ISO 9001 - Gigantic waste or Beneficial? Why does ISO 9001 exist? Got data/facts?

[Ilias]

Catch up

Well, thanks to you all for replying to my post of some days ago, I think it shows the reslience of this group when it comes to talking about positive & negative aspents of our work. I will just try and answer some comments that were asked of me:

1. Roxanne, I understand there has been a reduction in ISO 9000 certification in mature countries. John Seddon published some work about it recently that was taken up in the press. I believe the article is still on his website somewhere. If I look around me I would have to admin that ISO 9000 is hardly a topic that is heard about much in management circles, nor is it ever the subject of management magazines that I have read. Ontop of this much of the research on ISO 9000 effectiveness appears not to show a true causal link between ISO registration and operational improvements. There was some comments by someone called Gavin Dick in the Telegraph in the UK. BSI in the UK cannot seem to show any real research on the matter.

2. Claes, I would like to discuss the TPS but it is amazing how difficult it is to find true information on it, or talk to someone knowledgeable. It seems there was a chance with Damian, and I have sent him an email, but no reply yet. I am still learning about this, and reading books on Lean. It also seems that it is a concept that is best grasped by doing. A catch 22 situation of sorts. So unfortunately I am unable to contribute much on Lean. What I do understand is that it seems to be diametrically opposed to a standard of any type, because you need the theory and method, then do Lean. No standard can ever supply this and restricts this. ISO 9000 will not change the management thinking and that is what is needed in my opinion.

3. Wes Bucey, yes I admin I am becoming a fan of John Seddon. This started when I believe a learned to look at ISO 9000 after reading his book "The Caase Against ISO 9000". It is clear that he is far cleverer than I am and has done more research. I cannot hope to match his abilities to look at something like ISO 9000 and see it for what it is from a very unusual point of view. So I am not afraid to follow his ideas. I can see no wrong in this, and I also admire others like Mintzberg, etc. I still read everything critically and make my own mind up. What did surprise me more was that I understand John Seddon does not make any financial gain from denegrating ISO 9000, he just sees it as a total waste of time, and distracts people from doing real improvement. Don't forget the principles of ISO 9000 were developed during the 1940's to fix a short term need. I find ISO 9000 stifling and rigid when compared to real business today.

4. Rachel, I suggested you read the book as I note from your profile that your experience of ISO 9000 and operations is rather short compared to me, and you are clearly young and eager, and you are looking for a challenge. My suggestion was not meant to be anything other than that. I am glad of people who nudged me in certain directions when I felt too comfortable.

5. Jay Oliphant, if only organisations would take the standard and make it their own how many of organisations who are regisetered do this? 5% is my guess. So when I look at ISO 9000, and other standards, I see the reality of the situation and not just the theory. And looking at the big three automotive pushing their suppliers into QS 9000/ TS 16949, and it is clear I think to all of us that coersing a supplier to implement a standard will drive the wrong behaviour - that is to get the certificate. It all seems too primitive to me, there are more intelligent ways of doing business.

As for Six Sigma, don't get me started on that excuse for management control. Improvements can be justified to any programme, I have done that a few times in my time, and I know that they were not really due to the fad but clear hard work despite the fad. That is my experience anyway.

Jay, I think you hit on a good point. Are we all going to really truly criticise something that is giving many of us employment at the moment? I am just imagining myself going into my bosses office and suggesting that I resign because I suggest that the managers get their act together, manage the system directly, and leave ISO 9000 alone. Like in the Telegraph with BSI in the UK arguing that ISO 9000 is a good thing for business, and having no data or research to show it. They are making money from it so what are they going to do?

Interesting thread,

Ilias

 

[qualitytrec]

I am just imagining myself going into my bosses office and suggesting that I resign because I suggest that the managers get their act together, manage the system directly, and leave ISO 9000 alone.

I am considering this course of action of course I am moving on to something else. I do not think that this company will keep the system going when I am gone so why implement the parts that are just baggage anyway.
Mark

 

[Wes Bucey]

For the record:

Certainly, the certification process is fundamentally flawed - how can you pass/fail audit a management system? Dr. Juran called it "instutionalized mediocrity" and by and large the evidence I have seen within suppliers I have visited (yes, its anecdotal but the performance of those companies is not) supports that assertion.

Ergo: not Wes's quote. Actually, I don't remember reading that quote or a paraphrase in Juran. I'd appreciate someone refreshing my memory to the exact quote and context, if it exists.

