Is ISO 9001 Cresting? Is a rebellion in the works?

[BubbaDog56]

Also known as the "concrete life preserver standard." This only works if you ask for cr*p and are happy to accept the duly delivered cr*p. I don't know many customers like that - perhaps you can give me some names I have a pyramid scheme I would like to get off the ground.

Paul,

I am in agreement with you, both functionally and philosophically. I was just reiterating qualeety's earlier comment about how it seems so many companies equate quality to simply having ISO procedures rather than what I consider a true 'ISO attitude'. And to reiterate a later comment regarding cr*p, no one wants to accept it, but often 'falls into it' by having to accept sub-standard product due to other demands. And it can become habit, due to lack of resources to survey and qualify acceptable vendors. So the supplier CAR gets written and filed and everyone's happy from a documentation standpoint. And cr*p keeps coming in the door, and the SCAR cycle repeats and repeats and repeats.

The "rush for ISO" brings the people in who have to get the standard and have to cut corners to implement quickly. This means

• over documented systems to hide lack of knowledge
• off the peg systems not aligned with the business
  [*]people desperate for the registration instead of being in tune with the principles

Again, no disagreement here. Again, many a company has a values statement that trumpets quality on paper but doesn't back it with actions - "We need to get that ISO thing because the customer demands it"

And then who gets the short end of the shrift when the system doesn't work? "We have all these ISO procedures written, how come we're still producing cr*p? What the h*ll is quality doing around here?" They still want the QC/Quality Cops to inspect in the quality, rather than embracing the initially difficult path of true quality management. Penny wise, pound foolish.

So you hunker down and do what you can, pick your battles and try to effect a culture change one convert at a time knowing how good things could be if there was top-down support.

I'm just expressing some frustrations, and am going to give it a rest. It's Friday and I'm going to be happy, d*mmit!

B'Dog

 

[Paul Simpson]

Paul,

I'm just expressing some frustrations, and am going to give it a rest. It's Friday and I'm going to be happy, d*mmit!

B'Dog

Too true. I am going to get myself the right side of some good old english ale in a couple of hours time. I agree with all the frustration points but keep trying not to let myself just accept them. If we don't stand for improvement what do we stand for?

Have a good weekend, BubbaDog.

 

[Dumisani Zikhali]

Cove

I worked for a automotive company(Tier 1 supplier) about 9 years ago and got my first exprience of implementing ISO 9000 with one of the four divisions in the company. The process did not take off smoothly because of the emergance of QS 9000 at that time. I later joined a company in the wire industry to implement ISO 9000. The results and benefits were phenomenal in this sense that, this company did not have any formal system of managing quality. When I placed all the kits or requirements of ISO 9000, I got a resounding pat on my back for a job well done, merely on internal considerations and benefits.

Put yourself in this position, if you formed your company would you implement ISO 9000? My answer to this question is yes because ISO 9000 requirements provide a lot of internal benefits alone, probably I would not seek certification by a registrar and pursue the route of self declaration.

Dumisani

 

[BubbaDog56]

And life goes on....

Too true. I am going to get myself the right side of some good old english ale in a couple of hours time. I agree with all the frustration points but keep trying not to let myself just accept them. If we don't stand for improvement what do we stand for?

Have a good weekend, BubbaDog.

Paul,

Had an early out on Friday, and got myself into a couple of pints of IPA . Two days away, and ready to save the world again .

B'Dog

 

[karime]

It´s a fact

Hi.
I´ve worked in Mexico with ISO the last 9 years. I think is a very good quality tool. But most of companies I know do not agree with me. For them has been a very heavy load, so when :2000 arrived those who had the option of not getting a certificate did not think it twice. The feeling was already here and I have to blame 2 things:
1. Many managers (at least here northern of Mexico) rather not to plan, hate documentation, and do not like to be "controled" by a system that will record (and show) everything that is decided. Poor quality focous.
2. Many consultans and certification companies has not been serious about their responsibility as qualiy culture pomoters and has transformed quality systems to something that any one can get with only money.

For me it is sad, but around, there are few companies trying to do the right thing!!

Regards

 

[cncmarine]

Hi.
1. Many managers (at least here northern of Mexico) rather not to plan, hate documentation, and do not like to be "controled" by a system that will record (and show) everything that is decided. Poor quality focous.

If thats the case then they will not be in business for long.

 

[Justin]

Lastly I have to say something about Energy's comment to the effect that this is a European plot to try and prevent US imports - the comment does nothing to move the debate on nor does it do anything for US / EU relations. I had enjoyed reading his comments over the last few months, I can only hope for more reasoned arguments in the future.

I think energy's comment actually deserves some merit. I have been dealing with the european and asian markets for over 15 years. ISO was the EU requirement for US goods, as well as the asian requirement.

Is ISO peaking? I think not. It has evolved into AS 9100. Which, btw, is another european requirement for US goods.

Intellectually I know it is not a plot to prevent US imports, but it's a good conspiracy theory.

On a side note. I have also visited many european and asian manufacturing facilities. If we (US) want to compete in a world market, we are going to have to implement a solid QMS. If you doubt this, just look at the american motor companies. We are being crushed by our overseas competition.

Rock On Covers It's all what you make it.

We all knew, (or someone should have told us), what a thankless job this was going to be.

 

[cncmarine]

AS was invented by the AAQG.



Please elaborate on a "solid QMS"????

 

[Bogie]

Here's one theory I have: Maybe management is rebelling against ISO 9000 in part because some of the things it requires are not viewed as bringing added value to the company, but rather additional work that is considered unnecessary for that particular organization. As just one small example I've heard, management has no problems doing management reviews at intervals they feel are appropriate, but they resent having the standard insist that some type of records be maintained as evidence of the review. "Unnecessary work" in their view, yet it is mandated by ISO. Do it or else....

Mike S.

My Quality Manager and I made the Management review and its record as easy as possible. Our record consists of the PowerPoint presentation that was the central point of the review. Add to that the fact that I sent out a copy of the meeting minutes afterward (in email), and you get easy record keeping. I placed a copy of both the minutes and the PowerPoint presentation on the company server so that no matter which member of management was asked, that person could readily produce the records.

Apparently that was good enough for our auditors as we just recently passed our first certification audit.

From my perspective, part of my job is to make all parts of ISO qualification (and adherance) as painless as possible for management. With the record-keeping approach outlined, that part was pretty painless for me too.

 

[piney]

While the future of the ISO 9001:2000 QMS may be uncertain, there will in the future eventually be some "system" where the concepts apply to quality, safety, and environment exist as one. It is my opinion that all three of concepts are about the same thing -changing people’s mindset.

For example: If you engineer a process properly, the end result will be the fact that you will have less of a need for strict procedures, process controls, PPE, etc. You will need these things in place only if the engineering somehow fails, in which case you would go through the normal process of nonconformance and root cause analysis and corrective action to eliminate reoccurrence------continual improvement.

e.g. in Britain – the safety mindset is completely different. If there is a process where ear protection is required, the goal is to engineer the process to eliminate the need for ear protection. You then have people wear ear protection ONLY as a last resort, and as a fail safe method to protect in the event that the engineering somehow fails. In North America we say here - you wear these ear plugs, these safety boots, and these safety glasses because the environment we have provided for you is not safe. When people get injured on the job, it is completely the fault of the organization they work for because the company has not gone the extra mile to engineer and ensure the environment they are working in is safe. These same principles apply to quality.

I would say that in the next 10 years there will systems evolving that encompass all three: quality, safety, and environment. When you think on this level, the result can only be the progressive continual improvement in the pursuit of excellence.