Found this recently and would like comments.
ISO 9000 and other quality standards don't work.
Not a very popular sentiment in this forum I bet, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.
I'm owner and manager of three companies that have been exposed to a range of quality standards. We were registered to ISO 9002, recognised as an Investor in People, (three times) and registered to the Scottish Quality Management System (a specialist training and education quality standard). After 3 years and some £100,000 (sterling) later, I'm convinced that the whole exercise has been a waste of time and money. This is why:
ISO 9000 focuses every ones' attention on internal processes rather than on external results. - "Say what you do and do what you say" is the basis of the Standard, but who says that what you do is OK? It's often said that ISO 9000 is a standard for crap - but consistent crap. It is a conformance standard, not a performance standard and tells you nothing about the standard of the product, or service, only that it's consistent. I can't honestly say that the services that we have provided have improved one iota as a result of all these quality initiatives.
ISO 9000 focuses on minimum standards. - What about marketing and adding value? OK, so an ISO 9000 company may be able to promise you x number of defects per million widgets, but what about innovation? While they are spending all their time with SPC etc, someone else is out there innovating. And if you do innovate and it's not in the procedures, then God help you.
ISO 9000 develops its own cumbersome bureaucracy. - Just look at the subject headings of this forum. Is this bureaucracy, or is this bureaucracy? Most people in an ISO 9000 organisation do their job and then do the paperwork for ISO. If they want to change anything, forget it, 'cause it's too much hassle to go thru the system of document control, etc.
ISO 9000 is a quick fix solution. - Big customer writes to you one day and says if you don't have ISO 9000 by x date we won't deal with you. So you get ISO 9000. Probably costs you a lot of money for consultants, nothing changes except your cost base, you deliver exactly the same service as before, only now more expensive, but your client is happy because he's got a "quality" supplier. Your staff continue to do the same job, then they do the ISO paperwork. (see above)
ISO 9000 stultifies innovation in the corporate culture. - Once it's implemented the ISO system becomes sacrosanct. How many times have you heard "I can't do that' it's not in the system."
ISO 9000 delegates quality to quality "experts" and managers rather than to real people. - The only person without any direct responsibility for quality is the Quality Manager. S/he makes sure that everyone else does it. Then of course the "experts" from the certification body come along and tell you how you should do it. You ask yourself (never them) what they actually know about your business, but in the end you do what they say anyway, even when you believe it to be wrong.
ISO 9000 does not demand radical reform. - If you study all the Gurus of quality, Deming, Juran, Crosby, et al, they all sing off the same hymn sheet - quality is about change. Monitoring operations/services, identifying improvements, changing to meet customer requirements, etc. ISO 9000 goes against the grain of this, 'cause to change anything involves a mountain of paperwork
ISO 9000 does not demand changes in management attitudes. - OK, commitment from the top and all that, but quality is a journey, not a destination and most CEOs get paid by (short-term) results. Quality pay-back is a highly questionable concept.
ISO 9000 does not demand new relationships with outside partners. - Partnership resourcing, strategic alliance, JIT, etc. forget it. ISO 9000 is about navel gazing. Demand ISO 9000 conformance from everyone else, but don't give a damn whether or not they can add value to your business. Perhaps more to the point, ignore business's that could add value, but don't have ISO 9000.
All the other Standards are the same. They are not interested in the final product/service/employee relations, they are only interested in the process. For example the Investor in People Standard (only applies in the UK. Count yourselves lucky all those elsewhere, but watch out, it could catch on internationally like BS5750/ISO9000) expects you to treat the development of everyone in the organisation equally. It doesn't take account of the differences in importance of the role, or of the individual's attitude to the job, all internal navel gazing.
After this diatribe, my point is quite simple. Can anyone give me a model for the success of a Quality Management System? A model that says if you do x, y and z, you will achieve a, b and c. In other words, something measurable. ( Remember the old quality maxim: if you can't measure it, you can't manage it.) All the books, articles and forums such as this extol the virtues of ISO 9000 and other standards. Surely someone out there is asking why the Emperor is wearing no clothes? Or am I alone?
[This is not mine. I am only looking for comments] Don
[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 05 December 1999).]