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

What Do YOU Believe About ISO 9001?

  • ASQ Member - Yes I read it.

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • ASQ Member - Didn't read it.

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • Not an ASQ Member

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Agree - It's Snake Oil, a Scam.

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • It has Become a Scam, but is Good Business Practices

    Votes: 14 63.6%
  • Disagree - Hoyer is way off base.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#51
Sidney,

I was stating the future position more in hope than fact.

For B2B the way forward is probably the industry-specific versions of the standard (ISO 9001) with the active engagement of the industry’s top tier customers.

The riskier industries are the first to welcome regulation but even with medical devices we may generally assure quality but we still have a long way to go to prevent major failings.

Aerospace seems to enjoy a virtually defect-free certification regimen largely, perhaps, due the industry versions of ISO 9001 being used in a well-regulated industry. Counterfeit products may be an ongoing threat. Automotive shares this benefit and risk but seems to struggling with the design and development of autonomous vehicles.

Right now the construction industry continues to have many problems virtually untouched by ISO 9001 and certification. A recent bridge collapse in Florida and a tower in London with its blazing cladding spring to mind. The designers, constructors and manufacturers claimed to have used certified products within their certified management systems.

For regulation to work well the demand has to come from the public/industry. As concerned quality professionals I doubt we would be successful in lobbying our government for laws, a regulator, regulations and enforcement until more people die.

Wanting to change a defective service continues to drive us and I guess that is why we are both on the Cove.

John
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#52
Wanting to change a defective service continues to drive us and I guess that is why we are both on the Cove.
:applause:

That's right. Unfortunately until the USERS of certificates demand the change, the whole sector (with a few exceptions) will keep accelerating the downward spiral. This change is NEVER going to come from within.

The business world and society at large want and need confidence in the supply chain. Unfortunately, they keep ordering certificates, without knowing what to do when certificates don't deliver confidence.
 
#53
In my opinion the 2015 version of the standard is a step back into the 1980 s. No mandatory documented procedures, and no mandatory calibration traceability. Theses are but two areas that will destroy the credibility of any QMS if a company comply. Sad, very sad indeed.
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Staff member
Admin
#54
In my opinion the 2015 version of the standard is a step back into the 1980 s. No mandatory documented procedures, and no mandatory calibration traceability. Theses are but two areas that will destroy the credibility of any QMS if a company comply. Sad, very sad indeed.
Interesting comment. I think that's right on the level that it's less prescriptive like the '87 standard. But maybe too much so?
 
#55
I personally do not believe, nor do many of my colleagues, that the 2015 version is an improvement. Most of us felt the 2008 version was very good, effective, easily understood, etc etc. That being said it is important to note that the ISO "people" make their money selling standards. In fact they don't even create the standard, they assemble quality experts to create the standard. ISO makes the money with little overhead cost.

It is almost a conflict of interest in issuing upgrades simply for the sake of doing so?
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Staff member
Admin
#56
What I found interesting about your comment was that back in the day (when we transitioned to the 1994 version), we felt that the new standard was more prescriptive and went away from a basic standard that could be implemented in a myriad of ways. Then came 2000...and then 2008. And now 2015. For a while there, the trend was to become more prescriptive largely because industry/industries were slow learners (e.g., tell them how to do it rather than allow for reasonable interpretation, process design). 2015 seems to be less prescriptive in some areas...but less so (or at all) in others. I feel though that evolving standards is important, especially with regard meeting the new states of the art. But to your point, there does seem to be the stench of money in the air.
 
#57
What I really liked about the version 2008 was it required six very important documented procedures - everyone had to have them. Now it's have a documented procedure if you want to or to heck with them.
 

Top Bottom