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

[Carl Keller]

ISO 9001 is remedy for a lack of common sense.

Why do we need it? Because when you get a group of people together, you not only harness their collective intelligence, you also bear the burdun of their collective stupidity. It is human nature, we have all been there and we have all contributed.

A standard pulls everything back in line by requiring everyone to play by the same rules (in theory). Some work better than others (See the Child safety foundation, FDA, NRC, etc.) Where ISO falls apart is that it is not applied consistently by the registrars. Instead of treating it as a true standard, it is open to interpretation, which opens the pandoras box of points of view and hidden agendas.

Is it a Gigantic waste? Well the registration part certainly is.
The standard itself? No, I think it is beneficial to keep the collective stupidity at bay.


Regards,

Car-

 

[vanputten]

Hello Damien:

I didn't realize that the cove only does the following things as stated by Damien inthe first posting:

"demonstrating conformity to requirements, expending energy trying to figure out what clauses or requirements mean to satisfy a certification body, or working to achieve local optimization via a "process approach,".

(By the way, the Process Approach does not support local optimization or sub-optimaztion unless done incorrectly.)

Seems to me there is plenty of discussion on how to improve the business system to improve customer perception. By the way Damien, please tell us why there is an ISO 9001 clasue for "Customer Perception" but no requirement addressing customer satisfaction? This may be an example of advanced thinking brought to the table by ISO 9001 that most organizations would never even think about.

Keep in mind there is the Standard. The actual document. There is the implemention of a system, and there is conformity assessment.

"ISO 9001" is a document. This document is interpreted by every organization that uses it to analyze their business system. If an organiztion wishes to be or is required to be certified, then they will have to enter into the rhelm of conformtiy assessment.

Is your dissatisfaction with the document, organizations' interpretation of the document, or with the feild of conformity assessment?

Regards, Dirk van Putten

 

[Wes Bucey]

Alas, damian doesn't visit anymore (under his original screen name) - his Profile shows:
damian
Registered User
Last Activity: 16th April 2004 04:51 PM
Offline

 

[Jim Howe]

ISO 9001 is remedy for a lack of common sense.

Why do we need it? Because when you get a group of people together, you not only harness their collective intelligence, you also bear the burdun of their collective stupidity. It is human nature, we have all been there and we have all contributed.

A standard pulls everything back in line by requiring everyone to play by the same rules (in theory). Some work better than others (See the Child safety foundation, FDA, NRC, etc.) Where ISO falls apart is that it is not applied consistently by the registrars. Instead of treating it as a true standard, it is open to interpretation, which opens the pandoras box of points of view and hidden agendas.

Is it a Gigantic waste? Well the registration part certainly is.
The standard itself? No, I think it is beneficial to keep the collective stupidity at bay.


Regards,

Car-

You are quite correct Carl but it doesn't stop at the ISO standard we are subject to the interpretation of standards and laws in every facet of our lives. As you point out the collective stupidity of the human condition is a burdun on all societies. Thats why we have a justice system.
I can recall an instance when I was an inspection supervisor and the prime contractor rep. asked me what he could do to help expedite product. My reply was to have him coordinate the inspection activities of both DCAS and his Customer reps;To wit, consistently apply the specifications to the product.
His mouth dropped open and his hands went into the air. Its impossible when you have three organizations inspecting the same product each has been instructed in a different manner by different instructors, albeit it was the same solder spec.

 

[Carl Keller]

OK,

You are cruising down the highway doin' 70 mph.

Red lights start to flash behind you.

You pull over, the officer approaches and says, "do you know why I pulled you over?"

Regardless of your answer, or whether or not you get a ticket, you BOTH understood the standard of the 55 mph speed limit.

There was no "interpretation" of the standard.

THAT is the reason that the ISO registration process is USELESS.

I am not familiar with the solder spec you are referring to, however I know one of two situations exists without seeing it.

Either:
1. The standard is fine, unfortunately people are allowed to "interptret" it

OR

2. The standard is not written with enough clarity to be applied in a consistent manner and should be re-written

Oh yeah, there is a third option

Regardless if the standard is actually useful or not, it was designed as a money making scam.

So let me ask this question

If the officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket because he "interpreted" that you were going 70 mph, but in fact you knew you were only going 53 and had evidence to prove it, what would you do?

I'm going to challenge his interpretation.

So why do we allow registrars to interpret, and why do we have any confidence in a Registrar audit?

Carl-

 

[Charmed]

Coming late to party

Dear Carl and others:

I just saw this thread, which goes way way back to long before I registered. Tried to read through some of them, I must admit, not all, though. so, I may be missing something for sure.

One thing that seems quite clear is the so-called "collective stupidity" that is being noted repeatedly. In another thread, I think it was Wes who said something like "seeking mediocrity". The ISO 9K2K standard, widely used in the automotive industry, was meant to be a method of helping the Big 3 evaluate their suppliers. This is also the reason why it is so difficult for a quality professional, from another industry, to enter the automotive field (discussed in another thread).

Anyway, let's take a simple method of assessing a supplier. We look at many metrics of their performance. Let's say we use a point scoring system, with a scale of 0 to 10 on a number of key measures of performance, say 10 in all. This means 100 points total. Then what do we do? We add all the scores. Supplier A had a score of 86, supplier B had a score of 88, supplier C had a score of 92. Then we find an 'average' score for all the suppliers. Let's say average is 89.

