Europeans Speak out on ISO...

M

Michael T

#1
Greetings all... I just ran across this and found it..... interesting...

The June 2002 issue of Quality Progress has a short little blerb as follows:

European Survey Says Industry Doesn't Value ISO 9001

A survey conducted by the Engineering Quality Forum (EQF) in the United Kingdom reveals ISO 9001 is not seen as cost effective by industry.

About 68% of respondents reported the quality management standard is of marginal cost effectiveness or is not cost effective at all. Other key findings include:

- ISO 9001 has become a business requirement for marketing rather than quality reasons.
- Despite greater demand for quality, price is still the prime purchasing consideration.
- About 28% of pruchasers still rely on inspection of product rather than audit, peformance measurement and ISO 9001 requirements.

EQF is made up of major engineering institutions in the United Kingdom. The Manchester School of Management analyzed survey responses. A copy of the report can be purchased by e-mailing: [email protected].

Whatcha think???
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
#3
Valuless?

Any time we take something which has potential value and mandate it, the value lessens. This is because organizations who do not see value just go through the motions enough to get by. Those organizations who attempt to maximize ISO become disenchanted when they see sloppy organizations achieve the same goal they worked hard for.
 

RoxaneB

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#4
Whatcha think???
I always find "band-wagon jumpers" amazing. When it first came out, "oooOOOooo...nifty marketing tool....must get!". Now it sometimes to almost always be preceded or followed with a certain four-letter word.

This is because organizations who do not see value just go through the motions enough to get by.
So true! I've looked at other organizations and scratched my head in wonderment. They're barely meeting the requirements and yet become registered without breaking a sweat. My organization opts to take the ISO Standard to heart, work hard at using it to improve not only our product but our processes too, and we get dinged left, right, and centre by the Registrar. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it? :frust:

With good intentions, my organization looked at the Standard and said, "Heeeeey! We can use this for everything in our company...not just products and processes!" Everything at our company falls under the QMS....or perhaps that should be BMS (Business Management System).

Unfortunately, despite the good intention to improve our organization, this makes us subject to more in-depth audits.

Those organizations who attempt to maximize ISO become disenchanted when they see sloppy organizations achieve the same goal they worked hard for.
Bingo. And that is the same question that is being asked at our Top Management level. Some are wondering if we went too far by implementing a BMS - above and beyond what the '94 Standard required. They want to see tangible results. They want to see the data that shows what we were like before ISO and what we're like now.

Our Customer's have not asked for ISO. We did it "voluntarily." Initially, it was implemented for marketing reasons (or so I told - before I showed up here). But now, some members of Top Mgmt see no benefit.

We've shown them the trends as our system has matured. More positive Customer feedback. Customer Complaints are of a less serious nature (meaning that in more and more cases, they are attributable to Mother Nature - not something we can control). Yield has increased. Our processes have become streamlined.

And yet they counter-argue with the fact that our competetion is still in business with a half-a$$ed ISO programme or none at all.

To me, I do see a benefit to having registration to ISO 900x, but only if it used to it's full potential. Those that just go through the motions, give the whole thing a bad flavour.

To end on a happy note, though, I picked this up on an ISO Fun webpage: "In an effort to cut costs, some organizations are choosing not implement ISO 9000. Some are implementing ISO 900 instead. Under this standard, everyth tenth thing they do, gets done correctly." :D
 
#5
You know you're doing it for the right reason when...

I think it was Carl (correct me if I'm wrong) who was self-declaring to ISO 9001. Methinks this is an indication that they want to do it right. I often tell companies I work with that I am less concerned about registration than I am about having a system that works. If the system works, I think registration should pretty much take care of itself.

INMSHO, that is the bottom line. If all you want is the flag, the QMS is meaningless. If you want results, the flag sould come naturally.
 
E

energy

#6
Who's the judge

And who makes those determinations that a company isn't worthy of the certificate? Certaintly not the company. Certaintly not their Registrar. Certaintly not their Consultant. Competitors? Maybe. That's sour grapes. Who is doing this measuring of the company's worthiness to hold this certificate? Or is it one of those things people like to talk about, like "You know, I wish people were more honest." We all would like that. But, try pointing out the dishonest ones.

And, no, if my neighbor got the same flag as I did, I wouldn't gnash my teeth because I thought they don't deserve one or obtained it by ill-gotten means. I would resent an outsider telling me that this is the case, particularly without evidence. Hearsay is inadmissable in Court.:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

:agree:
 
E

energy

#7
My stance all along

I've said it from day one. I wouldn't do it, if I had a choice. But, like being selected as a member of the team tasked with winning, whether or not I truly like the game, quitting is the only other option. I hated the Lean process we went through because it was a waste of time. Someone thought we were fat with waste and efficiency. That wasn't true and everybody on the committee knew it, but we had to play the game because someone got it their head that we need it. Results? Nada, zilch. But our ISO certification effort had yielded process maps, procedures and a new way of thinking by the majority of Department Heads. Why? because they know nothing about it and the Honcho has ordered it to happen. Not a very good reason, but that's the name of the Game, now.

I really admire the man for putting this business together but he is prey to evey new fad that comes along. During some of his recent pitches to the troops beating the ISO drum, he stated the following: "Folks, we not asking for Six Sigma, which is the top of the line in respect to Quality Programs." (He had just read a book by Jack Welch). " We need to be ISO 9000:2001 to gain a competitive edge in the market place". After several of these department meetings, referring to ISO 9000:2001, I sent him a private e-mail telling him that it is 9001:2000. Nobody picked up on it. Nobody. Just the idiot QM. Who cares? We're in it for the certification, and I'm staying with it as a team player. Whether we measure up by anyone elses standards, I could care less. Just get us there. Just like the other member's you cite, I know what the dream is. Too bad, nobody is listening.
I trashed my post to you because it was too harsh. But, that's energy, isn't it? You just bring out the animal in me!:rolleyes:
:agree: :ko: :smokin:
 

gpainter

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
One thing I tell my people is that ISO is an good start and the sky is the limit, but it is up to top management on how high it will go. There is going to be the companies that just maintain the certificate and I believe that the 00 standard is more acceptable of this. No standard is a cure all, as many companies discover.
 
