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

[al40]

Re: Snake oil

I have to agree, I have only worked with one company in the last 7 years that took ISO serious and implemented a system to improve their business and not to get a cert on the wall. The last one I worked with recently was only concerned with how do we get past the audit in order to retain our cert. I can't speak for everyone but Quality used to be fun but it seems more emphasis is put on getting the cert than improving our processes and business functions.

That's just my take...

Take care,
al40

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!

 

[harry]

Poll closed on 18 March 2010.

 

[rogerpenna]

8 years after the last post and 16 years after the thread was created, I am posting this reply. But I am new and this topic caught my attention.


Yes, many or maybe most companies only care for the cert. Their clients demand it, so they only go so far as what they need for the cert.

I can say however that a FEW companies, like my own, do NOT need the certification.

The ISO 9001 certification is not demanded or even asked by any of our clients. It never became a requirement for public biddings in Brazil. And we only work with public biddings.

And yet, we have kept it for 10 years now. And we even changed the certification company (DLV to Bureau Veritas) because we thought the previous Certification Company was going to soft on us.

Our objective IS to force employees to seek process/procedures improvement. Doing things more right. More compliance.

It has its cost, but it also helped us save money. Some ISO audits caught problems that could have cost us quite a lot of $$$$, and more than just find the problem, forced us to think in how to avoid the problem repeating.

Before ISo, we would take immediate action but would not act on the root problem.


All these quality lingo, like Non Conformity, Root Problem, 5 Whys, Ishikawa, etc, etc, has helped us a lot, as the company started small in the late 70s and to this day it's a family business. So it grew with many processes being informal and prone to problems.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Before ISo, we would take immediate action but would not act on the root problem.

Welcome to The Cove, fellow countryman.

Congrats on sharing your experience, but, with all due respect, companies should NOT NEED an annual or semi-annual audit by a 3[sup]rd[/sup] party CB auditor to have a continual improvement mind set. The system should be owned by the workforce and any need for an extrinsic pressure to keep the discipline and improvement drive is, to an extent, dysfunction.

If you are really seeking an external set of experienced eyes to help the organization in maintaining a continual drive, the constraints imposed onto a CB auditor make the role very limited. You would be better off engaging with a professional and knowledgeable consultant that can REALLY help the organization moving up in the maturity journey.

Um abraço.

 

[rogerpenna]

well, it was the external consultant that suggested the ISO.

I was not at the company at the time anyway. I suppose that some 10 years ago there was the possibility that PBQP-H was to be demanded as a pre-requisite in public biddings of the construction sector (both habitat and civil infrastructure).

As PBQP-H is based on ISO, but a little harder and with items specific to civil construction (also less "free" for the organization to decide what they want), we implanted ISO and in a next step PBQP-H.

As the organization noted improvement with ISO and PBQP-H, we decided to maintain it, even if PBQP-H has never been really implemented as a requirement for public biddings.


Unfortunately, many employees will ONLY follow procedures because of ISO internal and external audits.

 

[AndyN]

8 years after the last post and 16 years after the thread was created, I am posting this reply. But I am new and this topic caught my attention.


Yes, many or maybe most companies only care for the cert. Their clients demand it, so they only go so far as what they need for the cert.

I can say however that a FEW companies, like my own, do NOT need the certification.

Certification? Maybe not. But you might just be missing the entire point of why ISO 9001 started out. Customers. When I was the Supplier Quality Manager for a significant UK organization I had no time (or budget) for explaining to suppliers (what some call "supplier development") of basic "blocking and tackling" when it came to assuring the quality of the product we bought. Implementing ISO 9001 requirements is to raise the level of confidence in the supplier's ability to assure quality, pure and simple. Certification simply intended to replace to need for multiple supplier audits of the same stuff.

Your organization may not need certification. However, do you customers have confidence in your ability to assure quality?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Unfortunately, many employees will ONLY follow procedures because of ISO internal and external audits.

Sorry, but that has DYSFUNCTION written all over it. Show me an organization that needs a boogey man to keep the discipline of the workforce and I show you a dysfunctional company.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, by the way.

 

[rogerpenna]

Sorry, but this thread is not about the company being dysfunctional or not. Nor about the entire point of ISO being created.

It's about ISO being snake oil or not.

Like someone said in the 2nd post of this thread, back in 2002

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.

Btw, we don´t really care if the point of ISO is the client, because in our opinion that point doesn´t really matter in our sector.

We work with public biddings ONLY. Public biddings are about lowest price, not highest quality, nor about client relationship. Building "client relationships" in public sector is actually considered corruption.

Our quality IS better than our competitors, as all our client satisfaction polls show every year.


But that is not the important thing for us, because even if we exceed our client's expectations in every way, next public bidding, even if from the SAME client, it's the lowest price bid that will win. The client can´t even do anything about it, because this is regulated by law.


Furthermore, our clients have their own quality systems. So we can´t deliver a service with defects, as the client has supervised and approved the product all along the way.

What we can do is exactly reduce our costs by avoiding re-work. Improve our planning so that we don´t end in the negative because the government client won´t pay for two years and we invested $$$$, etc.

 

[AndyN]

Sorry, but this thread is not about the company being dysfunctional or not. Nor about the entire point of ISO being created.

It's about ISO being snake oil or not.

Like someone said in the 2nd post of this thread, back in 2002



Btw, we don´t really care if the point of ISO is the client, because in our opinion that point doesn´t really matter in our sector.

We work with public biddings ONLY. Public biddings are about lowest price, not highest quality, nor about client relationship. Building "client relationships" in public sector is actually considered corruption.

Our quality IS better than our competitors, as all our client satisfaction polls show every year.


But that is not the important thing for us, because even if we exceed our client's expectations in every way, next public bidding, even if from the SAME client, it's the lowest price bid that will win. The client can´t even do anything about it, because this is regulated by law.


Furthermore, our clients have their own quality systems. So we can´t deliver a service with defects, as the client has supervised and approved the product all along the way.

What we can do is exactly reduce our costs by avoiding re-work. Improve our planning so that we don´t end in the negative because the government client won´t pay for two years and we invested $$$$, etc.

Good for you! If you do these things so well, I'm not sure why you chose to resurrect this thread. 99% of businesses who have their people post here, aren't as sophisticated as you say you are. Saying that ISO and certification isn't for your organization maybe so, but frankly, few here will understand - including myself - what the purpose of stating that is.

 

[asheshsaraf]

Re: ISO 9001 - Snake Oil?

Mark, I am conducting a doctoral research on Efficacy of ISO 9001:2015 standard. I was wondering how I could get people to fill out my survey.