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

[John Broomfield]

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]

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

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.

 

[Yukon]

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]

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?

 

[Yukon]

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]

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.

 

[Yukon]

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.

 

[rogerpenna]

The OP is about ISO 9001. It doesn't mention certification. The use of ISO 9001 as the basis for a QMS isn't "snake oil". However, many, even recent posts throw certification into the mix and take the thread off course...

I wonder if you have even read my entire first post in this thread.

"The use of ISO 9001 as the basis for a QMS isn't "snake oil"

This is EXACTLY what my first post was all about.

The entire post was exactly about our company following ISO standards for QMS just because we think it helps the company, not because we need a certificate.

What that means? That we DO NOT think it's snake oil. The certificate is second thought.

So 2 years after that post, I still don´t know what exactly you are arguing against me.

 

[John Broomfield]

Roger,

Andy has moved on.

Looking forward to more of your contributions.

Best wishes,

John

 

[rogerpenna]

Ah, I didn´t notice that below his name. Sorry.