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

[damian]

"Toyota's production system (TPS) is designed (and continually improved) to be able to deliver value by eliminating non-value adding waste and making system processes ever more valuable, capable, available, adequate and flexible."

I think you are lmis-interpreting ISO if you think 9000 doesn't strive for the same thing. This line could be easily applied to the philosophy of continuous improvement of ISO 9000.

"And most companies would appear to do not much more than pursue a certificate, and then do little else, except what is necessary to maintain their certification status. I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified."

Isn't what you are really saying is that individual companies are probably not benefitting from their own QMS? This isn't the fault of the Standard, it falls back to the company that is implementing it. ISO 9000 is a model for a basic quality system. It isn't a miracle pill that transforms a company into a world leader. Toyota may have a good QMS but I'll bet it is only as good as the implementation. It's the development beyond the basics that make it work so well and the same applies to ISO.

I assume Toyota does in fact buy from somebody and I would assume some of their suppliers are ISO certified. Would all these suppliers fall into your "not want to do business with them" class? I feel confident that Toyota has some sort of supplier requirement and that they work with their suppliers to meet their requirements. Is it possible that Toyota would disqualify a supplier because they were certified to ISO? Are you saying you see no process improvement, elimination of waste, etc. outside of the Toyota system? In your view is a company with no QMS a better supplier than one with ISO? If you can truly answer yes, maybe you are justified in saying there is no "value added" by ISO.

Dave

Of course some Toyota suppliers are ISO/QS-9000 certified. But Toyota does not look for it nor does it consider it a "warranty for quality" like the Big Three.

 

[The Taz!]

Would you consider the time you are spending NOW discussing this issue MUDA? Is it directly satisfying some customer requirement?

You're reading My mind Rob. . .

 

[damian]

I would guess you have some philosophical differences with your supperiors.

Read Toyota's internal Toyota Way visioning documents: it doesn't talk about Toyota or what it wants to be, it talks about the company's customers and providing them the value they need.

 

[damian]

You're reading My mind Rob. . .

Of course its muda - but I'm on vacation and can afford to indulge myself a little. On another level, it may not be muda if one can obtain valuable insights.

 

[The Taz!]

Read Toyota's internal Toyota Way visioning documents: it doesn't talk about Toyota or what it wants to be, it talks about the company's customers and providing them the value they need.

If those "customers" include "other interested parties" such as stock holders. . . I think the business plan does address "where" they need to be.

This is also addressed in ISO and TS. . . I'm out of here. . .

Have pleasant vacation

 

[damian]

"Toyota's production system (TPS) is designed (and continually improved) to be able to deliver value by eliminating non-value adding waste and making system processes ever more valuable, capable, available, adequate and flexible."

I think you are lmis-interpreting ISO if you think 9000 doesn't strive for the same thing. This line could be easily applied to the philosophy of continuous improvement of ISO 9000.

"And most companies would appear to do not much more than pursue a certificate, and then do little else, except what is necessary to maintain their certification status. I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified."

Isn't what you are really saying is that individual companies are probably not benefitting from their own QMS? This isn't the fault of the Standard, it falls back to the company that is implementing it. ISO 9000 is a model for a basic quality system. It isn't a miracle pill that transforms a company into a world leader. Toyota may have a good QMS but I'll bet it is only as good as the implementation. It's the development beyond the basics that make it work so well and the same applies to ISO.

I assume Toyota does in fact buy from somebody and I would assume some of their suppliers are ISO certified. Would all these suppliers fall into your "not want to do business with them" class? I feel confident that Toyota has some sort of supplier requirement and that they work with their suppliers to meet their requirements. Is it possible that Toyota would disqualify a supplier because they were certified to ISO? Are you saying you see no process improvement, elimination of waste, etc. outside of the Toyota system? In your view is a company with no QMS a better supplier than one with ISO? If you can truly answer yes, maybe you are justified in saying there is no "value added" by ISO.

Dave

If you are saying that some companies (and by extension, their customers) are failing receive benefit from their ISO 9000 progam because the implementation was not be done well, then I would want to know how they managed to become (and remain) certified. The reality is that ISO 9000 certification has been sold as a warranty for quality in the marketplace. Now we are told that the reason it isn't working is because the implementations weren't done well (your words, "only as good as the implementation.."). But yet these companies are certified. So, if the implementations are flawed, why was certification status granted? This seems a staggering contradiction to me.

Of course there are companies other than Toyota that try to remove waste and build in quality through means other than ISO 9000. And, yes, I have seen companies with no formal QMS who are better than ISO-certified suppliers. Toyota itself may be an example - we don't consider our QMS as such to be something separate and distinct from the production system. It is an inherent part of it - we aim to build quality into processes through techniques such as poka-yoke, jidoka, etc., and you must have defect free quality to support continuous flow in production. However, quality is "programmed" into the system - it is not a separate function we layer on top of it.

 

[The Taz!]

. Toyota itself may be an example - we don't consider our QMS as such to be something separate and distinct from the production system. It is an inherent part of it - we aim to build quality into processes through techniques such as poka-yoke, jidoka, etc., and you must have defect free quality to support continuous flow in production. However, quality is "programmed" into the system - it is not a separate function we layer on top of it.

I guess it depends on how you interpret QMS. . .is it a "Quality" management system?? or a "Quality Management" system

 

[damian]

I guess it depends on how you interpret QMS. . .is it a "Quality" management system?? or a "Quality Management" system

Or is it simply just a production (or service delivery) system which, among other things, is capable of producing the quality required by the customer.

 

[BadgerMan]

ISO 9001 is basically just good business practices that most companies already have 'implemented' in some fashion.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Sound and Fury signifying Nothing!

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!

Were that it were all that simple. What do you base your comment on? Have you numbers or other evidence to show or is one to accept your opinion?

Why did you register? Why are you here?
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Actually, in my opinion, (where is Energy when you need him?), this whole thread smacks of the days when a certain character from Great Britain used to visit the Cove and bait the members with barbed comments looking for a little recreation to relieve his own boredom. damian, in all his posts, has only once come close to answering Marc's most pertinent question:

Why are you here?

He/she is on vacation and bored.
As Quality mavens, we learn early on to eschew "anecdotal evidence." Aside from citing Toyota's choice of creating its own business and quality system versus following an international Standard, damian has really only presented undocumented anecdotes of his experience (also undocumented.)

I have been in probably several hundred mid to large-size ISO 9000-certified firms around the world and once I see their shop floors, I would not want to do business with them. But they are certified.

Golly. I've been in the business world for close to 40 years and even I would be hard pressed to say I had been in several hundred shop floors, certainly nowhere near that many which were registered to any Standard. Many of the ones I've been in would have been wonderful places to serve dinner in because they were so clean, neat, and tidy. What must this say about the companies damian's employers were considering as suppliers? (I assume it was the reason for damian's visit - not that he had been employed or considering employment at so many.) If the preselection process had been a good one, damian would have never even seen the inside of a poor shop. Sounds like a lot of "muda" to me.

Folks who read my posts often remark I tell them how to build a watch when they only ask for the time. Here's my
BOTTOM LINE:
Pursuing this thread is only "muda" for the rest of us. (Golly - I detest buzz words, especially foreign ones used by pretentious people who think it makes them look more knowledgeable instead of like a wooden dummy sitting on a ventriloquist's knee!)

Ever notice how much muda sounds like the French merde?