We need to change!
CarolX said: “ We carry almost no stock that isn't turned around in a week. But because this was in the standard, we had to come up with a procedure and forms.”
Where does it say in the standard that you have to carry out periodic checks on stock? I know that you need to have processes in place to ensure that stock hasn’t deteriorated but there is no need to have a procedure if you have records that show the stock is all used up before it has a chance to go off … and steel? I think your auditor has pushed the envelope a bit far.
peterd said: “The accreditation itself does not demonstrate anything to do with product conformity, only that processes are in place to address non-conformance, internal audit etc. Taking the ISO1994 this is all that was demonstrated. You had a procedure and you could demonstrate that you worked to it.” And “The ISO2000 standard took that one stage further and added the elements of measuring you processes, setting objectives, making sure your staff are competent and demanding more involvement and commitment from the management of the company.”
This is my point. If the system doesn’t mean anything in terms of product then surely all the measures in Peter’s post would be going the wrong way and the system would be non ISO 9001.2000 compliant because of failures to corrective and preventive action. So the system should pick up on the product “blips” and fix them if it is to mean anything.
RC Beyette said: “Because, even in this technical society, we are in business only to make money. Only now is "quality" entering the picture of manufacturing courses (at least in the ones I took not so long ago). And the quality course is still separate from both my manufacturing AND business courses. Only when quality is integrated into the courses, will the "next generation" of business leaders understand that quality can help make money.”
Again as I understand ISO the money should follow the system. If you have been having product problems and correct them using systems then the bottom line should improve, or is it me and I am naïve. I agree totally with the education line. The only problem is who is doing the teaching a nd what slant do they put on it, I remember when I was finishing my degree we had lectures on Production and the lecturer was implying that we professional engineers had to beware the systems guys who would document us into submission.
RC Beyette said: ”My company, as part of the transition to the 2000 standard, began the justification of all the documentation. Streamlined the documented processes. Revamped our training programme. Introduced new tools that could work within our management system. Began focusing not only on the Customer, but our Employees, the Community, the Suppliers, the Shareholders. In essence we moved well beyond ISO 9001 and have taken ISO 9004 to heart.”
Again, great news. To my mind this sounds like a proper ISO 9001.2000 system, not written with the standard in mind (and the long list of shalls) but around what the company does and how it wants to describe it.
Randy Stewart said: “ I agree with the non-value added comment and add that; once the standard has one subclause seen as non-value added the whole relativity is thrown out.
We have focused on making any system to be compliant with the standard as long as we address the "shalls". Even then it is must be "bought off" by the external auditor.
Just look at the rush to get job descriptions in place. Company's had operated for years without them. Some had skill set compiled for positions but not a 'job description'. So what did they do? Put away the skill sets that had been developed based on experience and went to a job description because of what the auditor wanted to see. You just threw a wet blanket on getting most changes put through.
Everyone was looking for the piece of paper to produce for "objective evidence" and not for the approval of the customer.”
And this is the problem with the whole process. Systems written for auditors are not the same as systems that work for companies … there I’ve said it! We need to change the whole ethos of registration so that the auditors work for us and not the other way round. The problems are to get them to buy into this and for the senior managers to recognize that to be able to do this we have to spend time on implementing the right systems and not get a quick win of a cert on the wall by addressing the shalls. There are no subcaluses that are non value added, only ones that do not apply.
