I'll respectfully disagree. The primary reason management objects to and ISO QMS is that it appears to be beuracratic, duplicative, onerous, paper pushing. I have seen it happen time and again -- some "guru" comes in and tell someone they now have to "fill out this form" to comply with ISO. I was there -- as top management.
I empathise with your bad experience. As for yucky implementations of ISO 9001 by people who turned them into bureaucratic nightmares, yes, I've seen more than I ever wished to of those and wish they'd never been done as well as feeling intensely sorry for the poor people who had to try and work with them. And I do agree that blaming top management too often
can be a cop out.
But I am left wondering if, other than your own personal bad experience, is there any data in the information provided by the original poster that enables you to confidently draw the conclusion that it's nothing to do with top management?
The information provided by the poster that I used to reach my conclusion included: .
a medium sized paint / powdercoat shop that has been working on ISO 9001:2008 for the last 3 years.... I myself started the company 2 years ago as a simple executive assistant, but in the last year I have had this beast dropped on my lap and told to make it work.
Presumably not a job he volunteered for - and doesn't seem to have been provided any training for either! I'll leave aside the lengthy 3-year period, which indicates something wrong.
So after about a month of reading the QMS that was created by our consultant fron to back 10 times over, then reading hundreds of articles all over the internet about what kind of documentation and quality records we would need to produce I started having at it.
So all he inherits is a consultant's manual (we don't know whether this was OK/not). And no help/training provided...
When I started the ISO project consisted of the QMS Manual that an outside consultant had put together. All the job records were logged into 5 different excel spreadsheets. Delivery slips were hand written, routers did not exist, work instructions did not exist, no log of maintenance or calibration records, never been any supplier, managerial, or employee reviews. Personnel paper records were made for all current employees, but no formal training, or even employee sign off was issued.
Basically the only thing in place was the QMS manual.
This sounds like a dog's breakfast, and no kind of reasonable quality management system. I wouldn't hold that this was the 75-80% already compliant that you do.
made some great strides ... such as programming a database from FileMaker Pro 10 to handle all inventory, personnel, approvals, NCRs, maintenence, calibration, etc(Which even without ISO compliance saved roughly $1,000+ a month in office labor due to autogenreration and accessibility) I am having a terrible time trying to get my direct manager on board.
Saving $1000 a month in labour sounds like a good thing to me. But the direct manager apparently unmoved. Talking of same:
It was originally his burden to make this work
Which he didn't.
and this same mentality he now has seems to run down to the production supervisor which he is pretty good friends with. That aside I've tried to spell out the savings we made just implementing the database, and how we stand to save more by lowering our quantity of rework.
These sound like the sorts of savings that management ought to be interested in, surely? Yet Zenzi says he's hit a brick wall.
we are being forced to be ISO 9001:2008 certified by our largest customer CASE new holland / Fiat and our deadline is the end of the year or otherwise no new work will come through our door.
So there is a tight deadline and high stakes. The poster seems aware of that 'big picture' you talk about, doesn't he?
My boss believes this is a scare tactic, and that ISO is no more then a dog and pony show to make bean counters feel good about themselves, and give CASE a reason to have 10 guys in quality management.
Does the boss sound equally aware of that big picture? This sounds like a direct quote from the boss to me, and someone with his mind firmly made up.
my manger's boss (the owner) who has little do do with operations other then talking with customers, is telling CASE, and all our other customers that I(I being me not him) am working on ISO and will have us compliaent and certified by the end of the year; making this project's sucess my liability.
Uh huh. Hear any
evidence of top management commitment there? I don't. Yet you argue that this poster is clearly taking a wrong approach... and that blaming top management is a cop out.
We have a production supervisor that oversees the floor, and helps schedule jobs, but the op. manager is both head of production and the office, unfortunately.
Right. That'll work. However, he is has tried a couple of ways of making some things happen. The first was rejected. He tried again.
when I presented him with my new idea of validating our work his only response was, "This is bullsh*t".
And your diagnosis: Ah hah, I've seen those kinds of paper-heavy systems. Without even knowing if it is in this case or not.
That is but one example, I have also ran into walls with him saying, "How are we suppose to write out 30 years of painting experience." and "Lets just put on a good show for their quality guys."
And this is the management rep. Oh joy.
Looks like the bottom line is I need to get the owner more involved in the implementation of ISO, without overshadowing the Op. Manager, and maybe see just how far our consultant can help with training.
It appears to be a legitable ISO specialist/consultant, but a big part of the problem is that IMSM is based out of London, and we might have to wait months at a time for a scheduled visit.
Which could be why 3 years have gone by... Do you see this as a 'do-able' task for him, given the evidence presented? I don't.
Again I ask - what
facts (apart from your own personal experience, which I don't accept as evidence) in the situation that Zenzi presents and asks for help with enable you to conclude what you have?
When I found a "guru" who explained how to simplify the system -- remove nonsense paperwork, etc. -- I could start to see the light. ... You need to sell it to management to get their support -- let them know how simple it is.
I do not disagree that there are some godawful consultants and misguided people about there who've built or tried to do some godawful implementations of ISO 9001. In my many years consulting, I've seen some that literally took my breath away they were so truly hideous and misguided.
I do not disagree that a quality system should be clear and practical. But with respect, I still say that what you are saying is quite good sense but at the wrong time to the wrong person in the wrong place. You appear to be trying to make him responsible for the failure to implement by implying
he's doing it wrong/made a bad system/blaming management/not doing it right... without any evidence that this is so.
You talk as though the problem were 'the system is too bureaucratic and too paper-heavy... how do we simplify it'. Is it? How do you know? What tells you that? I didn't read anything from the original poster that said that.
As an educator, I know that even a good educator is not going to be able to teach someone that doesn't want to learn.
Yes, me too. This company's owner clearly wants 'ISO 9001'. And Zenzi' s been dumped with making it happen. But does anyone else there really want it? Clearly not the poster's boss!
