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

[Ilias]

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

Most groups I have come across develops a type of group think. This naturally organises itself to promote and protect the group - to remain comfortable and to help people learn and do their jobs. However, looking at this from a high level, historically, there will be times when we will be able to say 'and this is what replaced ISO 9000'. Well, I would suggest that this group will be one of the last people on earth to see this occur, only because we are so close to it and many of us depend on ISO. We also truly believe that we see the benefits.

In Damian's posts I felt, as well as others in the forum, that he had an interesting point. From his point of view he tried his best to understand how ISO can help, and compared it with the TPS. Many of you were civil and listed to what he said. Others, for reasons of immaturity or stubborness I suppose, chose to react insultingly. I would say that you are in danger of being left behind in an environment that is moving ahead. ISO 9000 registrations are declining in mature countries, and ISO has failed to become the approach favoured by those who train and lead industry.

Personally, I see Damian's posts as echoing John Seddon from the UK. John, has written a very clear analysis of ISO 9000 which allowed my boundaries to become far more expanded. John also promotes the TPS thinking as a way to move forward in a sea of 'fads'. If I was to gamble, I would say that TPS will become far more mainstream, and ISO 9000 will drop away in mature countries.

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it. I believe it is not just an alternative to ISO 9000 but leaves ISO behind in the dust. The trick for me was to to be able to temporarily let go of defined thinking that we all develop when we work with something like ISO for so long.

Rachel I would recommend you read Johns book on ISO.

Regards,

Ilias

 

[RoxaneB]

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

*sigh* So much for letting this thread die off.

Most groups I have come across develops a type of group think. This naturally organises itself to promote and protect the group - to remain comfortable and to help people learn and do their jobs. However, looking at this from a high level, historically, there will be times when we will be able to say 'and this is what replaced ISO 9000'. Well, I would suggest that this group will be one of the last people on earth to see this occur, only because we are so close to it and many of us depend on ISO. We also truly believe that we see the benefits.

I prefer to say that many of us are connected to a Management System or Program of some sort and/or a related methodology such as Six Sigma. We see the benefits because we live it. We also see that no system/program/methodology/process is perfect. One thing that we all share is a desire to improve.

In Damian's posts I felt, as well as others in the forum, that he had an interesting point. From his point of view he tried his best to understand how ISO can help, and compared it with the TPS. Many of you were civil and listed to what he said. Others, for reasons of immaturity or stubborness I suppose, chose to react insultingly. I would say that you are in danger of being left behind in an environment that is moving ahead. ISO 9000 registrations are declining in mature countries, and ISO has failed to become the approach favoured by those who train and lead industry.

Why even mention this slinging of insults? But if you wish to do so, please note that it was a two-way situation. Doesn't make it right, but it is important to note that shots were fired from both sides.

Are registrations declining in mature countries? I haven't seen the survey come out yet. Have you? However, if they are, that is only part of the story and is, in my opinion, a meaningless number without an answer to the following question...WHY? Why are numbers declining? I don't want ISO's opinion on why they are...I want organizations to tell us why they let their registration lapse or why they chose to never pursue it.

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it. I believe it is not just an alternative to ISO 9000 but leaves ISO behind in the dust. The trick for me was to to be able to temporarily let go of defined thinking that we all develop when we work with something like ISO for so long.

We tried to learn about it, Ilias. We asked Damian to tell us more and had the door slammed in our faces. It is rather difficult to let go of "defined thinking" when you have no other option to think about. We attempted to give our own points of view and were mocked. Rather than encourage us to learn more about TPS, Damian insulted and basically said we were wrong. Not exactly a facilitating style I would encourage trainers and leaders to have.

For the most part, I'd say the members of the Cove are not only willing to share knowledge, but willing to learn it, as well. We frequently disagree and, thankfully, we occasionally agree. But we are all willing to admit that there is not necessarily just one right way to accomplish something.

Unfortunately, Damian might have had a point to make but he failed to do so. He did not share...he preached. He did not assist...he stated. When we asked questions, he was unable to provide satisfactory answers - by that I mean he failed to provide evidence that explained why he felt the way he did...not that he was unable to convince we were wrong. We don't come here to prove each other wrong...we come here to show that we have a way that works for us.