I liken the ISO9k2k issue to a good software program which has been corrupted by some "gremlin." The software manufacturer almost always recommends:
"Delete program and re-install!"

In some (by no means all) organizations, the concepts and methodologies behind ISO9k2k have been misinterpreted and allowed to go off on a tangent which causes outsiders to attribute the misdeeds to a fatal flaw in ISO9k2k.

Alas, these same organizations who go "off kilter" are able to find a registrar (or merely a single auditor) who is an "enabler" and actually abets the misinterpretation and subsequent misimplementation by issuing a "registered" certificate.

Is this any different than the supremely obese man who couldn't get out of bed but still managed to eat tens of pounds of food per day? The "enabler" bought and served the food.

Sometimes, someone has to have the tough love to just say, "NO!"

 

[Greg B]

1. Roxanne, I understand there has been a reduction in ISO 9000 certification in mature countries. John Seddon published some work about it recently that was taken up in the press. I believe the article is still on his website somewhere. If I look around me I would have to admin that ISO 9000 is hardly a topic that is heard about much in management circles, nor is it ever the subject of management magazines that I have read. Ontop of this much of the research on ISO 9000 effectiveness appears not to show a true causal link between ISO registration and operational improvements. There was some comments by someone called Gavin Dick in the Telegraph in the UK. BSI in the UK cannot seem to show any real research on the matter.

Ilias,
I live in a mature country and Yes our governing body (QSA) has stated that according to their records (article in latest online Magazine) companies are leaving the registration merry go round ...but they are being replaced. The market is NOT growing but rather has plateaued. I think we could all discuss the many and varied reasons that companies leave behind registration.

2. Claes, I would like to discuss the TPS but it is amazing how difficult it is to find true information on it, or talk to someone knowledgeable. It seems there was a chance with Damian, and I have sent him an email, but no reply yet. I am still learning about this, and reading books on Lean. It also seems that it is a concept that is best grasped by doing. A catch 22 situation of sorts. So unfortunately I am unable to contribute much on Lean. What I do understand is that it seems to be diametrically opposed to a standard of any type, because you need the theory and method, then do Lean. No standard can ever supply this and restricts this. ISO 9000 will not change the management thinking and that is what is needed in my opinion.

Why the discussion on who's management system is better? IMHO I think this thread has got it all wrong. Step away from the terms used (ISO, TPS, TQM etc) and look at what they are trying to achieve. We have a successful business and we are certified by and to a standard. We did not build our business around the standard rather the standard lets our customers know that the the business processes we have in place are equal to or better than the laid down standard. We did not design our processes around the clauses! Our company has learned from Ford, Juran, Deming, Toyota, Ishikawa etc etc but it has learned this through the collective skills, education and experiences of our workforce. They have designed systems and the processes within from their life skills and education (The Registration acknowledges these). We have never tried to build our business around the standard. Please remember that the standard (IMO) is a criteria for a license it is NOT the TOOL for improvement. I hope this makes sense.

3. Wes Bucey, yes I admit I am becoming a fan of John Seddon. This started when I believe a learned to look at ISO 9000 after reading his book "The Case Against ISO 9000". It is clear that he is far cleverer than I am and has done more research. I cannot hope to match his abilities to look at something like ISO 9000 and see it for what it is from a very unusual point of view. So I am not afraid to follow his ideas. I can see no wrong in this, and I also admire others like Mintzberg, etc. I still read everything critically and make my own mind up. What did surprise me more was that I understand John Seddon does not make any financial gain from denegrating ISO 9000, he just sees it as a total waste of time, and distracts people from doing real improvement. Don't forget the principles of ISO 9000 were developed during the 1940's to fix a short term need. I find ISO 9000 stifling and rigid when compared to real business today..

ISO9000 is not a 'real business'!!! It is not even a tool! How you meet the standard is up to you and your company. The tools you use to achieve the standard are up to you. The amount of times that I have heard people say 'ISO has not fixed my business' still astounds me. How can it fix your business? They are like the instructions you get with 'Flat Pack' furniture...The instructions are only useful to people that can use them i.e have the necessary tools to implement them. Read Hex Key = Business Plan, Spanner = Trained Workforce, Screwdriver = Process Control etc etc

4. Rachel, I suggested you read the book as I note from your profile that your experience of ISO 9000 and operations is rather short compared to me, and you are clearly young and eager, and you are looking for a challenge. My suggestion was not meant to be anything other than that. I am glad of people who nudged me in certain directions when I felt too comfortable..

