Is adoption of ISO 9001 a strategic decision?

[Sidney Vianna]

Hi
ISO 9001 said that the adoption of ISO should be a stategic decision of an organization.

But, as my experiences, it is not strategic decision for most organizations. In china,approximatily 99.9% organizations adopte ISO9001 due to customers's mandatory requirement,so,I found most organizations's ISO management system has no suitability and effectiveness.many management have this opinion to ISO 9001 that ISO 9001 only is DOCUMENTS and DOCUMENTS and DOCUMENTS, ISO 9000 is a agly guy from the United States.

Again, this is a important factor that the ability of ISO consultants is not enough.

Do you have what felling to it?

What you described, sad as it might be, is not the way ISO 9001 was intended to be deployed. The certification/ticket to trade approach to ISO 9001 will, for the most part, lead to ineffective, unsustainable, non-value added quality management systems.

Without a doubt, a decision about implementing a formal quality management system is most definitely a strategic decision. But that should not be confused with writing non-sensical procedures and creating mind-numbing paperwork and forms. Because, that is NOT ISO 9001 implementation, much less a true quality system.

 

[bobdoering]

Re: Is adoption of ISO 9001 a strategic decision really?

We mustn't confuse the implementation of ISO 9001 as a tool to put a formalized management system into place, with the third party certification of such a system! The two are not necessarily the same thing...

Absolutely. Third part certification is solely a strategic decision (marketing strategy) to provide evidence to others that the system is in place. The adoption of ISO 9001 can easily be done without certification.

I suspect that very few people were pro-actively looking for a quality model for their business (as in: believed that quality was not pure overhead, but a beneficial, fundamental business activity), found ISO 9001, decided to adopt is as their functioning model and employed it. Most - as mentioned before - approached it with the "do we have to" do it, with a forced march imposed by their customers.

 

[jasonb067]

I can only speak for automotive but I assume (no data at all) that most of the companies I work with seek certification only because they want to open more market options. So, to that end there is some strategic thought process, "I need certification x to sell to company y". Beyond that no other thought.

Also, if it were not a customer requirement I assume that most of the companies would let their certifications lapse. I know that some smaller companies which supply us product let their certifications expire after we eliminated the requirement for certification from our system.

 

[AndyN]

Also, if it were not a customer requirement I assume that most of the companies would let their certifications lapse. I know that some smaller companies which supply us product let their certifications expire after we eliminated the requirement for certification from our system.

But would they let their QMS and compliance to ISO 9001 (etc) lapse as well? Don't forget that ONE reason for 3rd party certification is to reduce the burden of multiple customer audits - something which added cost but not much value in the auto industry!

Let's not also forget the added burden of multiple QMS documents prepared for multiple customers because their SQAs wanted it done 'their way' rather than letting the poor supplier get on with defining the system that worked!

But once again, we're confusing Certification with Implementation and, that's

 

[Sturmkind]

Interesting point Jason made about allowing certification to lapse if not required by customers. We have seen that in the Detroit/Windsor area for gauge houses which have been hammered by the ups & downs in the automotive industry.

Several gauge shops have let their 17025 registrations lapse because of the expense. However, it is a credit to the quality movement and certification in general that they remain 17025 compliant because they have moulded their systems and trained their people to meet those requirements and now . . . using those systems they developed has become a habit!

 

[adickerson]

But would they let their QMS and compliance to ISO 9001 (etc) lapse as well? Don't forget that ONE reason for 3rd party certification is to reduce the burden of multiple customer audits - something which added cost but not much value in the auto industry!

This is a good point! ISO9001, if nothing else, creates a basic set of assumptions on how a business will operate.

I think that we we talk about "Quality" to people not in the industry the assumption is we are talking about individual components and design. While that is important, I think Quality as it is used in the ISO9001 circles is about the improvement of business processes. No where in the standard does it say that a company has to make finely crafted precision equipment, the standard states you have to strive to meet customer requirements. A Quality product is one that meets specifications, it doesn't matter if the specification is for a dirty box of rusty nails.

In that way ISO 9001 is not about the product directly but rather the system used to sell the product. That is why ISO rules specifically state you can not call a individual product "ISO 9001" certified. ISO 9001 has far more to do with contract fulfillment then product engineering.

 

[AndyN]

However, it is a credit to the quality movement and certification in general that they remain 17025 compliant because they have moulded their systems and trained their people to meet those requirements and now . . . using those systems they developed has become a habit!

How would anyone know this? Seriously? As a new or potential customer, do I now have to bear the expense of auditing these suppliers? Do they have to now undergo interminable visits to see if they're maintaining their system? You claim they are in compliance, but how many people would believe such a statement, especially over time...

 

[Sturmkind]

AndyN;

An astute observation -the habits will last only as long as the stability of the personnel and leadership and will likely degrade over time. There is a lot to be said for inertia, though.

 

[AndyN]

AndyN;

An astute observation -the habits will last only as long as the stability of the personnel and leadership and will likely degrade over time. There is a lot to be said for inertia, though.

Thanks! I'm going to put the 'inertia' spin the other way - if it weren't for the 'specter' of the CB audits, organizations would drop management review/internal audits etc in a heartbeat. I'd venture to suggest that much of what purports to be Management Review is, in fact, a dog and pony show run by the quality manager and only manages to squeeze past a CB auditor because they never actually see the faces of the people in the review!

On the basis of experience, I'd also suggest that internal audits are so under supported and because they are, in the main held to minimize the risk of a 'major' that without a CB auditor checking on them, they'd be dropped faster than Management Review! We read, almost daily, about the trials and tribulations of those poor souls who are required to sustain a audit program without support!

The momentum comes from the Certification Audits - keeping the QMS creaking along! Without it, the thing would come to a stop pretty quickly once everyone's focus is gone!

 

[Colin]

Oh! Andy, its almost as though you have been watching over my shoulder when you talk about the standard of internal audits and management review that I regularly see.

It is so frustrating to see organisations getting away with doing just enough to 'get by' and as you suggest, no doubt 'fudging' much of the data in management review too.

One of the CB's I do work for have started to collect data on which auditors raise N/C's against which clauses - guess where my hot spots will be

Perhaps I am trying to crusade a bit but I just hope that if I keep nibbling away at them they will get the hint and do something better.