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

[Carl Keller]

RC,
Your quote:

"Ummm...where exactly did you go to school?!?! And, in high school, why was I never told about schools that give out degrees even if I didn't go to class?!?"

My point EXACTLY, there was no partial fulfillment or interpretation, you HAD to meet certain criteria.

Who is being hurt by this? Company A who has a great Business Management System will survive for a long time, is adaptable and in touch with their Customers and ISO provides them just another means of keeping their Customers happy. Company B who has a nice piece of paper on the wall, stays in business because they met the requirements of their Customer who said "You need to be ISO 9001:2000 registered."

So how was ISO responsible for Company A success? It wasn't, Company A is probably going to do those things regardless. If company B customers only requirement is for them to be registered, they HAVE made the customer happy.

A standard is something that is appplied AS EQUALLY AS POSSIBLE to all. It STANDARDIZES a practice.

There is absolutely nothing STANDARD about ISO, and it will remain so until such time as we throw interpretation out thewindow and apply some real rules governing what is required.

Carl-

 

[AllanJ]

RC,


There is absolutely nothing STANDARD about ISO, and it will remain so until such time as we throw interpretation out thewindow and apply some real rules governing what is required.

Carl-

That is an interesting sentiment Carl. But, is it practical when it comes to an international standard intended to state prescriptive requirements that any business sector might apply? Perhaps, perhaps not.

There is the old wisdom that "rules are made for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

I sometimes wonder whether or not ISO 9000 is like a guide dog. It will get the blind person to its destination provided that person holds onto the leash. The only problem is, one needs to first train the dog to know the roots its master wants to take as well as all the obstacles and hazards in the pathways. And dogs do need feeding and grooming. Sadly, of course, the blind person is unable to use a "poopa-scoopa" when the dog goes about its natural, and occasional process of relief. Others have to come along and do that and dispose of the residue.

Of course, I would NEVER suggest management is blind when it comes to matters of "quality". (Ahem)

But I am aware by all the chatter about ISO 9K's defects, or is that "defecations"? that it is the humble quality department that follows the procession.

 

[qualitytrec]

"Ummm...where exactly did you go to school?!?! And, in high school, why was I never told about schools that give out degrees even if I didn't go to class?!?"

My point EXACTLY, there was no partial fulfillment or interpretation, you HAD to meet certain criteria.

Where I went to High school there was a policy that you could not fail a student if they passed both the mid term and final. Guess what I went to class twice mid term and final got passing grades and took the credit. The next year they changed the policy, not sure if it was on my account or not.
Mark

 

[Carl Keller]

There is another old addage that I prescribe to.

"There's a sucker born every minute".

I've been doing ISO since 1994, 6 different companies, been the consultant, the quality manager, management representative, lead auditor, etc., etc.

The whole thing is a free-for-all. Everyone passes. It is rare that you even hear of a "conditional" situation.

It is a joke. In 4 weeks, I can put together a system for any 150-500 person company that will pass the audit, GUARANTEED.

I vote "Gigantic waste"


BTW, the blind guy will find it eventually.

Carl-

 

[AllanJ]

The discussion asks whether or not ISO 9000 is a "gigantic waste", and after some 1400 posts on the subject of ISO, is it not time to ask the following?

1. If you believe it is a "gigantic waste" do you want it to remain that way?

1a). If you respond "no", what are you personally going to do about it?

1b). If you answer "yes" ask yourself whether or not any part of your earnings over the years since 1987 have emanated because of its existence. Move to question 2.

2) If they have,
2a) Are you a sufficiently principled person to return all or part of that remuneration so as to reduce the amount of "waste" for the community as a whole? or

2b) If you are not so principled, quit complaining about the "waste", count your blessings and reflect on the possibility you have been part of the "waste".



When ISO 9K arrived, in 1987, I was so frustrated with its content - especially its ambiguities and structure - I answered a slightly diiferent question to #1. As it was in an early state and the waste was not then accumulating, I felt impelled to write a book, "Meeting ISO 9000 in a TQM World", which was followed by a second edition shortly after the release of the 1994 edition of ISO 9K. I resolved not to write a 3rd edition regardless of whatever might emanate when the eventual 3rd edition of ISO 9k might emerge. Each edition dealt with the standard and each of the prevailing "daughter standards". I withdrew those books from the market when I felt they had served their purpose - that is, I had made my contribution.

In both editions I took pains to point out the problems with the content, as I saw them. In this every paragraph, sentence and even possibly confusing/ ambiguous word was dealt with: and I suggested "prudent interpretations" of every clause's words for the context of a highly-competitive, globalized world clearly looking towards TQM. (I make no claim that the books were brilliant - merely an exposition of my views of what to do, in light of my experience.) I also reproduced my "Task Element" approach showing the benefits of what is now commonly called, the "process approach" - which seems to have stuck.

