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

[warrior]

You are right!

 

[Marc]

This should be an interesting discussion!

And... It's time to see if opinions have changed since 2004.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

And... It's time to see if opinions have changed since 2004.

If that is a question, I will weigh in as an unabashed fan of ISO 9001... but I hurry to add, many companies are NOT getting benefits because they are doing it wrong. But, many are doing it well, and seeing very good improvements in performance.

Many companies don't get a lot of value. Many still try to "save money" by trying to implement ISO by themselves, in-house, without guidance or training. Possible to do, but frequently ineffective.

You could theoretically learn to manage your computer network internally by reading books, but few companies will attempt that. Too much risk to the data and system... The same applies to ISO. You can implement internally, and perhaps save $30,000... But, if not effective, if you continue to have 100's of thousands in scrap, complaints, lost opportunities in efficiency and productivity, etc., what are those savings.

Do it well, with good knowledge and structure, and it will make your company healthier and perform better.... guaranteed. It is a good framework for improvement.

 

[mmagargee]

I agree with Helmut's comment that "many are doing it well, and seeing very good improvements in performance." I think we would all agree that if this is supposed to be the end positive result that we want.

Now, how do you sell a corporate leader on the record keeping aspects if he perceives ISO 9001 to require a gigantic record keeping waste of time and he is trying to cut out the waste part?

Let's take an example. Suppose company A is a custom design firm, hiring its employees from engineering schools and the competition. And suppose company B is a machine shop, hiring its employees from trade schools or the competition. Let's suppose that the machine shop has an excellent on the job training and mentoring program but that the design firm doesn't. Suppose that the scrap rate is really low for the machine shop and its customers love them. But the design firm has high turnover because the newbies either get up to speed on their own or they're lost--there is no training of any kind. Their customers are frustrated and their projects are late and over budget.

If both companies are not ISO certified, one of the tasks is going to be to document their training programs and to begin keeping records of training that was held. Can you not say that the training record keeping for the machine shop is a waste of time since the process is already mature and well running? And could you not also say that just keeping records by the design firm is also going to be a waste of time in the event that they fudge and don't really change their process but just try to make it look like they comply?

Of course I get that if there are no records, it didn't really happen. But that is said from an auditing perspective. If the end goal is to change behavior, this two dimensional scenario paints a picture that one behavior is wanted and the other is not. In both cases, the record keeping did not change behavior for the good or the bad.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Now, how do you sell a corporate leader on the record keeping aspects if he perceives ISO 9001 to require a gigantic record keeping waste of time and he is trying to cut out the waste part?

That should be even easier with the 2015 Edition of 9001, as you, the organization implementing the standard have even more flexibility on what to record.

You have to change one mental paradigm, though. This statement you mentioned that "if it is not recorded, it didn't happen" is a HUGE BS. It is as a silly as defining ISO 9001 as "do what you say, say what you do" baloney.

Record keeping MUST BE selective. Non value added record keeping is, indeed, wasteful. Use the flexibility of the standard to your organizational benefit and challenge whomever tells you a certain type of record must be kept if the litmus test of satisfying a regulation, self imposed or customer requirement is not passed.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

That should be even easier with the 2015 Edition of 9001, as you, the organization implementing the standard have even more flexibility on what to record.

You have to change one mental paradigm, though. This statement you mentioned that "if it is not recorded, it didn't happen" is a HUGE BS. It is as a silly as defining ISO 9001 as "do what you say, say what you do" baloney.

Record keeping MUST BE selective. Non value added record keeping is, indeed, wasteful. Use the flexibility of the standard to your organizational benefit and challenge whomever tells you a certain type of record must be kept if the litmus test of satisfying a regulation, self imposed or customer requirement is not passed.

I agree with Sidney.... a company should not be keeping "a gigantic amount of records" to comply with ISO... That just sounds like bad planning and implementation, not an ISO requirement... Non-value-added records are Non-value-added regardless... And the ones that DO add value, should be kept regardless of whether a company is doing ISO or not. A friend was sued by a former employee discharged for poor performance, and the only thing that saved him in the lawsuit was his training records...

 

[mmagargee]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to state in this hypothesis that neither company keeps training records of any kind. The machine shop has an old hand assigned to the newbie. The design firm makes them sink or swim.

In an audit situation I imagine the machine shop would get a nonconformity for having no objective evidence that new employee training was accomplished (9001:2008 6.2.2.e) even though:
1. the old hand could be questioned and he would state that he gave it, and
2. the new employees, when questioned, appear to be trained.

No?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

In the 2008 version of 9001, the lack of a training record would only be identified as a nonconformity ONLY IF the organization had determined (self imposed requirement) that the training was mandatory.

In the new ISO 9001 edition, the requirement for documented evidence goes beyond training; the standard now requires evidence of competence of person(s) doing work under the control of the organization that affects the performance and effectiveness of the QMS

 

[Randy]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to state in this hypothesis that neither company keeps training records of any kind. The machine shop has an old hand assigned to the newbie. The design firm makes them sink or swim.

In an audit situation I imagine the machine shop would get a nonconformity for having no objective evidence that new employee training was accomplished (9001:2008 6.2.2.e) even though:
1. the old hand could be questioned and he would state that he gave it, and
2. the new employees, when questioned, appear to be trained.

No?

There is absolutely no requirement than anyone be trained, none whatsoever.

Sidney is totally correct with his example.

 

[Rich Shippy]

So basically you could have a document from a supervisor, manager etc. stating the employee was assessed and is competent?