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

[sal881vw]

Objective evidence of what? That because the "rulebook" calls for "emphasizing defect prevention and the reduction of variation and waste in the supply chain," that this is what will happen when the rules are "applied"? If this were working, why do GM, Ford and Chrysler still continue to have huge quality problems in their supply chains, as evidenced [objectively] by the ongoing recalls and the fact they consistently lag in JD Power reports behind the Japanese automakers in first year quality, with a huge gap when you move out to years 4 and 5. And note, we are only talking quality here, not cost, delivery, and health and safety.

Please excuse me for rushing off yesterday but I finish at about that time.

I think you will have to ask THE BIG THREE yourself to find out why? Maybe they'll take you on and solve it for them....you never know once you apply the "rules" effectively and efficiently? One person's rubbish is another person's gold.
For starters continious improvement is embedded in ISO 9001:2000.....and as MARC said you should be addressing TS 16949, I don't recall anyone stating that you where off topic, but still there is always room for improvement.

However on a more positive note since you're so keen on ISO 9000, I would suggest that you go through ISO 9004:2000 Quality Management Systems-Guidelines for performance improvement.......there's also some more objective evidence.......as to finance, health and safety. Not to mention infrastructer, workplace....etc.

 

[Puzzle]

Does it add value?

For those forced to do it by their customers - probably no.

For those who chose to do it - probably yes.

For those who (like us) were already in the 'good business practice' mode from company inception 32 years ago, and were requested to seek certification - yes.

 

[Rachel]

I feel sorry for you that you perceive any attack on ISO 9000 as a hostile one. No one is knocking anyone's approach.

That's odd - and here I was thinking we had all been labelled as "ISO-huggers".

Oh wait, we were...

 

[Mike S.]

Data and facts?

Companies compliant to QS-9000 even though their dpm ratings hit 75,000 each qtr at their customer. Where's the value?

GM, Ford and Chrysler with numerous recalls each year due to defective parts, many of which are supplied by ISO 9000/QS-9000 certified companies in their supply chains. Where's the value?

The Firestone/Ford tire debacle, with Firestone an ISO/QS-9000 certified company. Where's the value?

Toyota discontinuing the pilot ISO 9000 implementation at the Shimoyama factory because it "added waste." Where's the value?

Registrars certifying QMS's irrespective of the degree of management commitment (pass/fail mentality). Where's the value?

I'll play! Toyota issues dozens of recalls on thousands of cars since year 2000 despite implementing TPS! Where's the value?

 

[RoxaneB]

So tell us about Toyotas way. I am interested, and either way it would be a lot more constructive to discuss the value of one thing instead of bashing something else.

Great point, Claes!

Let's look at the mission of the Cove, shall we?

An Information Resource for ISO 9000, ISO 14000, ISO 19011, as well as the ISO/TS 16949 and QS-9000 automotive standards to Quality, Engineering and Management professionals. People Helping People!

People helping people...not insulting, slamming or continually provoking (be this intent of the writer or the perception of the reader).

Damien, you tossed out the lure by starting a rather intersting debate regarding the benefits, merits and value of an internationally recognized standard. Reel us in. Tell us more about TPS, its foundation, why is it better than ISO 9001 or TS16949. What makes it so great compared to a system recognized by many other countries and companies? Sell us on it. Your profile states that you are a VP of Manufacturing....I have not doubt that a person in that position is capable of providing a persuasive argument.

As has been pointed out in this discussion, the system is only as good as the culture. Damien talks about visiting companies where he is in disbelief that they managed to attain/maintain registration to ISO 9001. Yet I read only one example of a successful management system....Toyota's. Does this mean that TPS (be it the program itself or its founding principles) is more beneficial? No. But I don't think that is Damien's intent.

There have been a few remarks regarding Damien's actions of stirring the pot and comparing him to a previous member of the Cove. I suggest that if Damien wishes to turn this discussion into something with more value, something that can benefit all of us (people helping people), he simply tell us about TPS and what makes it a better system than ISO 9001/TS16949.

On a quick side note, I am curious as to why Toyota felt ISO was muda...could it be because it already had TPS in place? If so, I, too, would probably agree that registration to ISO 9001 would be rather non-value adding. But that's because you had a system already in place.

 

[damian]

I have no desire to proseltyze for TPS, which will stand or fall on its own merits just like ISO 9000. My arguments against ISO 9000 have been articulated in this thread as well as one on "the other forum". I simply believe that the value it adds is questionable, and that where value is added it is not likely to be significant. The evidence I present is "anecdotal", but I believe it is verified in the performance of a great majority of firms who have achieved certification but still fail to show signficant improvement in their performance. Were ISO 9000 even remotely effective, the long-standing and ongoing quality problems in the automotive supply chains (to take one example of a pervasive industry application) of the Big Three would have been addressed long ago. The bottom line is that ISO 9000, as a transformation and improvement methodology, has failed, like so many other programs and fads, to change the preoccupation with local optima aimed at providing short-term results in the majority of firms.

The most frightening aspect of ISO 9000 is, for me, that it is perceived as a substitute for thinking by a great many firms which adopt it. "Let's get certified and everything will be right with the world," seems to be the operative mantra. The fact that ISO 9000 is not based on knowledge, and never can be based on knowledge because it is prescriptive, means that by itself it can never support a learning organization. The majority of companies I have visited who have achieved ISO 900 certification have never taken the time to understand what the value required by their customer is and how their business system should be designed to create and deliver it. They continue to struggle, paying lip service to continual improvement, carrying huge amounts of waste, and only concerned with meeting the next quarter's targets. They are completely sub-optimized, yet they are certified. This is the most deplorable thing about ISO 9000 certification - that sub-optimization can be accorded recognition, even validation, via a certificate.