I'm sorry if this sounds as if I am defending Rachel (I'm know she can defend herself) but I wish, at the same age, that I had the same common sense, education, knowledge and grasp of this tangled web that she has. I do, however, believe that Ilias was just trying to offer Rachel advice.

5. Jay Oliphant, if only organisations would take the standard and make it their own how many of organisations who are registered do this? 5% is my guess. So when I look at ISO 9000, and other standards, I see the reality of the situation and not just the theory. And looking at the big three automotive pushing their suppliers into QS 9000/ TS 16949, and it is clear I think to all of us that coercing a supplier to implement a standard will drive the wrong behaviour - that is to get the certificate. It all seems too primitive to me, there are more intelligent ways of doing business..

Ilias, I can't fault this at all as it relates to the previous part of my post. It would seem however that the major car companies are to blame for the expansion of some of these problems by imposing THEIR business processes on others. Six Sigma was born from Motorola and everyone (that uses it) expects it to do for their business what it did for Motorola. I think HP has a very good system as does Toyota....then again I think Roxane and Stew and Rachel have excellent systems (I get this from thier posts)

As for Six Sigma, don't get me started on that excuse for management control. Improvements can be justified to any programme, I have done that a few times in my time, and I know that they were not really due to the fad but clear hard work despite the fad. That is my experience anyway..

Six Sigma has it's place and I am sure that the people that use it believe in it. I personally do not have much faith in it and I know my management would not either (especially the cost)

Jay, I think you hit on a good point. Are we all going to really truly criticise something that is giving many of us employment at the moment? I am just imagining myself going into my bosses office and suggesting that I resign because I suggest that the managers get their act together, manage the system directly, and leave ISO 9000 alone. Like in the Telegraph with BSI in the UK arguing that ISO 9000 is a good thing for business, and having no data or research to show it. They are making money from it so what are they going to do?

I walked into my boss’s office the other week, the new HR manager was there and she asked me what I expected to be doing in five years. I said that hopefully, I would still be employed here but doing another job. She asked why? Was I unhappy with my current role? I said NO. I saw my role disappearing because if I do it right EVERYONE should be working together in the integrated system, which is our business and they want need a deicated Quality Guy but rather a Business Analyst or Improvement Manager etc

BSI has to develop the tools to help us develop our businesses. Not preach the standard. I have found since 9K2K that our registrar (80% of Australian Market) has changed their tune. No longer do they solely audit to the standard but they have realised that they have to evolve and meet their customer’s requirements. We want them to gauge our business, give us tools to help etc etc. Not Gimmicks or fads but strong business proven tools.

I will now get off my Soap Box. It is late in the day here and If I sound a bit miffed rest assured it is not with you personally. We have had similar discussion right throughout the COVE but it seems that when people KNOCK ISO they never offer an alternative. Damien tried (TPS) and we, again, listened but AGAIN, NO TRUE ALTERNATIVE WAS OFFERED.
PS: What works for Toyota will not necessarily work for someone else

 

[Marc]

Notice something? This thread now displays a proper and construcive discussion Kudos to Allan & Carl for bending it in the right direction....

I have almost been shocked... I was sorta waiting for a blowup. Makes me happy!

EDIT ADD: This is what happened to 'damien'...

Reporting-MTA: dns; Elsmar.com
Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost
Arrival-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:03:24 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; [email protected]
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; mx1.mail.yahoo.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to [email protected] cannot be delivered. This account has been disabled or discontinued [#102]. - mta445.mail.scd.yahoo.com
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:03:25 -0400 (EDT)

He's long gone.

 

[J Oliphant]

more thoughts

Ilias,

so you know I am young and eager,too. I have 5 years experience in quality and am 30 years old.
Also, thanks for the advice about reading seddon's book, but it can be challenging to find books. with a new family (4 / 2 year old) there isn't much $$$ for books-so if I can't snag it at the library , it will have to wait...
so the big point*
Sumarize favored authors concepts and do not judge me on whether I seem young , inexperienced- judge me on What I say.

Great Post Greg B . And I agree with what you said.

