How will ISO 9001 help the machinists in a very small Machine Shop

[Golfman25]

I would say that it depends upon what you are doing now. I believe most successful companies still in business today are doing about 80% of what the standard requires without even concentrating on the "standard." Most of it is common business sense. So if you are already a well run machine shop, it will do very little other than get you a nice piece of paper. If you're a complete disaster of a shop, it will have a greater impact.

 

[AndyN]

With all due respect, I disagree. This statement seems to imply that lack of formal ISO quality system controls necessarily entails "things <are> done ineffectually".

You missed my point: People do things in the name of "ISO" which are a PITA and are not what the organization actually does. We know from posts here, almost daily, that people adopt ineffectual practices as a way of meeting some perception of what a QMS under ISO 9001 actually needs. I'd almost guarantee that dgriffith is really commenting on THAT aspect, NOT what ISO 9001 would actually add to an already good organization.

 

[AndyN]

I think that's a fallacy. ISO guarantees no such thing. In fact, you can have a good documentation system and turn out poor parts. Economics should soon fix that, however.

I'm also reminded of the $8M savings (conservative estimate) which COULD have been realized but wasn't, until the "ISO" internal auditor pointed it out! So, would economics have "soon fixed that"? No, because sometimes the types of leaks draining the tank are many, but small in size, and no-one takes notice, but they all add up.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I've been asked my a coupld of the machinists how ISO 9001:2008 will make things better for them or help them in any way.

Any insights?

Let's see:

Machinists hate when they have to "guess" dimensions because the drawings they are provided with, to do their jobs, are incorrect, have missing information, are illegible, etc.....and nobody selling the job caught the problem before the order was released for manufacturing.

Machinists hate when they kill parts because they thought the previous operation had been completed, when, in reality, they hadn't.

Machinists hate when they spend a lot of time and effort on a job just to find out that they were provided with the wrong material (plate, bar stock, etc...)

Machinists hate when they kill a part because the gages they use to set up the job are so out of calibration that they machined something way too short.

Machinists hate when the equipment they operate is so unreliable for lack of maintenance and adjustment.

Machinists hate when order problems keep recurring because past mistakes are allowed to happen again and again and again and again.......

Machinists hate to work in shops where the lighting is so bad, they barely can see the parts being cut or the drawings to be followed.

Machinists hate when they lose their jobs because the company they work for has such a louzy quality reputation that they can't hold on to good, paying customers...

And on and on and on....

So, a good quality system could also benefit the machinists working conditions, morale and pay, if well executed. The problem is: a lot of ISO 9001 implementation efforts are NOT well executed. They only happen to satisfy a customer mandate to get the certificate.

And, as long as you can get (and keep) the certificate in a cheap, no-change-required, fast and easy way, why bother with a "good execution"?

And, to exacerbate the problem, even when an organization engages with a reputable registrar who sends a competent auditor to audit "poorly executed" ISO 9001 implementation jobs, the auditor can not consult, so, s/he will certify bad systems, as long as they are "conforming".....

C'est la vie.

 

[John Broomfield]

We ar a very small machine job and we are implementing a QMS based on ISO 9001:2008 standards which we hope to eventually become certified.

I've been asked my a coupld of the machinists how ISO 9001:2008 will make things better for them or help them in any way.

While I see how it helps management and QC, I am stumped on what to tell the shop workers.

Any insights?

Stephen,

Further to Sidney's tips, explain the value of your teamwork system.

It should not be referred to as an ISO system.

Don't bother trying to sell the standard or certification but be ready to answer questions on these secondary topics.

John

 

[RoxaneB]

Some of the responses thus far have provided very good responses for the here and now in the world of the company and the machinists. However, I think we've neglected the future.

For a small machine shop where everyone knows what they do, that's great...right now. But, people leave...people retire...people win the lottery. Then what? A solid Business Management System (or Quality Management System if we wish to live and breathe the world of ISO 9001) can support a new person as they come onboard. Knowing who does what and when and how facilitates the training and knowledge transfer process (i.e., saving time, money and headaches).

From a "business culture" perspective, it's great when a company has goals and objectives. A properly established management system provides the framework for setting up everyone to head in the same direction towards those goals and objectives. It won't do the dirty work for you, however...that's what senior leadership is for.

Now what about the organization itself? Does it wish to remain "small"? Is there a dream to grow the customer base and expand? If so, demonstrating a solid management system can help demonstrate to Customers that you're not an ad hoc company that manages to meet requirements only by working hard (i.e., solid processes can demonstrate that you work smart, as well).

A properly developed management system can help to formalize daily routines, freeing up time for seizing opportunities and improvements. So, yes, in the present day, some may question the benefits, but I would also recommend you consider discussing the future when speaking with others within the organization.

 

[AndyN]

It's often a good practice to meet over pizza and ask them what things don't work, need improvement because they don't work all the time and what they do well. If you have a good discussion around those, maybe using a flipchart or white board, you can relate what they tell you to an ISO requirement. If not, get creative with some examples of your own they can relate to and also add some of the "extras", like internal audits, management reviews etc which will bring them some benefits.

Use adoption of a formal ISO based QMS to show them you CAN drive down problems.

 

[Mark Meer]

Again, great discussion!

A lot of these responses seem to be describing the merits of general quality system controls, and not of ISO quality system as in the original post.

There is no reason why a non-certified (and not 100% ISO compliant) system might not already have quality objective, equipment controls, workable systems for resolving problems, or any of the other advantages that people are listing....

I am 100% in agreement with Golfman25's assessment:

I believe most successful companies still in business today are doing about 80% of what the standard requires without even concentrating on the "standard." Most of it is common business sense.

(emphasis added)

So, assuming the OP's company is presently running effectively, what is the "rank-and-file" personnel's incentive to adopt the other 20% of controls required to be ISO compliant?

Sure, we can talk about considerations for "the future", "marketplace", but these seem to be more incentives to management.

 

[AndyN]

A lot of these responses seem to be describing the merits of general quality system controls, and not of ISO quality system as in the original post.

Huh? Could you explain? My answer was directly ABOUT ISO9001 QMS...

 

[Mark Meer]

I'm simply saying that a lot of posts in this thread are describing the merits of general quality system controls, and not necessarily the advantages of a fully compliant ISO system (as opposed to an effective - albeit not 100% ISO compliant - existing system).

It's reasonable to imagine many businesses that operate effectively without a fully ISO compliant system, and are already getting the advantages many have posted.

I'd imagine - again, in agreement with Golfman25's post - that many businesses operate effectively with an 80% compliant system. So, assuming the business is operating effectively as-is, my reading of the OP's question is then how do you sell the additional 20% to rank-and-file employees?

Maybe, for example, they've already got a effective system that includes quality objectives, management reviews, equipment controls and controlled documents, but do not have documented record retention times, recorded design inputs or design reviews, supplier evaluations, or documented procedure for preventive action.

It is not hard to imagine that tacking on the "missing" controls to an already effective system solely for the purposes of full ISO compliance would be felt as nothing more than a burden for rank-and-file employees...