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

[Jen Kirley]

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.

The ISO standards have been moving toward the total quality (TQM) principles, and I'd say that in combining quality with safety and environment, the move toward TQM would be greater still. I'd like to think there will be a combined quality, safety and environmental standard, but I'm afraid I've become too cynical to believe we'll see it in 10 years.

For all the talk about the movement into knowledge management, work is still largely compartmentalized and controlled hierarchally. I do not see a cultural move toward employee empowerment, which can help make ISO systems and quality programs run more smoothly.

I agree with your view on North American safety. Small business (and nonmanufacturing) and its overall less formal process/system development overwhelms the more comprehensive, engineered aproach to processes and systems. Given that businesses have a good deal of input on ISO's end structure, we can expect pressure to keep the standard "less demanding" (as some would call it) even though it is arguably the right approach when considering skyrocketing Workmen Comp insurance rates that stifle growth. I was recently told of a small business that had to let go of its one employee because Workmen's Comp cost them $4K a year. Advancing safety controls and thus lowering statewide injury rates would lower the premiums, but it's a long climb to get there from here.

The U.S. is not characterized with a pragmatic mindset. Our (quick profit turnaround) Wall Street model does not inherently welcome business structures that require much effort to design and maintain. Even though the most successful businesses (Toyota is enjoying a lot of positive press these days) are held up and perhaps used as benchmarks, the resistance to TQM principles is, and I sadly predict will remain strong.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

ISO is not dying...

I find it amusing that the practitioners of Quality would believe that ISO is dying, rather than promoting it. You guys complain that Management loses interest and makes this stuff become "the flavor of the day," when you are more guilty of it yourselves. For Shame. You should promote what is one of the most significant Quality movements we have seen to date (18 years and counting). If the system doesn't accomplish all it should at your company, well promote it. If you are the Quality Manager, then be the evangelist. If you don't, who will?

To comment on a few of the specific questions in this thread:

I read a few days ago that there was an estimated 30% increase in global ISO 9001 based certifications in the last year to 630,000+, and ISO 14001 was reaching well into 6 figures as well (if I recall the number correctly). This was based on a survey extrapolation, not the ISO organization database, which is why it is approximate.

As to combining Quality, Environmental and Safety, the first two are already combined at many certified companies, and many companies already include safety into their ISO 14001 systems. Fully integrated systems are not far off. They are the reality at many companies large and small.

Ok, friends...I'll wait for the darts of indignation to start flying...(LOL)

...I've got a light week on my schedule... (seems no one wants to get audited Thanskgiving week, imagine that!).

Have a nice Thanksgiving, all.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I find it amusing that the practitioners of Quality would believe that ISO is dying, rather than promoting it. You guys complain that Management loses interest and makes this stuff become "the flavor of the day," when you are more guilty of it yourselves. For Shame. You should promote what is one of the most significant Quality movements we have seen to date (18 years and counting). If the system doesn't accomplish all it should at your company, well promote it. If you are the Quality Manager, then be the evangelist. If you don't, who will?

I think you're confusing disenchantment with registration with unhappiness with the standard. My own undocumented sense is that there is indeed (for a lot of reasons) the beginnings of a movement away from registration. I agree that when one is working in an ISO-registered company (or one with such aspirations) it's best not to undermine the system, but it is possible to communicate to management the advantages and disadvantages without making a big show of it.

I read a few days ago that there was an estimated 30% increase in global ISO 9001 based certifications in the last year

Citing just an increase without also including available statistics regarding proportion might be misleading. For example, if today the proportion of companies actually registered to all companies eligible for registration is, say, 40%, and in the following 12 months we see an increase in the number of registrations, there might also have been an increase in the number of eligible companies that offsets the increase in registrations.

Have a nice Thanksgiving, all.

Yes--happy Thanksgiving to all

 

[Bev D]

I think you're confusing disenchantment with registration with unhappiness with the standard.

Yes, exactly - I am currently going thru my 5th implementation - fortunately I am not the QA manager this time - and we're making the same old mistakes that undermine the effectiveness of a good QMS. We are putting processes in place that make it wasier for auditors but heck on the organization. Unfortunately those in QA are not well versed in ISO and so they must listen to the consultant (whose goal is to get us registered and so he wants to make things easy for the auditor argh!).

On top of the registration & audit game - we have not gotten away from customized customer audits and requirements, in fact it gets worse every year as ISO regististration has sub optimized quality management systems.

I am NOT against a strong and effective QMS - and the standard does describe ONE version of a good QMS. But I am very opposed to how organizations turn managing their QMS into maintaining registration. It's one thing to be an auditor, quite another to live with the consequences of the decisions made to appease the auditor. And with our current 'lean and mean' organizations - we'll never get away from that. (This includes the decison to hire a consultant rather than hire the necessarry expertise full time)

 

[ralphsulser]

Getting the certification to put on the wall has its merits from another standpoint. If top management wants to keeep the certificate on the wall then they are doing something positive to improve the system. I have seen things happen that got ignored before, and for the better. I think the mere act of a Regisration auditor coming in regularly is making top management proactive in implementation of continual improvement, and preventive actions. Also new lean projects and Kaizen event have taken place that were not happening pre-certification. The management rewviews have taken on a more serious tone and the top manager of the facility has mandated some improvements, and tracking of improvement actions.
So, there are benefits to getting the certification to put on the wall, because top management wants to keep it there.

 

[Rob Nix]

Please provide an emoticon so I can tell how serious that response was.

 

[Bev D]

yes, please do - management that is motivated by keeping a piece of paper on the wall?
that is less than the tail the wagging the dog.

 

[ralphsulser]

Yes, but at least it gets top management involvement. Don't you think that in and of itself is improvement (Hows that for gesturing)
They are now part of the improvement system...can't lose that cert. now can we.

 

[Bev D]

not really an improvement: management should be motivated to do teh right thing by wanting to do the right thing. 'Needing' to keep a piece of paper on the wall can - and will and does - drive the wrong, destructive behavior: from doing whatever the auditor wants becasuse it's easier to outright lying adn other unethical behavior ( which I have seen) just to keep the paper on the wall. A bit of supergluw is less harmful to the organization

 

[ralphsulser]

not really an improvement: management should be motivated to do teh right thing by wanting to do the right thing. 'Needing' to keep a piece of paper on the wall can - and will and does - drive the wrong, destructive behavior: from doing whatever the auditor wants becasuse it's easier to outright lying adn other unethical behavior ( which I have seen) just to keep the paper on the wall. A bit of supergluw is less harmful to the organization

Bev,
I have normally agreed with your comments. However maybe I didn't communicate the previous intent of the post properly. Keeping the cert. on the wall by being proactive and implementing QMS improvements can not be called "driving wrong, destructive behavior". These improvements are not done to appease the CB auditor, but rather make sure we are doing the things the standards require, and continuing to improve the operations measurables. Thus pursuing the improvement of profit. That is what top managers are measured on...profitabillity