Effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 Implementation in small industrial organizations?

Randy

Super Moderator
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

Wellllllllll, I vote that ISO 9000:2005 be tossed into the junkpile because it seems the consensusis not to acccept or use those things that the ISO iteslf has clearly defined.

:frust: It the end the head will give way before the wall
 
Last edited:

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

Wellllllllll, I vote that ISO 9000:2005 be tossed into the junkpile because it seems the consensous is not to acccept or use those things that the ISO iteslf has clearly defined.

:frust: It the end the head will give way before the wall

You may be right. If the generic internal definitions ISO 9001:2000 were sufficient basis for the thesis argument: "Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization," then the paper would simply say: "If you pass the audit, you have implemented the standard effectively."

The measure would be zero findings.

One paragraph, goodbye. Nice. A+

I would tend to think a more rigorous evaluation would be - perhaps - an evaluation of the condition of the firm before and after implementation. just a thought.
 
Last edited:
S

Sam4Quality

Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

Originally Posted by bobdoering

You may be right. If the generic internal definitions ISO 9001:2000 were sufficient basis for the thesis argument: "Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization," then the paper would simply say: "If you pass the audit, you have implemented the standard effectively."

The measure would be zero findings.

One paragraph, goodbye. Nice. A+

I would tend to think a more rigorous evaluation would be - perhaps - an evaluation of the condition of the firm before and after implementation. just a thought.
Perhaps, this may never be possible, or to be unbiased, extremely rare for any organization to go for a more rigorous evaluation as you mention, Bob.

We all know that the standards requirements and the supporting standards, viz., definitions, process improvements etc. have not been devised/developed for imposing or policing any organization. Neither will any organization allow the will to do so. Many less fortunate companies still think that QMS certification, external audits and maintaining the documentation is a pain, and does not add value to their organization. In these scenarios, the interest in the QMS lies only in a fraction of the company's employees, thus obviously not adding any value.

The crux of the effectiveness of implementation is NOT how close you are to conforming to the standards for the sake of certification, thus not adding any value, but how closely every employee, that adds value to the company, thinks his process needs systematism or process improvements, or documentation, AFTER conforming to the standards. And this is NOT the standards responsibility or ISO's responsibility.

If you need great power (customer satisfaction), it is packaged with greater responsibility! And this comes from within the organization, NOT from a standards developer. :nope:

Note: We are speculating on the 'effectiveness of implementation' in the hope that the OP might step in with further information. :D

Ciao. :cool:
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

Perhaps, this may never be possible, or to be unbiased, extremely rare for any organization to go for a more rigorous evaluation as you mention, Bob.

That is almost always true. That is why most journal literature statistics are so dubious. The calculations may be correct, but the raw data, such as surveys of opinion and feelings (e.g. "thinks his process needs systematism or process improvements") are likely to be biased with some fear that the company will see the results. It is also difficult to collect data in small businesses - so the breadth of the studies are usually narrow. But, it was just an example of something - anything - deeper than the internal definitions of the standard.

Note: We are speculating on the 'effectiveness of implementation' in the hope that the OP might step in with further information. :D

This is exactly correct. The bottom line may be his thesis topic may have to be reconsidered. It may have sounded like a good topic, but as the comments illustrate, it may need to be clarified. I am sure if the student's research had not crossed Cove, very little controversy would have been found concerning the topic. Treacherous waters.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

You may be right. If the generic internal definitions ISO 9001:2000 were sufficient basis for the thesis argument: "Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization," then the paper would simply say: "If you pass the audit, you have implemented the standard effectively."

The measure would be zero findings.

One paragraph, goodbye. Nice. A+

I would tend to think a more rigorous evaluation would be - perhaps - an evaluation of the condition of the firm before and after implementation. just a thought.


Nope....As a person that has to audit system effectiveness I'm bound by the definition in 9000:2005, not by "I think this, and it could be that, etc..., and that's what the OP was asking about..."...the level to which planned arrangements ahve been met..."
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

Nope....As a person that has to audit system effectiveness I'm bound by the definition in 9000:2005, not by "I think this, and it could be that, etc..., and that's what the OP was asking about..."...the level to which planned arrangements ahve been met..."

Then, that being the case, not much of a topic. Better find a more interesting one. :rolleyes:
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

Nope....As a person that has to audit system effectiveness I'm bound by the definition in 9000:2005, not by "I think this, and it could be that, etc..., and that's what the OP was asking about..."...the level to which planned arrangements ahve been met..."

You believe, then, that two independent auditors given the same QMS to audit, with the same evidence, on the same day, would always reach identical conclusions?
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

You believe, then, that two independent auditors given the same QMS to audit, with the same evidence, on the same day, would always reach identical conclusions?

In perfect world, yes, absolutely, but this isn't a perfect world and the audit process itself is not perfect either....That said, under the conditions you gave, if the evidence supports conformance then the process (whatever it is that is audited) could be considered effective...system,organization, whatever

ISO 19011:2002 - 3.3 audit evidence...
records, statements of fact or other information, which are relevant to the audit criteria (3.2) and verifiable
NOTE Audit evidence may be qualitative or quantitative.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

In perfect world, yes, absolutely, but this isn't a perfect world and the audit process itself is not perfect either....That said, under the conditions you gave, if the evidence supports conformance then the process (whatever it is that is audited) could be considered effective...system,organization, whatever

ISO 19011:2002 - 3.3 audit evidence...
records, statements of fact or other information, which are relevant to the audit criteria (3.2) and verifiable
NOTE Audit evidence may be qualitative or quantitative.

Two people reviewing the same evidence and reaching different conclusions is the definition of "subjective."
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Re: Implementation effectiveness of ISO 9001:2000 in small industrial organization

Two people reviewing the same evidence and reaching different conclusions is the definition of "subjective."

You apparently are much wiser and know much, much more than me....except "subjective" is not part of ISO 9001 or main stream auditing being conducted with ISO 19011 as the guidance document (like all CB's must do)....You really need to get a handle on the word "relevant" which your tossing the word "subjective" isn't

One must cease polluting the stream so folks can drink of clear water occasionally.
 
Top Bottom