Final nail in Damian's coffin is this...where is he now? Comes in while on vacation, insults, stirs up controversy, and disappears. That does not exactly inspire to think "Hey...maybe this guy is on to something."

 

[Jen Kirley]

I just caught this thread.

I think it's a worthy discussion, because its underlying premise hints at our evolving struggle, as quality professionals, to remain relevant in today's churning business climate. For me, it expresses misgivings that many management people have toward Quality, and especially ISO/QS/TS/etc.

Damian said:

"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."

This tells me that companies are not doing the registration (a basic indicator of unawareness is that Damian kept calling it "certification") for any reason except they think they have to. Those who feel this way--let's say the management, who amplify the company's heartbeat and spirit through their policies and support--will be just going through the motions. They may not really be buying into Quality's benefits at all.

They resist as long as they can, saying they don't want to "bureaucratize" their systems by making those pesky procedures and things. I have seen this close up.

Currently there is movement away from publicly owned status. Some companies are considering stock buybacks and going private, feeling uncomfortable with increasingly intrusive oversight and disclosure requirements. Perhaps this is what Damian is feeling too.

Why register? Because customers demand it--for market position? For the company's resale value? To improve the company's credit rating? Are these good enough reasons? Management had better believe it, or ISO won't work.

Damian noticed, as many did, that registered companies can still fail miserably. Bridgestone Tire was registered to QS 9000 at the time of their catastrophic Ford Explorer debacle. How can this be--why didn't auditors catch the problem, where was the value then? Many have asked this question, and rightfully so because many lives were lost and ruined through that failure.

I can say from my observation that registrars can't demand to look at performance data, merely system records and associated details. Correct me if I'm wrong, but short of becoming a police force, I suspect ISO would gain more respect if auditors were allowed to be more aggressive.

But therein is the rub. ISO is a communally formed standard, and such uncomfortable aspects as performance oversight and ethics, if they ever existed in the standard, were edited out during the review and approval process. Training and empowering auditors in oversight could be troublesome.

In fact, I find the new ISO is more flexible and learning oriented than before. People who don't see this, as Damian might not have, may still be dealing with the suspicion based on the older standard, never deeply considering their potential with the new one.

Our wrangling--and particularly mine, and my tendency to "nuke" training matters--about the standar'd requirements can easily be viewed as bickering or indecisiveness. Perhaps we resemble a bunch of religious scholars, animatedly discussing ancient texts' meaning and application. In my view, our ability to do that "proves" the standard's flexibility. It also shows an uncomfortable truth: we are trying to read registrars' minds, anticipate the minimum they will accept and "conform" to that rather than make a system that we can prove works, and simply present it as such.

Such philosophical exploration as this can help us understand how to make Quality more appealing to smaller businesses, with or without registration. I submit we will increasingly need to do that--spread awareness, or leave our professions because as manufacturing slips away, some of us struggle to remain relevant.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

...there will be times when we will be able to say 'and this is what replaced ISO 9000'. Well, I would suggest that this group will be one of the last people on earth to see this occur, only because we are so close to it and many of us depend on ISO.

Well... We have over 40 forums clobbered together here. One of them deals with the ISO 9000 series. Does this suggest that we are terribly devoted to ISO9000?

Others, for reasons of immaturity or stubborness I suppose, chose to react insultingly.

Speaking for myself, I chose to retaliate in kind when damian was rude to me, not before. I tried to get a constructive discussion going and he would have none of it. I would be happy to see a proper (and civil) discussion on the subject.

Personally, I see Damian's posts as echoing John Seddon from the UK.

So do I.

I would say that TPS will become far more mainstream, and ISO 9000 will drop away in mature countries.

That is entirely possible, and time will tell...

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it.

By all means. As I said early in this thread: Let's discuss it.

/Claes

 

[Wes Bucey]

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

Personally, I see Damian's posts as echoing John Seddon from the UK. John, has written a very clear analysis of ISO 9000 which allowed my boundaries to become far more expanded. John also promotes the TPS thinking as a way to move forward in a sea of 'fads'. If I was to gamble, I would say that TPS will become far more mainstream, and ISO 9000 will drop away in mature countries.