HOw is "The organization shall plan and develop the processes needed for product realization..."[ISO 9001:2000 7.1], a tool?? Its a directive and a very general one at that. ISO is the shell of what a company needs to do, because it is so general. any company implementing ISO has to do things their 'own' way because ISO doesn't nearly offer enough detail. So if you implement ISO you should be wise and pick the details that make sence for your company/ industry and fit your own company culture and ideals. You should ask questions like 'what is the right way to do XYZ', what process would other personnel best support and be interested in?

case in point:
ISO 9001 7.6 "Where Neccesary to ensure valid results, measuring equiptment shall
a) be calibrated or verified at specific intervals, or prior to use, against measurement standards traceable to international or national measurements;”

This general requirement doesn't mention a controlled document calibration schedule (which we have) or even make it terribly mandatory to calibrate (which we do), It doesn't say how to calibrate something either only states that the standards should be traceable. The point is we make all these other rules (about whats calibrated, when and how) to meet this general directive in this standard.

ISO is full of places like this we you need to make your own specific 'rules' to turn this very general standard into a QMS.

My other big thought is that, although there is little inherent benefit from registering. There is enormous benefit to adopting principles of enlightened management. Consider Deming, he has my admiration because he described some of the 'laws' of good business/ quality practice. consider the directive
to 'drive out fear'. Very general, its not easy to insert form XYZ to ensure company has driven out fear.
However, what is the consequences of having a management system where a worker whom reports poor product is likely to be fired?? whats the consequence of a worker whom reports poor product to be thanked rewarded and the probelm fixed without ANYONE being fired or written up?

Hence IMHO, ISO is no tool and its 'rules' are so general that you pretty much have to define the 'details' to implement it .

you can avoid ISO (it will save you a lot of $$$) but you ignore principles of good quality management at your own peril-- there will be benefits to following them and consequences for ignoring them.

and tell us more about John seddon's thoughts (or better yet have him visit the cove), because we are all here to learn and should be judged on what we say.

Jay

 

[J Oliphant]

a debate

Ok, I’ll debate it a little.

I can see three possible challenges to ISO:
Efficiency X Person needs to spend Time and money understanding, implementing and hosting ISO auditors. Y people needs to spend time creating, and maintaining quality records and forms. Registrations costs $$$. These are avoidable fees.

Philsophy ISO doesn’t maindate Y idea OR ISO requires directives that is irrelevant to the business.

Conformance ISO is so general and subject to interpretation that registration/auditing is a ‘non-value’ added activity. So whats the big appeal, it doesn’t mean anything to your customers Nor Force you to adopt any good quality management ideas.

I take it from previous posts that you consider Efficiency to be the major problem with ISO, you (and damian before you) consider ISO to be ‘wasteful’ use of resources (time and money).

Perhaps you and your management team consider the best solution to be the cheapest. Certainly it is cheaper without ISO. It is cheaper without the ISO rules too. For example calibrating—we spend hundreds of dollars a year having ‘traceable’ standards and dozens of hours between 6 chemists calibrating just the lab instrumentation. Certainly this is a cost, management would prefer not to pay. So without ISO, it trims staff down and both staff and management agree that there is no time (and money) for calibrations.

But what is the cost OF not calibrating/validating product test instrumentation at regular intervals?? Nothing—Until one of the instruments is out of maintenance. Soon, possibly, gauge that the inspector are using to measure product dimensions are wrong. Plant personnel notice, the foreman verifys that product is drifting out of spec. he makes a big pile of the shift’s product (which is sorted into good and bad by another inspector) and goes and ‘adjusts’ the tool press. Problem solved. No expensive SPC, no MRB, no corrective actions, maybe not even formal inspection forms to deal with. All that is $$$ the plant is saving by not having the overly wasteful ISO system in place.

Meanwhile the tool press is busy making defective product. And the shipment is passed and gets to customer whom finds out a lot of 10,000 parts is out of spec, and is worthless for them. Their tight deadlines are approaching and they contact the company franctic. It goes to sales (no new sales), marketing (product 1234 has more features), then to production. Short strapped production goes for the obvious intuitive reaction. More inspectors! And fire that SOB whom was using the bad guage. No quality manager, corrective actions nor forms showing what really caused the problem. Who’s going to spend time getting to the real problem??

No one, and that’s the real point of it altogether. ISO is a management’s investment in quality and it would be only too happy to not spend any money on any quality rules. Management likes not spending money and not hiring people. But without that assurance your customers are unhappy and ready to move. Better stay at the cheapest because no ones going to put extra money into a product that isn’t reliable.
Oh and by the way, some Chinese company with half the overhead just entered your market.

