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

[Randy]

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

In the roughest sense yes,.....BUT, you better have some established criteria of what competency is and proof that it has been met....Just saying it isn't so

This ain't no rocket science, every qualified forklift driver working under US OSHA regulations has done it

 

[SpinDr99]

Yes, customer satisfaction is what matters. And you can't have that until you have reviewed what the customer wants, determine that you can provide what they want at a competitive price, determine that you can provide something that won't fail shortly after it's in service, put in all the controls needed to ensure that, have a measurement system that gives a high degree of confidence in the measurements you're taking, do all this in a timely manner so "Production" management can maintain an often unrealistic schedule regardless of who determines the schedule. And you can't accurately determine how good your processes are until you monitor, measure and analyze how good they are compared to how good they've been, and be able to provide that information to the customer to facilitate new and repeat orders. So is certification really necessary? For many customers, it's a MUST. That's why we revise/improve requirements in standards and strive for certification rather than merely (and sometimes innacurately) claim "compliance". That's why we go to such lengths to get certifications. Just understand that certifications often relate to the bottom line and keep the doors of many companies open, and you keep getting your paycheck.

 

[Eredhel]

If it was referred to as a Business Management System instead of Quality Management System I think the question wouldn't be asked, or at least would be asked in a better way.

 

[AndyN]

After well over 200 posts, the basic answer(s) to the question are:
ISO 9001 exists to help reduce the need for customers to develop their suppliers' controls for the products/services being purchased, and,
to reduce the number of customer quality assurance requirements that supplier had to comply with. It's not rocket sciences.

Simples!

 

[Glenn J]

If ever proof were needed as to how non-value adding ISO 9000 is, one need look no further than this forum. To see such a huge expenditure of time and energy spent over the interpretation and application of clauses and requirements, certification issues, approaches and the like - all of which adds little if any value to the customer - shows why acceptance of this standard is now floundering. Pure muda!

I believe there are benefits to creating quality standards, but I think the ISO thing is out of control. In multiple functions, I have been tasked with implementing these standards over the last 30 years or so. I have done hundreds of audits. I have seen very little benefit to anyone. I worked for a car manufacturer that was ISO certified that went out of business. I think the fact that there is an entire industry that is self sustaining just to monitor quality standards is a problem.

 

[Marc]

This should be an interesting discussion!

16 years worth as of now...

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I believe there are benefits to creating quality standards, but I think the ISO thing is out of control. In multiple functions, I have been tasked with implementing these standards over the last 30 years or so. I have done hundreds of audits. I have seen very little benefit to anyone. I worked for a car manufacturer that was ISO certified that went out of business. I think the fact that there is an entire industry that is self sustaining just to monitor quality standards is a problem.

This is a very old thread... by now the empirical evidence should silence such foolish ideas.... but quality people are stubborn.... I will offer one experienced auditor's perspective... I have done a couple thousand audits now... maybe 500+ companies last time I checked... so, let's call it a detailed, audited "survey of 500 companies".... I have watched performance improve and improve and improve.... 20+ years ago, performance of 1/4-1/2% defects shipped was considered to be pretty good performance, in many cases... certainly common... (that would be 2500-5000 ppm in today's calculations).... that improved to where most companies were at 1000 ppm, then 500, then 100 became common..... imagine, a million parts shipped and only a random 100 were defective..... that continued to improve to 50, then 25 was the "industry standard".... and today, for a majority of companies, 5, 10 or even 0 ppm, month after month... 10 months, 12 months, 15 months.... with a rare occasional break.... And the types of defects are often tiny, silly things that would never even have been a complaint in the "old days." .... At the same time, delivery and capacity tightened... Automotive went from 12-14-to 17+ million, and quality and delivery improved!.... Was ISO a waste? Doesn't seem like it! .... Was it all ISO, surely more complex than that, but was it a waste? .... you can't be that foolish... you must just be working with poor companies to believe that....

 

[L.Soad]

This is a very old thread... by now the empirical evidence should silence such foolish ideas.... but quality people are stubborn.... I will offer one experienced auditor's perspective... I have done a couple thousand audits now... maybe 500+ companies last time I checked... so, let's call it a detailed, audited "survey of 500 companies".... I have watched performance improve and improve and improve.... 20+ years ago, performance of 1/4-1/2% defects shipped was considered to be pretty good performance, in many cases... certainly common... (that would be 2500-5000 ppm in today's calculations).... that improved to where most companies were at 1000 ppm, then 500, then 100 became common..... imagine, a million parts shipped and only a random 100 were defective..... that continued to improve to 50, then 25 was the "industry standard".... and today, for a majority of companies, 5, 10 or even 0 ppm, month after month... 10 months, 12 months, 15 months.... with a rare occasional break.... And the types of defects are often tiny, silly things that would never even have been a complaint in the "old days." .... At the same time, delivery and capacity tightened... Automotive went from 12-14-to 17+ million, and quality and delivery improved!.... Was ISO a waste? Doesn't seem like it! .... Was it all ISO, surely more complex than that, but was it a waste? .... you can't be that foolish... you must just be working with poor companies to believe that....

What do you think about the effectivness of ISO9001 for services companies ? It seems to me that even though they try to make ISO9001 relevent for all types of buisiness, services wont take that much benefits from it. It looks like it was a standard for the industry that have been modified to accomodate all.

 

[Ninja]

After well over 200 posts, the basic answer(s) to the question are:
ISO 9001 exists to help reduce the need for customers to develop their suppliers' controls for the products/services being purchased (it doesn't reduce the practice of doing so, just the need to do so), and,
to reduce the number of customer quality assurance requirements that supplier had to comply with (so that they can be replaced with equivalent customer desired quality assurance requirements). It's not rocket sciences.

Simples!

Edits added in red...just for kicks...I agree with Andy...I just wish it actually worked that way...

 

[Helmut Jilling]

What do you think about the effectivness of ISO9001 for services companies ? It seems to me that even though they try to make ISO9001 relevent for all types of buisiness, services wont take that much benefits from it. It looks like it was a standard for the industry that have been modified to accomodate all.

That's a fair question.... it clearly is beneficial for some, especially those that deal closely with manufacturers, like plating and heat treating. They still meet the definition for manufacturing, but are often referred to as service companies. As you get into more professional services, the benefits may vary.... certainly standardizing on good practices can be beneficial to most companies. And ISO is, at its base, a set of standardized practices that are deemed to be beneficial. And, as an example, an decent Francise Corporation is going to define binders full of procedures and standardized practices.... They just dont call them ISO.... I personally would not run a company without bring those ISO best practices to the table. But I would also bring Lean and 5S and other disciplines to the table... they are all one big toolbox of good tools.... and any tool is only as good as the skill of its users...., right? I OWN a chainsaw, but that doesn't make me a chainsaw artist....