I would urge you to learn more about the TPS, and Lean as some people now call it. I believe it is not just an alternative to ISO 9000 but leaves ISO behind in the dust. The trick for me was to to be able to temporarily let go of defined thinking that we all develop when we work with something like ISO for so long.

Rachel I would recommend you read Johns book on ISO.

Regards,

Ilias

Ah yes, *sigh* indeed, Roxane!

Ilias, the reason you missed this thread is there were many other good things going on when it was in full swing. The bulk of your threads mention John Seddon. I hope you have more to tell us than a rehash of his philosophies. I prefer to read and hear things firsthand, not second- or third-hand. Perhaps Mr. Seddon, himself, would deign to join us occasionally to give us the benefit of his wit and wisdom. Please feel free to extend an invitation to your countryman on your own behalf as well as on our behalf.

Have you looked through the thousands of other threads which focus on ALL aspects of quality or are you primarily interested in the philosophical aspects of ISO as a flawed program?

I, for one, welcome all input which reflects an open mind and an eagerness to impart FACTS versus an intent to proselytize a point of view. Sadly, we receive input from time to time which confuses facts with opinion and the resulting furor is embarrassing to read.

Rarely, we get someone so confused he or she will ascribe personal characteristics to individuals based on an expressed opinion. This is mere "namecalling" and belongs in the play yard, not where the epithets will hang, like the rotting albatross on the Ancient Mariner, to forever mark the horrid deed.

Welcome, Ilias, to the Cove. I hope your sojourn is a happy one.

 

[Cari Spears]

...From [damian's] point of view he tried his best to understand how ISO can help, and compared it with the TPS...

What thread were you reading?

 

[Rachel]

Rachel I would recommend you read Johns book on ISO.

Okay - why me specifically?

 

[jaimezepeda]

I am sorry I missed this thread, I just did not see it....

Ilias

Ilias, I am glad you found it as I have now been benefited by reading this thread's entirety this morning.

I am glad I found The Cove with its many discussions. It is great to be a part of a group of individuals that can readily present their viewpoint and supporting facts.

Jaime

 

[Rachel]

If you could just doooo that, that would be great. (tee hee, I love Office Space quotes.)

Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks!

 

[AllanJ]

When the first version of ISO 9K appeared in 1987, I did not like its content. And I wrote to that effect in article published by the IQA, in its house magazine, in 1988. I advised it needed "prompt and thorough revision". All **** broke loose because someone (me) had the temerity to disagree with the content. My remarks were foolishly interpreted by some as meaning I was opposed to the idea of such a standard: I was not, I am not and I will not be. But I do not like they disingenuous way in which it has been promoted and the more unsavory elements of the multi-billion dollar industry it spawned.

As we know, since 1987, two further revisions have appeared. The 2K version is the most significant as it changes the approach from one based on the old style Mil-Q-9858A type of standard (emulated, plagiarised etc by so many offspring) into the "task" approach - which I have publicly advocated since the early 1970s.

So, when anyone asks "is there an alternative to ISO 9K?", it is worth remembering that same point was made by many who were outraged at any criticism of the content of the earlier editions. Indeed, in the UK, the very suggestion that the old BS 5750's content was flawed, was similarly greeted with howls of horror, when someone (ahem!) expressed concern and suggested change. Those same horrified people also embraced the 1987 ISO 9K when it appeared, stated it was an essential step forward (and so forth), (the 1987 ISO 9K was little different from BS 5750:1979 content).

My point is: can any standard be perfect? Is it not the case that these things will continually evolve (improve) as experience is gathered? Is there an alternative to ISO 9K? Of course there is! It will be whatever is the next and subsequent edition.

While damian and others may not like the present content, there is a number of forums through which contructive suggestions and experience can be provided with a view to securing improvements. Of course, the whole process is based on one gigantic committee and that itself does not guarantee the best content will prevail. Of committees some say they always reach agreement based on the lowest common denominator of positions. Others say the camel is a horse designed by a committee.

I may not agree with the tone of some of damian's remarks but, as Voltaire said, one must defend unto death his right to say them. I suppose that is what free speech at the "Cove" is all about. And, yes, I am sure Mr Seddon would be welcome at the Cove.