the BS5750 (is that right? It was a long time ago) that the quality standard was only the start. It was the bare minimum. It is not the whole journey but the start of one. If you look at it like that then perhaps you won't look down so harshly on the standard.

One comment I don't disagree with and that is quality by inspection is not quality. I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see how that is a problem with ISO9001. As far as I am concerned the processes we have set up within our ISO9001 organization is about controlling quality through getting the process right not through inspection. Our goal is zero defects and inspection is not about that but about not letting the defects reach the company. If you are doing that then it is not about quality just control and the quality standards have moved on from that years ago back when they changed it from quality control to quality assurance. We should be so much further along the journey from that switch, indeed we now ignore the assurance word and just call it quality. That is my basic understanding of the history of quality (recent that is since the BS standard came in).

I think AndyN has hit the nail on the head. I was wondering about evidence supporting your views (which I am quite happy to accept once convinced) but data is just as good.

 

[PaulJSmith]

I, too, used to question the usefulness of international standards. I pretty much just viewed them as money traps ... even have to buy the drafts these days. Honestly, I still haven't completely abandoned that feeling.

However, having worked within plenty of systems which used these guidelines (ISO9001, TS16949, AS9100, etc.), and being now in a management position and seeing it from the implementation side, my cynicism has waned considerably. You seem to be viewing it as a be-all-end-all. It is not. What it is, however, is one tool to be used in the best manner to help get you to your business destination; which should be some variation of "consistently providing the best products and services to your customers."

I believe the most important thing you can remember about it is this; It's not about the Management of your Quality System, but rather the Quality of your Management System. If you truly focus on that aspect, you might be surprised at how easily everything else falls into place around it.

 

[jasonb067]

No you are not the only one there are many like you. Objective evidence, the companies which in the automotive industry are "winning" the quality battle do not adhere to or require ISO9001 certification. As a result many of their major suppliers are not certified and they are producing better products.

The quality of the product. That is what matters.

 

[Reg Morrison]

Objective evidence, the companies which in the automotive industry are "winning" the quality battle do not adhere to or require ISO9001 certification. As a result many of their major suppliers are not certified and they are producing better products.

The quality of the product. That is what matters.

I think you should rethink this. Ford and GM, among many other, high quality automakers demand QMS certification from their suppliers and their incoming product quality, measured by DPPM has been continually and significantly improving over the last 12 years. One of the components for such improvement is attributed to supplier QMS robustness.

Toyota, on the other hand, a highly regarded automaker has been having quality problems which became mainstream and leading to significant liability in the USA.

As for the original post, juuso should make sure that he gives credit to Jim Seddon's old criticism of the standard and associate certification process. After all, he is plagiarizing copying Seddon's work in here. In my experience, ISO 9001 can be used and deployed in progressive or archaic ways. How you implement it is the key.

Seddon's criticism of ISO 9000 has been debunked many times, over.

 

[AndyN]

No you are not the only one there are many like you. Objective evidence, the companies which in the automotive industry are "winning" the quality battle do not adhere to or require ISO9001 certification. As a result many of their major suppliers are not certified and they are producing better products.

Which ones are you thinking of here?

 

[AndyN]

The quality of the product. That is what matters.

It is, for sure, but enlightened customers also know it's HOW product quality is controlled, to reduce the shock of variation. In fact, it's the very automotives you mention who pushed management systems and controls (tools) on suppliers because variation causes them problems! Are you confusing the need for certification with the implementation of a management system, perhaps?

 

[insect warfare]

You got me wrong, I don't have any problems understanding or implementing the ISO. It's just, I don't know, not enough. I think that there would be something far more better but we have only settled to this but I just don't know what.

Perhaps you are looking at this too hard. ISO standards have been around for quite a while, and have provided too many benefits worldwide to just be discounted on a general level. You are in essence challenging what you don't fully comprehend yet, even if you think you do (you did refer to it in an earlier post as "ISO 9000" which actually encompasses ISO 9000, 9001 and 9004). It is no different than trying to disprove a widely accepted mathematical formula. You have to understand all the variables first before questioning the integrity of the formula or your viewpoints will (at best) be interpreted as heretical, due to a lack of empirical evidence to support your claims. Many, many organizations have reaped the benefits of implementing ISO standards, with only a minor segment out of favor, but those organizations don't quite "get it" yet - once they do they will no doubt "see the light".

You may feel that you have been dealt a few bad hands over time which has made you wary of the integrity of these standards, but most of the time an organization's management system will fail because of either 1) a lack of resources, 2) lack of management commitment, or 3) lack of both.

Brian

 

[Stijloor]

<snip>As for the original post, juuso should make sure that he gives credit to Jim Seddon's old criticism of the standard and associate certification process. After all, he is plagiarizing copying Seddon's work in here. In my experience, ISO 9001 can be used and deployed in progressive or archaic ways. How you implement it is the key.

Seddon's criticism of ISO 9000 has been debunked many times, over.

John Seddon's piece....

http://www.hseq.no/upload/4504/case%20against%20iso%209000.pdf

 

[Reg Morrison]

Page 21 of Seddon's material and juuso's last post have striking similarities...