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

[energy]

It's just me

James,

However, it may just be a reaction rather than an action. We can take it on the chin but have a propensity for going for the gut in return. Sorry, but I just had to say it.

 

[Marc]

Decorum

I'd like to see everyone take things a bit less personal and for some (you know who you are) to put a bit less bite in their posts. The posts where you bandy back and forth brings the words bickering children to mind.<hr>As far as trade barriers, every country has them just as they have products and services which they internally subsidize. No country is without guilt. As far as I'm concerned, one cannot say they are 'clean' because they perceive their tarrifs are less that those of another country. If you have any - which every country does - you are 'guilty'.

As far as ISO being a trade barrier, that issue was raised back when ISO 900x was first released in 1987 by companies in the US - so it's a old claim. Japan and the pacific rim didn't pay much attention. They have a lot of barriers themselves and didn't get too upset over it and still aren't. On the other hand, they - especially Japan - had some good American advice during the late 1940's through the 1970's and didn't need ISO 9001 to tell them the basics of a good quality system. Even today, the pacific rim is just beginning to seriously get in on the act. See http://Elsmar.com/obsolete/isojapan.html

If you do the right thing you go back to the 1960's when the need arose for legal recourse (what else?) across borders as the common market in europe was forming. The end result was a committee in 1978 which released the series in 1987. It did not start out to have anything to do with quality. The vehicle they found (think defining responsibilities and consistency and records, particularly) was through what were 'quality' requirements / 'specifications' existing during that period - 1960ish through 1985.

One can interpret it as a trade barrier if one likes, however that was not the original intent nor do I believe it is significantly used as such per se. None the less, I believe one could apply the definition of trade barrier to it reasonably correctly.

On the other hand, so what if it is? As I said above, what country can claim they have no barriers to trade? People who use the arguement are typically reacting to a new or changed barrier (or what they perceive to be a barrier) by another country. They feel slighted because they perceive a new 'imbalance', yet they are as guilty of having barriers to trade as any other country.

There is not now, nor will there ever be (and I seldom use the word never) 'true' free trade. We all have our real and perceived barriers.

Jim: Good history lesson. Takes me back to my college days.

 

[energy]

The badge

There has been a lot of reference to just obtaining the badge, if that's all we want to do. I'm curious about this statement from the Secretariat of ISO/TC 176/SC 2...ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Documentation Requirements of ISO 9001:2000.

Chapter 7 . Demonstrating conformity with ISO 9001:2000.

For organizations wishing to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of ISO 9001:2000, for the purpose of certification/registration, contractural, or other reasons ......
To me that implies that striving for the badge is perfectly acceptable.
The badge comes with the certification/registration
The badge may be a contractural requirement
Other reasons may be to just obtain the badge. No?

 

[energy]

Re: Decorum

Marc said:

I'd like to see everyone take things a bit less personal and for some (you know who you are) to put a bit less bite in their posts.

Whatchu talkin bout, Willis? Understood!

 

[tarheel]

ISO Dead or Alive

Having been in this mess for 13 years, something has occured to me. Every company is paying someone, (plant manager, VP, etc) who is responsible for ensuring people follow procedures. Conceptually, it makes no sense to pay someone else to come in and look over the main mans shoulder. I believe you must have a system to follow, I just think if a company pays 6 figure salaries to a manager, he should be the guide making sure everyone does their job.

By using this screwed up system, managers are abdicating responsibilities. Look at it this way, we long ago in quality decided that every operator should be responsible for their own work instead of having a qc inspector look over their shoulder. I contend the analogy is the same. :thedeal:



Make a bet every day, you may be walking around lucky and not know it.

 

[Marc]

Yes, it really is that simple. Utilize redundancy only to the appropriate extent. A company that needs internal audits to improve and/or to make sure people are doing what they're supposed to has deeper problems that internal audits will control anyway. I won't start on third party audits.

 

[energy]

I apologize

Jim, I'm deleting my previous post because it may have too much "bite" in it. Have to watch that. But, I got an e-mail from a young impressionable new member (Q professional) saying things like, "Oh No, energy, does that mean that I have to scrap my flowcharts now because they are wrong? My whole system is put together already." I have it if you want it, without the name. Why did they ask me? Because they know it would be a straight answer without the embarassment of posting their concern. When I started here, I e-mailed some people for advice off the record, too. What you say and others, in regards to certain issues, is taken as gospel and condemnation of what they may have in place. There is a lot of respect for you intelligent people. I don't know why. Opps, too much bite. My response is simple. "Don't change a thing because this is a discussion forum and you have to look at all the posts. Keep your powder dry and do not take any post to the bank." I'm the same way. I regard your posts and others as "the way". But when I see what is just pie in the sky stuff, I get a little miffed. We would all like things better. But, we have to get through the day eating bread, not pie.

An aside: Tomorrow I'll be in class for 8 hours learning boating safety and getting a "badge" just so I can put a little electric motor on my 8ft duck boat without drowning myself. More state sponsored bull**** so that they can collect revenues. Like, don't tie yourself to the boat. Don't breathe the water. Just like ISO Registration?:truce:

 

[Marc]

Now that you two are done kissing and making up... Someone sent me this and is trying to find the study cited. Unfortunately (?), I believe it.

> Also just read an interesting study on the implementation
> of ISO 9000 by Hong Kong companies. Admittedly this was
> done prior to the release of 9001:2000 but it does show
> some disturbing things. Fewer than 20% of the surveyed
> companies were motivated to implement ISO 9000 to 'improve
> quality'; the vast majority were motivated by demand from
> their customers. Less than 5% reported any decrease in
> quality costs, while 24% complained that implementation
> was costly & time consuming. Some companies reported that
> operating costs had risen by 2% after implementing ISO.
> These results are similar to previous studies from the UK.

Also see http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4573

 

[energy]

Isn't it nice?

Marc said:
Now that you two are done kissing and making up...

Jim Said:Now, energy, don't you get all touchy-feely, sensitive and PC on us, you hear! You'd lose your appeal!

One day I'm a bickering child and the next day I'm a PC correct, sensitive, touchy feely hand licker (with a guy no less). What's a guy to do? It's not my sand box and I want to play in it. I'll just have to try harder to obtain a happy medium. How about alternate days? Like a Jeckyl and Hyde thing.

Well off to safe boating class. Yippee

 

[Marc]

Knowing you're a schitzophrenic psychotic, energy, we expect multiple personalities.

I'll just have to try harder to obtain a happy medium.

Try Madam Vespa over on Washington avenue.....