My point is this: there is now a plethora of committees and avenues by which you could make your views known. But, the standard will never become what you might wish unless you are prepared to offer constructive criticism about the content. That is what I endeavoured to do, and I am sure others do as well. And, it seems to me, Mr Seddon is maybe trying to do the same, though I admit to not having read his book, at this juncture, nor to having engaged wioth him in any discussion concerning his motives.

And, as others have mentioned, a major problem is that the whole matter of the content of ISO 9K, which is what ought to determine whether or not it would be a "gigantic waste", is frequently confused:

a) with the conduct and efficacy of the entire registration industry, whereby we are all familiar with the resultant horror stories.
b) with the actual implementation process within the firm, including such matters as top management support, provision of resources etc.
c) with the correctness or otherwise of major companies imposing registration onto their supply chains.

 

[jhbrand]

It is a joke. In 4 weeks, I can put together a system for any 150-500 person company that will pass the audit, GUARANTEED.

I vote "Gigantic waste"

We have the ability to devise an assessment system that can probe every nook and cranny of a company and find all of its nonconformities. Such assessments would be so expensive, however, that few would seek certification.

In a perfect world, customers would be knowledgeable of expectations of certified suppliers, and would issue corrective action requests (CAR) that would make your newly certified company either "tow the line" or give up on the idea of certification. Either would be an acceptable outcome of the "4 week certification" endeavor.

If we believe in the idea of establishing minimum standards for business to participate in certain arrangements, and I certainly do, then it is incumbent upon us to identify the delta between "what is" and "what should be," and develop a strategy for correcting this deficiency.



Joe

 

[jcbodie]

I agree, in part, with many comments here. ISO and its' implementation is far from perfect. However, I have an even more basic question than Alan's interesting points.

If you feel that ISO is such a "gigantic waste", and I'm assuming from many commentaries here that many of you are intimately involved in it, how do you get up in the morning, look in the mirror and feel good about what you do? A bit idealistic for sure. But, part of the intrinsic value of one's life (which would include vocation) is hoping at the end of it all, your presence/actions made a difference. That you just weren't taking up space and using valuable resources for nothing. It sounds to me like some of the people commenting here really don't respect what they do or feel they make a difference. How sad. Don't get me wrong. If your answer is "I have a mortgage and bills to pay", then that explains it and I respect that. But it also says you are accepting the situation, which is your choice not a mandate. JMHO

 

[qualitytrec]

Personally I think the idea of registering to a system of business principles is silly (notice I said registering to). We provide a service and product. if our customers wish to use us then they make a judgement do they like what they get or not. if not they require more of us and we decide if we can live with and accommodat their desires.
To impose a system just because a system says that it must be done is communism IMO. This is stupidity at its highest, our customer is having us register not because it is their great desire but because they have to require us to according to the standard they are registered to(TS16949). I am sorry but whoever wrote that one needs a drool cup strapped to their chin and a safety helmet so they don't hurt themselves.
All this to say if it is implemented due to mandate then it is a waste if it is implemented because the company takes the time to evaluate what is needed and not needed on their own it is valuable.
MARK

 

[ralphsulser]

My feelings on this are that I am here to implemnt a good manufacturing system to satisfy cutomers, and continually improve what we are doing. Improve productivitiy, reduce scrap and rework and improve profitability.
If all this can be achieved, why does a 3rd party need to get money to come in and say "Yep, they are doing it". Customers know who their good suppliers are with out making suppliers pony up additional expenses and continual days of dealing with external auditors.
However, that being said we have no choice in deciding about ISO/TS16949.
If you do business with automotive, you do it anyway.

 

[Carl Keller]

Here is how I get up I the morning and look in the mirror feeling good about what I do:

Because of my beliefs, I have progressed towards an ever more simplistic registration to the standard that passes registration/audits with the minimal amount of effort possible. I have evidence to support every element the standard requires and little else in the ISO system. I use the savings in time and effort to concentrate on tools and systems that actually have impact on the Quality of the product. Wherever possible, I leave these tools and systems outside the ISO system.

I also let the VP and the rest of the team know that I think ISO is a Gigantic Waste.

I would not do it at all if a few customers didn't require it.

I claimed "ISO compliance" in the past and was very successful at avoiding the costs associated with registration for over 2 years, even though one of our largest customers required ISO as part of their certified vendor program.

So far, my motgage payment has not been late.

Carl-