I look forward to the counterargument. Please do reference what John seddon’s main points are. Is his an argument of efficiency? Philosophy? I believe ISO is defendable because if you spent a time to intelligibly set up rules to prevent quality problems you would certainly be following some of (if not all) ISO general directives. ISO provides management motivation (by publically recognizing the investment with a certificate) to allow you to set up a system to prevent quality problems. If you’ve got an enlightened management whom is willing to give you the resources to do the job, WOW. Normally management holds you back from really doing a thorough job at quality assurance.

In that case, your registrar is your friend. Think of it a second. If management doesn’t give you the resources to do the job, then some auditor might have enough courage do stop you from going forward. Stop you from having an inadequate quality effort. He gives management a reason to change their dangerous short staffing before some competitor completely overwhelms you company with a superior product. So why is it that some people so resent the smaller waste of resources meeting a standard when they will not rail against companies that endanger employee’s security by short staffed, unenlightened, and inefficient quality systems.

 

[AllanJ]

The various matters raised in this thread are (sadly) almost worn out through similar or identical discussion that started about 16 years ago. It is amazing how many acres of space have been devoted in house magazines, web sites, conference proceedings etc, to arguing the merits or otherwise of ISO 9K et al. And, yes, for my sins I am also guilty of that.

Yes, the standard obviously contains things sensible people would incorporate into their business. For example: plan what you do, do what you plan and record what you did; check what you do; know you are tright and so forth. (Does anyone out there remember Jack Vassaly's marvelous summary of the famous "18 criteria", produced in the early 1970s?)

Of course, one can dispute the actual content, wording and so forth - as I mentioned already in this thread - the standard can be worked upon to produce its next incarnation. But, why is it not implemented? Well, Moses wrote down only ten things - and we are still waiting for compliance. Trouble is, implementation requires people. And, people are not perfect. Revisit this in 20 years or 50 when we have the umpteenth edition of ISO 9K and the same questions will be asked. At least in the case of Moses' 10Cs, there is a day of reckoning: with ISO 9K - who shall be St Peter?

I am not so much convinced the standard has problems, though it has certain shortcomings, as I think the manner by which it was promoted, the general ability of many who tried to put it into their firms and the lack of value-added results - especially as most attempts at implementation have been conceptually flawed - have combined to destroy the "quality momentum" that was clearly visible throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when dealing with senior executives. In short: the quality profession was presented with a major opportunity but blew it because it became seen as a one-trick pony whose name was: ISO 9K. Why did that occur? After all, there had been a plethora of standards in many countries and business sectors for years and the quality pros in various sectors were gaining ground by simultaneously helping their firms develop their Q Progs to meet the sector standards and improving business results. But none of them promoted their sector's standard as the definitive answer to life, the universe and everything. (42) They were getting management's attention and support.


ISO 9K spawned an industry into which many arrived seeking an easy and quick buck. The laws of supply and demand, prevailed. Of great concern to me, then, as it is now, is the fact that so many instant "quality experts" plundered the quality profession, taking from it rather than puting in anything. And, of course, some gravitated to various committees and bodies that "govern" qualifications, certificates and so forth - after all, if one can claim to be a meber of this or that body, does not that infer "competence, expertise" in that particular field? (Or is it just a good dupe for business?). It has been tragic. But, nothing is irreversible given hard work and good will from those who really are experienced professionals.

It is time for the quality profession to clean up its Augean stables. Hopefully, then, some of the present debate will be put to rest.

 

[J Oliphant]

more understanding of allens thoughts

...

as I think the manner by which it was promoted, the general ability of many who tried to put it into their firms and the lack of value-added results - especially as most attempts at implementation have been conceptually flawed - have combined to destroy the "quality momentum" that was clearly visible throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, when dealing with senior executives...
Of great concern to me, then, as it is now, is the fact that so many instant "quality experts" plundered the quality profession, taking from it rather than puting in anything. And, of course, some gravitated to various committees and bodies that "govern" qualifications, certificates and so forth - after all, if one can claim to be a meber of this or that body, does not that infer "competence, expertise" in that particular field? (Or is it just a good dupe for business?). It has been tragic. But, nothing is irreversible given hard work and good will from those who really are experienced professionals.

It is time for the quality profession to clean up its Augean stables. Hopefully, then, some of the present debate will be put to rest.

