Interesting Discussion ISO 9001 - Snake Oil? A discussion of the validity/value of ISO 9001

[db]

Well Duh

I agree Fire Girl. When the standard says that purchased product must meet requirements, I say “well duh!”. If making this happens takes a level 1, 2, or 3 document, then you need the appropriate document. If it takes an act of Congress, then I guess you need that as well. This shouldn’t be hard stuff, but for a lot of us it is.

What it takes is for all involved to believe it is required, and to believe that they need to do it. If everyone thought this stuff was a great idea and embraced it, it would not only be easy, but it would work extremely well. I have seen it happen in more than one company. In those cases, the owner’s comment was: “Why wouldn’t we want to do this?”. The “well duh”s become valid and workable.

 

[Marc]

Also see this discussion thread: Is ISO 9001 More of a Hinderance than Help?

 

[Godfrey Partridge - 2003]

Supplier Audits and Assessments

I fully agree with H Fowlers comments on suppliers being worthy of more attention under ISO900:2000 and for the benifit it brings to the overall operations in a company. Most organisations spend 50% of their tunover with outsourced and materail requirements. We are what we eat and a comapny is judged by what it buys in particular with stockist and wholesale activities and sectors.

A recomendation which brings customer and suppler aspects of 9K2K into prospective. My clients have now included in the suppliers assessment records a record of if the supplier has sent us a customer questionair. Think about it?

Godfrey Partridge
Isobiz.com

 

[Wes Bucey]

I am one (okay the only one so far) of the ASQ members that did not read the article. I started to, but after a few paragraphs, decided I had no interest in reading the reminder. I have worked with enough companies to discover several things. First, there are those who only want the flag, and will skirt any requirement they can. For them, it is snake oil. There are others that have taken these good business practices (I often say that much of ISO 9001 fall into the “well duh” category) and have run with them. For these companies, ISO 9001 is the oil that lubricates their business. The third group wants to do the right thing, but struggled before 9K, and still struggles. For them it is the castor oil that prevents their business from getting sicker.

I guess one person’s snake oil could be another person’s life oil. It is all a matter of perspective, and what you do with it. After all, even snake oil is great for roses!

I read the entire article. It didn't affect my thinking one way or the other. I don't recall Kevin Mader's letter (if you still have a copy, Kevin, email it to me.)

ASQ members who have visited the ASQ Discussion Forums are probably familiar with my observations on ISO9k2k.

Summarized:

1. The Standard is a nice starting point
2. Most organizations seek registration for wrong reason (marketing ploy)
3. Rarely do top managements embrace the primary basis for ISO9k2k (pleasing and satisfying customer, secondarily having a more efficient organization - which would please ME as a customer!)
4. Rarely do any organizations really have a system which they follow for continuous improvement
5. Registrars are too disparate [differing] in the actual audit of an organization
6. Some registrars are getting a reputation of issuing registration certificates regardless of what an impartial audit by another registrar might find
7. Almost every customer which "demands" ISO registration (or QS or TS) is really too lazy or incompetent to do its own investigation of a supplier
8. Few seem to understand that registration does NOT imply a "Quality" product or service
9. Not enough value is given to an organization that "self-declares" compliance to the Standard and offers to let any customer do an independent assessment to see if "the fact matches the brag."

 

[WALLACE]

Self declaration

Wes,
You make an excellent point when you highlight point 9.

Not enough value is given to an organization that "self-declares" compliance to the Standard and offers to let any customer do an independent assessment to see if "the fact matches the brag."

I recently had the pleasure of being an observer of an audit performed by a "supplier" on thier "client". Yes you read right.
I experienced one of my best observations of a quality system audit to date. The organization of focus (I can't possibly name the company) has no intentions of registering their QMS with a registrar and, furthermore invites their clients and suppliers to independently audit thie quality business processes.
It works very well for them and, I have to say, after observing their QMS set-up, it was eveident to me and those auditing that, this arrangement certainly works in particular for the company of focus. Their QMS was for the most part extremely compliant to the ISO9001 standard and then some. Continuous improvement assessment processes were assigned to all aspects of their QMS.
I was impressed to say the least.
Wallace.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Wes,
You make an excellent point when you highlight point 9. Not enough value is given to an organization that "self-declares" compliance to the Standard and offers to let any customer do an independent assessment to see if "the fact matches the brag." ... etc.

Thanks, Wallace. Every little affirmation helps!

When I was QM and de facto COO of a high tech contract machining company, we were searching desperately for the $$$ to get registered to ISO [1994] and QS 9000. One really sharp QM from a customer in California said, "Why pay that kind of money? We'd rather audit you ourselves and see the savings reflected in your prices." Another Q guy from an auto manufacturer said essentially the same thing. "You aren't a 'prime' - all you need to do is be compliant."

Thus encouraged, we created a "Self Assessment Manual" which listed the elements of each of the Standards in tabular form - the element in 1st column, our 'plain language' description of how we thought we met the element in Column 2, and the 3rd column left blank for the customer auditor to see if his assessment matched ours. We sent the SAM along to each new prospect. Fewer than 10% of customers ever came out to see for themselves. Most said, "If you have the chutzpah to lay this out, we're pretty sure you can back it up. We don't need to come out."

