ISO 9001:2000 Upgrade - What costs can a company expect to incur in the changes?

[energy]

Recently while reviewing transcripts of a chat session with ISO Experts I saw this question:
“What kind of costs can a company expect to incur in the changes?” I thought the answer rendered by the so-called expert was not the response the requester was looking for.
This was the answer: To XXX’s question re costs, my opinion is that an organization should not be doing things just to comply to the standard. There needs to be a business reason-does the work make business sense? In that sense there should be “no cost” associated with complying with ISO-just because we did not do something that we should have been doing is not a good reason for “blaming” ISO for being responsible for “extra cost.”
Is it me? Is it my contempt for any type of professional that does not answer a direct question? Is it a good answer and I’m just trapped in my own paradigm? (Like that, Kevin?) What a word! How would YOU answer it? With approx. numbers or a lecture about compliance costs shouldn’t be a consideration because you should have been in compliance?

 

[Marc]

Despite the rhetoric, ISO is (IMHO) a new yearly business expense. Period. :thedeal:

 

[energy]

There was another one, too!

Here's another typical response:

Question: What are the implications for companies regarding continual improvement? How will auditors know if enough improvement is going on?

After three time asking this was the response: To XXX, why worry about what an auditor would think regarding CI processes? If the organization is addressing corrective action, conduct meaningful management reviews and doing good internal audits, these processes should be a meaningful way to address CI.

Then a follow up answer: "And XXX, the organization must also have a policy that includes commitment to improvement and measurable objectives set with that commitment in mind."

Then another follow up answer: "More to XXX, what is enough is limited by the resources and prioritoes of the organization."

Finally, and this (IMHO) should have been the first and last: "And XXX, remember that it is the third party auditor's job to audit your process. The decision on what to improve and how much belongs to the organization implementing the standard."

I would wager that the last answer would be what the inquirer would have received several times over here in the Cove, almost immediately. And without all the posturing. I must be spoiled.

 

[Randy]

Finally, and this (IMHO) should have been the first and last: "And XXX, remember that it is the third party auditor's job to audit your process. The decision on what to improve and how much belongs to the organization implementing the standard."

I know I've said it a few times.

 

[energy]

Quite a few

Originally posted by Randy

I know I've said it a few times.

For sure. Most of the "experts" here have said the same thing without being continuously prompted and offered as an afterthought. But then, you didn't only have an hour to peddle your books while you answered questions.

 

[Marc]

OK - who's gonna get something like this set up here?

 

[energy]

My thoughts exactly

I thought about it, too and was thinking more on the lines of real time mock audits. You know, no time to research your answers. Just shoot from the hip like you would in real life.

 

[db]

Recently while reviewing transcripts of a chat session with ISO Experts I saw this question:
“What kind of costs can a company expect to incur in the changes?” I thought the answer rendered by the so-called expert was not the response the requester was looking for.
This was the answer: To XXX’s question re costs, my opinion is that an organization should not be doing things just to comply to the standard. There needs to be a business reason-does the work make business sense? In that sense there should be “no cost” associated with complying with ISO-just because we did not do something that we should have been doing is not a good reason for “blaming” ISO for being responsible for “extra cost.”
Is it me? Is it my contempt for any type of professional that does not answer a direct question? Is it a good answer and I’m just trapped in my own paradigm? (Like that, Kevin?) What a word! How would YOU answer it? With approx. numbers or a lecture about compliance costs shouldn’t be a consideration because you should have been in compliance?

A couple of things here. First, the answer is valid. We should not be concerned with cost if we are doing what makes sense. However, If you do not know the cost, how will you determine if it makes sense? Make sense? Just because it makes sense, you still would like to know what the cost is before taking the upgrade road.

I would probably have given the same basic answer, but followed it up with something that might give the person asking the question some ballpark on costs.

 

[Sam]

Recently while reviewing transcripts of a chat session with ISO Experts I saw this question:
“What kind of costs can a company expect to incur in the changes?” I thought the answer rendered by the so-called expert was not the response the requester was looking for.
This was the answer: To XXX’s question re costs, my opinion is that an organization should not be doing things just to comply to the standard. There needs to be a business reason-does the work make business sense? In that sense there should be “no cost” associated with complying with ISO-just because we did not do something that we should have been doing is not a good reason for “blaming” ISO for being responsible for “extra cost.”
Is it me? Is it my contempt for any type of professional that does not answer a direct question? Is it a good answer and I’m just trapped in my own paradigm? (Like that, Kevin?) What a word! How would YOU answer it? With approx. numbers or a lecture about compliance costs shouldn’t be a consideration because you should have been in compliance?

I agree. Vague answer. "Business reason - - No Cost"???? Does not equate.
Cost is very important, more important IMO ROI.