I've been seeking a further understanding of the reasons why ISO 9000 gets picked on so much. Allen you have a different answer, but I'm trying to understand it.
You seem to say that the quality managers and consultants of the world ruined the destroyed the quality momentum that was showing in the 80's and 90's. In trying harder to understand who you mean I get some very vague clues. 'those promoting quality, those that are inexperienced, those that are instant quality efforts and those that got out of quality (I'm imagining consultants and authors) more than they put in. I disagree most with the latter.

In my mind, I see some really great thinkers shaping quality through the 80's and 90's; Juran, Deming, crosby, Tagushi. these people brought great enlightenment, to me at least. no to be fair few of them 'promoted the standard'. but these are the least guilty of incompetence or spouting when they didn't know. These great thinkers pointed out some of the mistakes and sins of the quality system that use to prevail in america. heavy on inspection, clueless on prevention. Their concepts then inspired many to try to bring the message to management. Did it make a few 'instant experts'. maybe. But really who many truly incompetent consultants stayed in business? Remember, allen many of the people you mention are here, in this cove. I could be called an instant quality expert. the cove is full of people whom have done implementations. Consultants, Mark,Wes,Db is a consultant.

What grime are we so guilty of? so far as I could tell, we are/were only trying to bring these thinkers innovations to a cynical, and not so attentive management. and ISO was just the gift wrap. A momentary commitment into those that learned important lessons from the great thinkers of quality. Management would get peer recognition and in the background perhaps enlightened. that was there attempt.

I am probably most defensive of the word 'experienced'. Tons of people have experience, experience is inevitable. but there is experienced and set in your way. experience and not willing to consider new ideas. What we need is not experience but is thinking, and isn't that why a lot of people are here at the cove.

Thats why it was so BAD that damian attacked claes. not because claes was 'experienced' because claes is thoughtful. I find it hard to believe we ruined our own quality initiative by being dumb. On the contrary, I find it easier to believe that like deming said, the system has generated the defect. A system where management expect miracle pills to its problems.

PS. I'm not sure the debate will ever be put to rest, some people will always resent a standard.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Mea culpa or not?

I vividly remember the days of Mil Specs for Quality. There were a lot of bureaucrats who loved the prescriptive methods of dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s - I was not one of them.

I loved efficiency. I loved "shortcuts" and making changes on paper long before we ever made a physical product. Inspection (meaning "detection of defects") always made me see visions of dollar signs flying out the skylights.

I wasn't bright enough, nor did I have the time when I was young, to write books on my ideas of making PROCESSES (yeah - we used that term back in the 60's) more efficient.

Preventive maintenance? Car manufacturers had been touting it for years, aided and abetted by oil companies and service station mechanics. Why did someone have to make a big deal out of industry also adopting preventive maintenance?

Cleanliness? Sunday schools were teaching "cleanliness is next to godliness" for at least 200 years before I was born, so why the big deal about 5S?

"Waste not, want not." was advice from Ben Franklin at the time of the American Revolution. Why was there such a big deal about eliminating "Muda?"

As I see it, many of us who chafe at ISO9k2k or 6Sigma are not railing at the underlying principles so much as we are ticked that some folks touting ISO9k2k or 6Sigma act like everything we did before was stupid and inefficient.

"Mistake proofing?" I have a strong hunch a certain carpenter and his son in Nazareth often said "measure twice, cut once."

Every so often, a particularly charismatic guy repackages a bunch of old truisms and presents it as "new, improved" for his audiences of greenhorns. Alternately, some tout the "secrets of the ages." (I guess they are secret if folks never bother to read about them in readily available books in the nearest library.)

Just because they are repackaged does not make them bad (but it also doesn't confer instant stupidity on anyone who hasn't signed on to the campaign.)

As the "experienced players" among us gain more experience, we often come across a glaring reality: It isn't enough to have a good system in your head, you have to sell it to ALL the folks who will use it and implement it. By selling, I mean we have to inspire, coax, coerce, bribe, dazzle with logic, appeal to greed, etc. to overcome the inertia of an existing system.

So, often the difference between a "successful" quality manager and an unsuccessful one is not which particular methodology he follows, but how good he is at marketing it to his organization. A lot of guys seem to like 6 Sigma because it has some built-in marketing tools to appeal to the suits in management. That still leaves a lot of folks on the shop floor who also have to be brought into the game (which may explain why some 6 S programs go off the rails.)