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

[Eric Pollard]

Given that, how do I/we avoid the trap? Should we select the registrar first or find a consultant to move us in the right direction? What are you recommendations for So Cal based registrars adn consultnats with aerospace experience?

Thanks.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Given that, how do I/we avoid the trap? Should we select the registrar first or find a consultant to move us in the right direction? What are you recommendations for So Cal based registrars adn consultnats with aerospace experience?

Thanks.

One of my colleagues is located in the San Diego area. She is very competent, and well qualified with aerospace experience. Her name is Sandy Wichelecki and she can be reached at sandy at lookingglassmkt.com.
She would be able to help you or answer questions.

 

[Citizen Kane]

Hi !

I also agree that it's time for things to change. And not because we exausted and eliminated all the posibilities of the standard. But because we were only faking ourselvs with it (or most parts of it).

In almost all companies I've analyzed over the years, I can say that ISO = documents and only that. No mentality, no actions, no understanding. Just paper work - and trully this summarizes all. And this things I saw in big organizations with Q departments, managers over managers over managers, a lot of Q policies on the walls, a lot of guys analyzing the others with no real knowledge of the other's work.

For me, this was a dissapointment and everytime I've hoped to see different. And, when I saw difference, it was not due to the standard or the teached view over quality.

Even the start - the iso documentation itself it's so paperwork-like, useless abstractization - that we must translate in reality for the people to understand, so that afterwards to be audited on the abstract again !

Where is the simplicity and from this efficience ? Look on this toyota/kaizen way - not many chapters, but common sense models. True, about it's efficiency we can discuss also. But the main key point remains: simple and effective.

The general operators/employees impression in the plants I've been to is that ISO is too academic or for scollars. So, how then could we pretend that our people are involved, have a quality mind set, are pro-active - and so on - when in fact they dislike the system and don't understand it ?

I think, for the sake of standardization and generalization we forget that this ISO should be for humans, for their understanding. Not for programable machines or PCs.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

.... But because we were only faking ourselvs ...

In almost all companies I've analyzed over the years, I can say that ISO = documents and only that. No mentality, no actions, no understanding. Just paper work - and trully this summarizes all.

Wow, really? Are you speaking as an auditor, or an internal quality person? How many companies have you seen, and was it in the 90's or in recent years?

I got into ISO as an auditor in 1997. Since then I have audited approx 250-300 companies (multiple industries), approx 1100+ audits. My observations would strongly disagree with your view.

Back then, I agree the ISO standard seemed to misdirect people into a focus on standardizing documentation. But it did not have to, and quickly many companies began to find their way toward improvement. Especially in automotive, but in other industries also.

However, in that period of time, we saw a drop in PPMs from the 1000's to now where 10-100 is common.

Delivery improved to where high 90's is not uncommon. Many automotive suppliers run at 100%.

Productivity increased significantly. In the 1990's, yr over yr productivity gains were a mean of 3% /yr. Then they ramped up to an avg of 5-6% /yr. Alan Greenspan famously predicted that they must revert to the mean. But he did not realize the impact that technology and quality improvements were having on the country.

These 3 things have contributed billions to the American economy alone. It was not all ISO, but you cannot discount that it played a significant role.

And this things I saw in big organizations with Q departments, managers over managers over managers, a lot of Q policies on the walls, a lot of guys analyzing the others with no real knowledge of the other's work.

For me, this was a dissapointment and everytime I've hoped to see different. And, when I saw difference, it was not due to the standard or the teached view over quality.

I agree that big companies have not completely gotten over this hump. But they have made good progress, and their metrics have improved significantly as well.

Even the start - the iso documentation itself it's so paperwork-like, useless abstractization - that we must translate in reality for the people to understand, so that afterwards to be audited on the abstract again !

Where is the simplicity and from this efficience ? Look on this toyota/kaizen way - not many chapters, but common sense models. True, about it's efficiency we can discuss also. But the main key point remains: simple and effective.

The general operators/employees impression in the plants I've been to is that ISO is too academic or for scollars. So, how then could we pretend that our people are involved, have a quality mind set, are pro-active - and so on - when in fact they dislike the system and don't understand it ?

True. But it is up to managers, trainers, auditors and consultants to help people get past this. Few people read ISO 9004. It was a brilliant document and would save companies thousands of dollars. It should be a requirement to read the d**n thing!

For those companies who have not yet experienced this degree of improvement, and there are still many, find a good consultant who understands this, and learn. Companies hire consultants on price, and lawyers based on performance. What is wrong with that model?

The thing the alternative programs like Toyota and Six Sigma did right was to require training. ISO made a mistake in leaving that optional.

I think, for the sake of standardization and generalization we forget that this ISO should be for humans, for their understanding. Not for programable machines or PCs.

We agree fully on that point!

Have a good day.

 

[qualityboi]

ISO9001 definitely is not cresting for our customers. Although our own top management would most likely like to see it gone. We had two new sites open in China where we had to jump through hoops to get them certified to 9001 or HP, Dell and IBM, our top three customers WOULD NOT accept product from those sites. In interfacing with these companies the 9001 QMS is just the beginning, and then they implement their own quality requirements as an addendum. Not cresting, stronger than ever. In my opinion, those who think that they can integrate their QMS into operations and have a Toyota like approach to quality are pretty much fooling themselves or just plain arrogant, companies that can successfully and have an effective QMS without certification, and be taken seriously by their market, are few and far between.

 

[JaneB]

How many companies have you seen, and was it in the 90's or in recent years?

Yes, something I'd be interested to know too. And in what position were you when you were 'observing'? Were you an employee or a consultant? If those have been your only 'observations', they are limited and thus presumably skewed.

My observations would strongly disagree with your view.

Mine also, and this across say 250 companies in many fields.

For those companies who have not yet experienced this degree of improvement, and there are still many, find a good consultant who understands this, and learn. Companies hire consultants on price, and lawyers based on performance. What is wrong with that model?

Good advice.

In my opinion, those who think that they can integrate their QMS into operations and have a Toyota like approach to quality are pretty much fooling themselves or just plain arrogant, companies that can successfully and have an effective QMS without certification, and be taken seriously by their market, are few and far between.

Yes, you're certainly right there. In all my years of consulting I ever came across one company who had a pretty good QMS without certification... but who also found there some further improvements to be gained through getting certification and were happy to find them. The majority are, as you
say, just fooling themselves.

 

[JaneB]

We had two new sites open in China where we had to jump through hoops to get them certified to 9001 or HP, Dell and IBM, our top three customers WOULD NOT accept product from those sites.

In their place, I wouldn't either.

 

[Marc]

This thread was started in 2002

Bear in mind this conversation (thread) was started 19th April 2002.... Over 8 years ago.

 

[JaneB]

Re: This thread was started in 2002

Bear in mind this conversation (thread) was started 19th April 2002.... Over 8 years ago.

Indeed it was. And it still won't die!

 

[rfjuice]

On topic: The company I am employed for has been open since 1993. We only have 1 customer out of 50+ that require us to be ISO. So in my place of employment, ISO has always just seemed like a pain. It is always just for that ONE customer(which isn't great anyways).

Nothing like an undead thread, eh?

In my opinion, those who think that they can integrate their QMS into operations and have a Toyota like approach to quality are pretty much fooling themselves or just plain arrogant, companies that can successfully and have an effective QMS without certification, and be taken seriously by their market, are few and far between.

Toyota and "approach to quality" don't belong in the same sentence anymore. Recalling over 5.3 million vehicles.....sounds like that "real good" kind of quality.