"Elsmar 90" International Quality Standard anyone?

[Marc]

If we were going to write a standard to compete with ISO 9001:

1. What would you put in it, and why?
2. What would you deem unnecessary, and why?
3. What industries would it apply to?

 

[normzone]

Ooh, interesting thought. I've always felt that everything in the ISO 9001 standard was there because at least once somebody's project crashed and burned due to that particular element not being properly executed.

But this would be a beautiful exercise...

 

[howste]

Sorry, but "Elsmar 90" will never work. The number has to be at least 500 for people to take it seriously.

 

[Marc]

Can't use 9000 - The ISO folks will complain...

 

[qualityfox]

This may not qualify as a standard to compete with ISO, maybe it's just changes I would like to see.
I would add a requirement for a comprehensive training program. Having worked for 4 different ISO certified manufacturers, I have only seen one with a well defined training program which was implemented prior to ISO. The other companies came up with a paperwork coverup for ISO of a nonexistent training program. And yes, it affected their quality time and time again.
I would remove the requirement for a Quality Policy. It's just words on a piece of paper. It has no effect on the quality of the product.

 

[Ninja]

Elsmar 99.99 Pure Function Standard

Text and terms must be understood by Ms. Baker's 6th grade Home Economics class.

Quality Policy...gone
Quality Manual...gone
External Auditors must be approved by two of the top 10 customers before the audit (function...if I pay for the audit, I should get to skip two customer audits and save back the cost).

Oh the possibilities...

 

[Sidney Vianna]

What would you put in it, and why?

If one really wants to have an "impacting" MANAGEMENT system standard, you have to make top management accountable. As a component of making top management accountable and involved, I would start by having a requirement that every single member of top management to undertake a one-day course, with a complex test at the end of the day to ensure they understand how a quality system is strategic to the organization, how a quality system has to be embedded in the operational processes of the company and how modern quality management is achieved.

Failure of having a member of top management taking the course and passing the exam would prevent the organization from claiming compliance to the standard, much less be certified to it.

Very few executives directing organizations truly understand modern quality management and how to set up and operate the organization for continual and cost effective delivery of customer satisfaction. If so much responsibility is placed on the shoulders of top management, we should make sure these people understand the what and why they are being tasked with so much.

 

[Mike S.]

Oh, let’s see…well the context of the organization is soooo important, and social responsibility, and green/sustainability requirements, and the requirement that each person have a “safe zone” where no one is allowed to criticize or make anyone else uncomfortable.

But seriously, how about a requirement along the lines of “Employee Engagement and Satisfaction” requiring that Management monitor and show continuous improvement in this area?

 

[Golfman25]

If one really wants to have an "impacting" MANAGEMENT system standard, you have to make top management accountable. As a component of making top management accountable and involved, I would start by having a requirement that every single member of top management to undertake a one-day course, with a complex test at the end of the day to ensure they understand how a quality system is strategic to the organization, how a quality system has to be embedded in the operational processes of the company and how modern quality management is achieved.

Failure of having a member of top management taking the course and passing the exam would prevent the organization from claiming compliance to the standard, much less be certified to it.

Very few executives directing organizations truly understand modern quality management and how to set up and operate the organization for continual and cost effective delivery of customer satisfaction. If so much responsibility is placed on the shoulders of top management, we should make sure these people understand the what and why they are being tasked with so much.

No problem, as long as it is followed up by the quality manager's class which focuses on how to make payroll this week.

 

[normzone]

You guys are cracking me up...[Sidney Vianna] wants to establish drivers licenses for top management, which is a great idea, although it should be scaled like pilots licenses in general aviation - the size and nature of the company determines the complexity of the rating required. You could take the short class to fly an ultralight, or get your fighter jet / airliner certificate.

Never gonna happen...

And [Mike S.] wants to track and report on employee satisfaction - I'd love to see the metrics for that criteria.

EDIT: And how are we going to address internal auditing? Do we eliminate it, and call it all good? Or do we define how an internal audit program should be conducted so as to be of benefit to the organization, carefully crafting the language such that it's difficult to fake?