There are companies who have achieved world-class levels without ISO 9000 and they have made that journey by becoming learning organizations focused on continually improving the value delivered to customers. They apply basic principles based on acquiring what Deming called "profound knowledge" of their processes and systems through the empowerment and involvement of their employees. This is a radically different notion from the conformity to requirements mindset required by ISO 9000. You cannot substitute prescriptive requirements for knowledge.

 

[Marc]

I see no point in your post. Many more companies, I suspect, without ISO have gone down the tubes. I've seen ISO help some companies - especially during implementation. With some I've seen it to be nothing but an added 'cost of doing business'. That doesn't mean the standard is inherently bad.

I'll state what I stated earlier - ISO 9001 is just some good business system basics which most companies address in one way or another whether registered or not.

So again, damien, I think we all agree. ISO can be bad and it can be good. That's not a very good reason to dismiss and condemn it in its entirety.

If the only, or the most significant, waste in a business is ISO 9001 'costs', it would be quite an unusual business.

The most frightening aspect of ISO 9000 is, for me, that it is perceived as a substitute for thinking by a great many firms which adopt it.

I don't believe that's the majority case. I've never before even heard anyone say ISO 9001 was or is a substitute for 'thinking'. I've known a lot of people who have said it makes people think. I myself believe implementations promote thinking. I also wonder why you use the word 'frightening'. What scares you? Is it the end of the world if some companies don't understand that ISO is a model and will typically not save a failing business?

 

[Rob Nix]

Look, Gang,

Damian seems to add nothing different or more informative with each successive post.

Damian also apparently ignores other's responses and queries.

My suggestion: stop replying to this thread. End it right here!

We have better topics about which to expend our energy.

 

[RoxaneB]

I have no desire to proseltyze for TPS, which will stand or fall on its own merits just like ISO 9000. My arguments against ISO 9000 have been articulated in this thread as well as one on "the other forum". I simply believe that the value it adds is questionable, and that where value is added it is not likely to be significant. The evidence I present is "anecdotal", but I believe it is verified in the performance of a great majority of firms who have achieved certification but still fail to show signficant improvement in their performance. Were ISO 9000 even remotely effective, the long-standing and ongoing quality problems in the automotive supply chains (to take one example of a pervasive industry application) of the Big Three would have been addressed long ago. The bottom line is that ISO 9000, as a transformation and improvement methodology, has failed, like so many other programs and fads, to change the preoccupation with local optima aimed at providing short-term results in the majority of firms.

Yes, you have stated your arguments against ISO, your beliefs against ISO, your "anecdotal" (your word, not mine) evidence, etc. I wasn't asking for that. Perhaps, I should rephrase my request, as you appear to believe that I want you to convert us over to your side. I simply wish to understand.

You state why ISO doesn't work. So tell me why TPS does. What is the difference? Why are they different? Rather than sit at a computer telling me the reasons for your belief in ISO's failure...tell me why TPS and how it works.

The most frightening aspect of ISO 9000 is, for me, that it is perceived as a substitute for thinking by a great many firms which adopt it. "Let's get certified and everything will be right with the world," seems to be the operative mantra.

Many firms, I agree. All? No. And what it is even better, by my experience and exposure (i.e., my "anecdotal" evidence) is that companies who first pursue registration for the purpose of getting the piece of paper on the wall, soon realize that the system can be beneficial. They start to see ways to improve processes, systems, Return On Capital Employed, etc.

The fact that ISO 9000 is not based on knowledge, and never can be based on knowledge because it is prescriptive, means that by itself it can never support a learning organization.

Upon what evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) do you base this? Do you understand why ISO 9001 is the way it is? This kind of ties into my request of you, Damian....I'm trying to understand why TPS is the way it is. What were the building blocks for it?

The majority of companies I have visited who have achieved ISO 900 certification have never taken the time to understand what the value required by their customer is and how their business system should be designed to create and deliver it. They continue to struggle, paying lip service to continual improvement, carrying huge amounts of waste, and only concerned with meeting the next quarter's targets. They are completely sub-optimized, yet they are certified. This is the most frightening thing about ISO 9000 certification - that sub-optimization can be accorded recognition, even validation, via a certificate.

Well, let's face a cold, hard fact of business, shall we? The primary goal of a business is to make a profit. It's not about giving jobs, or doing what we love...it all about $$$. The wonderful thing is that concepts such as Safety, Continaul Improvement, Customer Satisfaction, etc. are tied into an organization's ability to make more money.

There are companies who have achieved world-class levels without ISO 9000 and they have made that journey by becoming learning organizations focused on continually improving the value delivered to customers. They apply basic principles based on acquiring what Deming called "profound knowledge" of their processes and systems through the empowerment and involvement of their employees. This is a radically different notion from the conformity to requirements mindset required by ISO 9000. You cannot substitute prescriptive requirements for knowledge.

No one here is saying that ISO 9000 is needed to achieve world-class performance. We are saying that it can be tool used to help achieve that level by some organizations. Is it right for everyone? Hardly...and I'm certain that many people here in the Cove would be first line to agree with me.

***

So, Damian...you came here because you're on vacation and bored. What do you hope to gain out of your visit here? We come here in the hopes of exchanging information...learning, helping. While I find your topic interesting, I'm hoping now you will add some information to help learn about TPS (doesn't mean we'll agree with it, but it's nice to understand other concepts).

 

[Rachel]

Look, Gang,

Damian seems to add nothing different or more informative with each successive post.

Damian also apparently ignores other's responses and queries.

My suggestion: stop replying to this thread. End it right here!

We have better topics about which to expend our energy.

Right on, Rob - I'm sure that we all have a million better things to do than respond to attempts at button-pushing.