Of these three suppliers, two suppliers A and B with scores of 86 and 88 are below average, and one supplier C is above average. This is how the search for "mediocrity" rather than the search for EXCELLENCE begins. It becomes enshrined into our way of thinking. Does this "average" routine really mean that supplier A with 86 points should not be considered? There were 10 different measures of performance. The 0 to 10 scores on 10 measures were added together to arrive at a "composite score". Perhaps, there are some measures where supplier A (86 composite) is better than supplier C (92 composite).

Standards are necessary for us to function in an orderly manner (just like the speed limit of 55 mph). If not, there would be utter chaos. However, in my humble opinion, we also have to learn to be more critical in evaluating "data" and learn to distinguish between the "average", or the mediocre, and the EXCELLENT.

If you are an athlete, say a runner or a swimmer, you want to participate in the Olympics. If you participate in the Olympics, you want to get the GOLD. This is what we mean by EXCELLENCE - a quality or a feature of a person of thing that cannot be surpassed. Average values that we use to make many decisions, implicitly, do not meet, in my humble opinion, this standard of EXCELLENCE.

The metric of looking at 'average' just will not do. So, I think a new method of evaluating data is required for those who seek to excel. Now, fire away at Johnny come lately to this thread.

Charmed

 

[qualitytrec]

I have to say that while the concepts of ISO do not bother me the registration certificate and third party registration does. This is the part of the ISO thingy that adds waste. People have to be registered so they try to figure out how to prove that they are doing the things they usually are doing already. This leads to extensive documentation of all sorts of extras.
I believe that most businesses want to and do there best to provide a quality product to their customers. the ones who do not well how will a QMS of any kind help them? It won't.
Ultimatly each company is responsible only to their customers. I hope the concept of registration dies a very quick and painless death.
Registration has huge obsticals that need to be overcome. One is that third party audits are not objective. Since we the ones being audited are paying the bill the registrar has a conflict of interest. really the companies requiring the certificate should pay for the registration if they desire it.

Just my thoughts

Mark

 

[J Oliphant]

is damian gone? my point

So damian gone now?? well, I can't believe anyone could insult claes-- you one of the least offensive posters here. And very quick to welcome others.
As a matter of note, i have rarely noticed any remark that was stupid, we are generally professionals and the thinking from those with lots of experience is one of the great things about the cove!

I will reiterate the point I expressed in my fledgeling paper. A company should make the standard its own. for his part, damian at least point out what is so BAD about canned programs. Its thinking and not standardization that is the whole point. It is pure "muda" to put in a canned program and seek the peice of paper.

However it is not so muda to put in time and thought to a QMS using ISO 9001 as a set of suggestions on how to do it.

Damian also reflects a little of the attitude against the 'fad' of the year. I am sure many in the cove can empathize. However, I must speak up for the marketing of quality. If their was no 'fads' -six sigma,ISO900x; would there really be jobs for us? even if you subscribe to the theory that management will pay for quality without fads-- would modern ideas of quality really fight against the tons of other people trying to market ideas to top management.

Don't forget that everyday, a small army of people embark to convince that management that XYZ program (lean, SAP, microsoft office, teams, herbs) is going to be the 'magic' pill to turn around some of their understaffed, unenlightened, and low morale organization.
We Do need to be heard, and if it takes FADS, to do it, I'll I'll swallow another fad from some overpaid consultant. for ultimately merely hiring you and keeping (any of you) is a basic vote of confidence in your ability to make an ability to make a difference. in these days of aggresive corporate staff-cuts its not so very trivial, either.

I think the single biggest victory ISO ever achieved was to promote the idea to hire paid professionals to analyze and eliminate quality problems.

 

[Jim Howe]

OK,

You are cruising down the highway doin' 70 mph.

Red lights start to flash behind you.

You pull over, the officer approaches and says, "do you know why I pulled you over?"

Regardless of your answer, or whether or not you get a ticket, you BOTH understood the standard of the 55 mph speed limit.

There was no "interpretation" of the standard.

THAT is the reason that the ISO registration process is USELESS.

I am not familiar with the solder spec you are referring to, however I know one of two situations exists without seeing it.

Either:
1. The standard is fine, unfortunately people are allowed to "interptret" it

OR

2. The standard is not written with enough clarity to be applied in a consistent manner and should be re-written

Oh yeah, there is a third option

Regardless if the standard is actually useful or not, it was designed as a money making scam.

So let me ask this question

If the officer pulled you over and gave you a ticket because he "interpreted" that you were going 70 mph, but in fact you knew you were only going 53 and had evidence to prove it, what would you do?

I'm going to challenge his interpretation.

So why do we allow registrars to interpret, and why do we have any confidence in a Registrar audit?

Carl-

I agree! The problem with solder specs (most if not all) is they are subjective in nature. I recall one spec that had three degrees of acceptance (acceptable, better, preferred). Now the inspector says the solder joint is acceptable but the auditor is looking for preferred. Sound familar? Of course happens all the time, we live in world shaded in grays.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Notice something? This thread now displays a proper and construcive discussion Kudos to Allan & Carl for bending it in the right direction....

And J Oliphant: Thank's....

/Claes