Those that did come out usually stopped about halfway through and said, "We're convinced. We don't need to see any more. By the way, do you mind if we copy this idea for our own company?"

Odd thing is, we had "customer satisfaction" on our list long before ISO and AIAG.

I think the key point was plain language description of how we thought we met the Standard. We did not use stilted language or parrot the Standard (which was already there in column 1 anyhow.)

We did say many times "we talk with our customer before, during, and after we produce a part to make sure it meets the customer's requirements."

 

[Kevin Mader]

Hey gang,

First, an overdue Thank You to Atul. I'm sorry that I overlooked this thread for 18 months.

Wes, here is one version of the letter I had published back then. It was a prophecy of a sort, in retrospect, as Nasser's exit came a month or two later and preceeded the likes of Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco.

I wrote:

Mr. Hoyer’s comments in “Why Quality gets an F” as well as to the comments he references from Bert Gunter are loud and clear. Aside from being that, they are in my opinion, true.

In addition to the fact that Quality has in recent years taken the back seat I also add this: lack of Business Ethics are sitting right there with it. Not only does Jacques Nasser need to reacquaint himself with both, many others including the Quality Movement need to do the same. Perhaps it is time that Donald Petersen comes out of retirement to restore the AIM of Ford.

I am hopeful that it isn’t too late for Ford as Nasser’s clear inaction to these somewhat recent tragic events will have a lasting, negative effect. Until folks figure out that the proverbial “bottom line” is secondary to the needs of the customer, disasters such as this one will continue to happen. If he thinks an endorsement into a Six Sigma culture is the answer, he is sorely mistaken. It will lead to a similar end, perhaps even quicker!

Contrary to Mr. Dramm’s comments (as so posted at the ASQNet), I respectfully submit that customer satisfaction and profitability are not linked. The Customer does not care about profit. The Customer cares about many other Value statements, but profit is clearly not one of them. I would even go to say that customer satisfaction and profit in this article are distinctly different, and are not ‘inextricably linked’. In order for the two to be linked, each would need recognition by the several components that make up a System. In the examples shared by Mr. Hoyer, we see that Big Business, such as Ford and Bridgestone are focused on getting products out rather than focusing on customer needs. This is evidence that Systems Thinking is absent and as such, profit cannot be linked to Customer Satisfaction.

Personally, I think that my argument would be supported by any one of the several families currently living with the tragic consequences so easily dismissed by Mr. Nasser at Ford. In fairness to Mr. Nasser, he is not alone. The sad return to Financial Paradigms, as correctly suggested by Mr. Hoyer in his article, is promoted and reinforced by Wall Street. This has caused a setback in the Quality Community and the Quality Movement. If people are not losing their lives, they are losing their jobs under such a paradigm. It is important for us as Quality practitioners to do our part in helping to educate our coworkers, neighbors, and children on the benefits of a Quality Paradigm, a paradigm consistent with improvement of the well being of everyone in the System, inclusive of our Environment. ‘Quality of Life’ is what we are after, not excuses and finger pointing over tragedies like this one in a vain attempt to maintain profitability.


The published letter was toned down and condensed for printing. Otherwise, the statements made were the same. I can't recall the exact date of publishing, but sometime near the end of 2001 in QP.

Regards,

Kevin

 

[Mike S.]

Wes,

I too agree with your point #9. FWIW I would have bought from your "self-declared" company. I have long advocated self-declaration if you do it right and can get by with it -- unfortunately IMO too few companies can get by with it.

Kevin -- You said, "I respectfully submit that customer satisfaction and profitability are not linked". Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Are they a perfect correlation? IMO, no. But IMO they are reasonably correlated in most cases. Whether you make potato chips or semiconductor chips; whether you mop floors or provide corporate IT support for GM, do a bad job in some respect and tick-off your customers (make them dissatisfied) and see what happens to your profits. Not linked? Try it in your company and see! (On second thought -- don't. We need people working!

 

[Wes Bucey]

Hey gang,

. . .
Wes, here is one version of the letter I had published back then. It was a prophecy of a sort, in retrospect, as Nasser's exit came a month or two later and preceeded the likes of Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco.

. . .
The published letter was toned down and condensed for printing. Otherwise, the statements made were the same.
. . .
Regards,

Kevin

Thanks, Kevin. I'm probably more satisfied with the unexpurgated version.

Mike, In general, I agree with your thesis that poor customer satisfaction and poor organization profit are linked. I'm not sure what Dramm and Kevin had in mind in Kevin's reference. The difference in management's perception has to do with the time periods involved. Customers like me are clever enough to know that we want our supplier to make a profit to stay in business. We do not want to be gouged, however. Customers vote with their feet. When they feel abused, the easiest response is to go somewhere else.

Managements in organizations which look for short-term return on ANY activity (are you listening, 6S folk?) usually ignore customer satisfaction. By the time the customer reaction [that they've been abused] sets in, the "hero" who created the mess is long gone to the next assignment, usually ready with a quip like, "It was OK when I ran things."

 

[WALLACE]

Wes,
You've hit the nail right on the head re- six sigma.
Man, I've grown to hate that term.
Wallace