E

energy

#9
Not gpainter, wish it was?

Jim Wade said:



Hi gpainter


It seems to me that, if the registrars take the 2000 version seriously, then it should be much less easy just to go through the motions.

rgds Jim
Why less easy? Maybe, some registrars too, realize that it's all you say it is. Why would you think that it should be harder? Maybe it's a thing you see and the rest of us minions just deal with, like the Model of the year? Why does it have to be your model? Your vision. Oh, I get it. It's the doctrine. Shades of gray, James. Not wrong. Just workable. Are you always this way? :bigwave:
:agree: :ko: :smokin:
 
M

M Greenaway

#10
Jim

Are you really posting at 2:30 in the morning ?

Anyway like you say ISO9001:2000 came with the promise that it would now address actual performance, hence an ISO9001 certificate could be interpreted as an 'award' based on performance instead of just a badge saying what type of QMS was present. However as you have also discovered some registrars feel it not in their remit to audit performance, just that there are systems in place to measure performance - which is quite sad.

I wouldnt say ISO9001 certification is meaningless, just that it doesnt mean you will get good service and/or product. All it means is a company operates a system in compliance with ISO9001, now if all you do to assure the quality of your supplies is look to this one fact then you deserve what you get. As we know becasue ISO9001 is not actually a standard compliance to it actually means nothing as it gives us no idea how the company actually manages quality.

Well documented rubbish was the critical view of the 1994 standard, what phrase can we use for the 2000 version ? Maybe well mapped rubbish.

Hmmm - guess ive talked myself around here - you're right Jim it is meaningless.:vfunny:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N Crash Course in Management Speak Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 3
Antonio Vieira Learn any language! Text to Speech - It's easy to speak for example Portuguese After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 3
Q Training Issues - Workforce doesn't speak/read/write English as first language QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 13
J Internal auditing focus - Opinions on "what direction" so to speak Internal Auditing 31
S Need ISO 15189:2012 Documentation toolkit. Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 0
chris1price Archiving of paper records - ISO 9001 7.5.3.1b Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 4
M Transferring ISO 17025 from one company to another ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
D Common practices in ISO 9001 deployment ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
Q ISO 9001-2015 Internal audit finding Internal Auditing 12
B ISO 17025:2017 risk management Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines 0
P Audit check for IT company (ISO 9001) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M Label Making & Printing Standards ISO / ASTM ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
Sidney Vianna Interesting Discussion Should ISO 9004 be changed from a guidance standard to a requirements standard? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
Ed Panek ISO 13485:2016 Section 5.5.3 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
Q Do these certificates of calibration meet ISO 9001 requirements for traceability to NIST? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
ebrahim QMS as per ISO 13485, Clause 4.2 Requirements for regulatory purposes for Medical Devices Authorized Representatives. ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
S ISO 2768-mk print call out Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 11
T ISO 17024, clauses 4.3.8. and 5.1.1. Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 4
C ISO 14001:2015 6.1.3 Compliance Obligations - Legal requirements monitoring ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 0
C Requirement to link Quality Manual to ISO 9001 clause numbers? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
D ISO 13485 scope (implantable) - Polymers for dental application EU Medical Device Regulations 9
W First time being audited (ISO 9001), asking for advice ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
John C. Abnet ISO 26262 ISO 26262 - Road vehicles – Functional safety 3
Marc ISO 26262- Road vehicles – Functional safety ISO 26262 - Road vehicles – Functional safety 0
John C. Abnet ISO 26262 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
A ISO/DIS 15223-1:2020 - Country of manufacture label (IEC 60417 No. 6049) - Which national law requires this symbol? Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
P ISO 14644 Class 8 Cleanroom Air Filter Requirements Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
K PDCA cycle and ISO processes alternative model Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 14
N ISO 13485 7.3.9 Change control in medical device software ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
A ISO 13485 procedure change and reflect to legacy manufacture items ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
D ISO 13485 & CE Certification for Surgical Gloves CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 0
S ISO 11137- Simulated product vs SIP Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
D Which ISO Standard to purchase? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
V ISO 10360-5: 2020 Gap analysis and Action plan Excel .xls Spreadsheet Templates and Tools 1
Q ISO 9001 - Reseller Exclusions ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
S Inventory Listing and ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
C ISO 45001 6.1.2.1 Hazard Identification Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 1
T The difference between ISO 14644-3:2005 and ISO 14644:2019 Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
S Any ISO standards around Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning? Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 4
R AS9100D internal audit checklist or ISO 9001 2015 to AS9100 D AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
M ISO 13485:2016 Certification Scope ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
N ISO 9001 - Training business with fewer than 5 employees ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
P Should eIFU link per ISO 15223-1:2016 be added to labels out of scope of Reg 207/2012? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
J Opportunity in ISO 9001:2015 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 27
D Reports under change management | ISO 13485:2016 & ISO 9001:2015 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
P ISO 8 classified medical manufacturing room Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 1
Le Chiffre Online training available for ISO/IEC 17021-1: Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 3
B ISO 6508 and portable hardness measurement instruments General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
M Scope for ISO 13485 Certification of a Translation Service Provider ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 17
S Knee Implant (Femoral -Cobalt chrome)-Sub chronic toxicity test (ISO 10993-11)choice of root Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom