ISO 9004 Managing for the sustained success of an organization - Update May 2017

[Caster]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

I am reading the latest Working Draft of ISO 9004:2009. As previously announced, the document is a significant departure from ISO 9004:2000. To start with the title: ISO 9004:2009 will no longer contain the text of ISO 9001. And, actually it will not follow the same clauses contained in ISO 9001. The current WD of ISO 9004 contains the following contents list:

So close but still so far...

The "dirty word" only appears twice now - good progress indeed!

Managing for sustainability – A quality management system approach

4 Quality management principles

Any hope they will finish the job and change "quality" to "business" everywhere it crops up?

How great would it be to have the boss call a meeting and demand we get behind his new Sustainable Business Management System!

Now that would be stealth quality!

As long as they leave that "dirty word" in the title, this will always be relegated / delegated to the quality ghetto and assigned to a person without the authority to implement the activities required. And it will be seen as a cost, the approach will be to do the least possible, and no benefits will accrue to the organization.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

As long as they leave that "dirty word" in the title, this will always be relegated / delegated to the quality ghetto and assigned to a person without the authority to implement the activities required. And it will be seen as a cost, the approach will be to do the least possible, and no benefits will accrue to the organization.

The problem you are referring to is not caused by the fact that the ISO 9001 and 9004 have a "narrow focus" on quality management. The problem happens because many organizations don't understand the difference between the small q and the large Q. For those organizations that don't realize that quality is much more than inspection and test, a "business management standard", which would have an immensely broader scope compared to 9001 and 9004, would be a curse, never a blessing.

If we have so much disagreement, confusion, debate on a standard that addresses one single (albeit critical) aspect of a business, imagine if we really tried to have a "business management standard" that would be generic enough and encompassing enough to address the needs of all organizations, irrespective of geography, size, economic sector, maturity, etc...:mg:

What about auditing to a business management standard? Would you like an external auditor questioning your pricing strategy, inventory cycles, product positioning, service bundling, absenteeism, carbon footprint, etc...

I don't know if you read the available drafts of ISO 9004:2009, but this is a short extract of paragraph 4.1 of ISO 9004:2009 CD2

1.1 Interested parties focus

Sustainable success is a result of an organization’s ability to achieve its objectives in the long term with balanced consideration of the needs and expectations of all its interested parties. The groups or entities most often identified as interested parties are customers, investors/shareholders (owners), employees, suppliers, partners, the environment and society.
The needs and expectations of the main interested parties are usually given as following

¾ for customers: the quality and cost of products (including support), ​

¾ for shareholders: sustainable growth, value and profit, as well as agility to respond to the changes in the organization’s environment (the term "agility" incorporates degree of speed, flexibility and innovation),​

¾ for employees: the quality of their working environment (which can be affected by issues such as job security, degree of autonomy, recognition, adequate compensation and benefits, belonging, participation in decisions, progress and development, physical and cultural working conditions, and dignity),​

¾ for society: social responsibility and good governance, environmental protection, sustainable use of natural resources,​

¾ for partners and suppliers: shared benefits and sustainable partnerships.​

Personally, I think that 9004 tries to show the required balance a successful organization must strike, amongst all the stakeholders, but to think that we could really develop an all encompassing management system standard, addressing ALL of business facets, is wishful thinking.

 

[Caster]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

...to think that we could really develop an all encompassing management system standard, addressing ALL of business facets, is wishful thinking.

I'm wading into a debate with a master here, please don't clobber me too hard...but...

Isn't the above exactly what executive management does? They have to address all business facets in their business plans.

It is not hard, it may not be done well, but that is another matter).

It happens everyday in every company, some great, most mediocre, some poor.

Harvard believes they can teach it (MBA).

The stock market rewards or punishes the implementation/results of it.

Academics have made careers out of developing new and improved methods.

Consultants get rich turning academic ideas into buzz words.

I also talk in terms of big Q and little q but it is still comes back to that word, and (for my life experience so far anyway) most executives I have dealt with still see quality as a department, not as an improvement tool.

Quality is an output, it is a result of business decisions made.

That is why most of us here at the Cove are so frustrated. We are expected to "fix Quality" but we are the waggy tail on the dog. We are going to go where the dog is going, no matter how hard we wag.

Anyway, the good news for me is the standards are heading towards business models. Baldridge is a long long way away from quality toward business.

And yeah, I wouldn't mind someone checking the work of the executives, forcing them to justify, explain and defend their work. I have to put up with it, why not them, maybe there would be fewer Enrons?

 

[Stijloor]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Consultants get rich turning academic ideas into buzz words.

Caster,

With all due respect. I am a consultant/trainer. And I am not rich. And I stay away from buzz words.

Many of my Fellow Covers are consultants and they would possibly object to blanket statements.

Stijloor.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Consultants get rich turning academic ideas into buzz words.

Caster,

With all due respect. I am a consultant/trainer. And I am not rich. And I stay away from buzz words.

Many of my Fellow Covers are consultants and they would possibly object to blanket statements.

Stijloor.

There's nothing inherently inaccurate about Caster's statement, but I doubt that he thinks that it applies to all consultants. It would be a blanket statement if he had said, "All consultants get rich..."

 

[Stijloor]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

There's nothing inherently inaccurate about Caster's statement, but I doubt that he thinks that it applies to all consultants. It would be a blanket statement if he had said, "All consultants get rich..."

Jim,

Good point!

Stijloor.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

...Isn't the above exactly what executive management does? They have to address all business facets in their business plans.

...It happens everyday in every company, some great, most mediocre, some poor.

...The stock market rewards or punishes the implementation/results of it.

...Quality is an output, it is a result of business decisions made.

That is why most of us here at the Cove are so frustrated. We are expected to "fix Quality" but we are the waggy tail on the dog. We are going to go where the dog is going, no matter how hard we wag.

...I wouldn't mind someone checking the work of the executives, forcing them to justify, explain and defend their work. I have to put up with it, why not them, maybe there would be fewer Enrons?

I agree with the comments, but I think you have answered your own question. Doesn't the marketplace and the investors ultimately check their work? The Board of Directors should, but often don't. But, the market ultimately votes.

You mention Enron, look at the current mortgage and banking problem, we have discussed the Big 3's arrogance many times...

It just takes a long time sometimes.

...Consultants get rich turning academic ideas into buzz words.

I'd like to think some of us consultants actually turn academic ideas into improvements, results and profit, not just buzz words.

If you think about it, Quality Managers are just internal consultants. And, I am an external consultant. Both groups are trying to help improve the organization. The main difference is you get paid by a paycheck and I get paid by invoice. Our goals are similar.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

Caster,

With all due respect. I am a consultant/trainer. And I am not rich. And I stay away from buzz words.

Many of my Fellow Covers are consultants and they would possibly object to blanket statements.

Stijloor.

Jan, don't let the cat out of the bag...of course consultants are rich! We are living fat cat lives because the quality of our work is so splendid that the business world just shoves bags of money at us...let 'em keep believing it.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

The problem you are referring to is not caused by the fact that the ISO 9001 and 9004 have a "narrow focus" on quality management. The problem happens because many organizations don't understand the difference between the small q and the large Q. For those organizations that don't realize that quality is much more than inspection and test, a "business management standard", which would have an immensely broader scope compared to 9001 and 9004, would be a curse, never a blessing.

If we have so much disagreement, confusion, debate on a standard that addresses one single (albeit critical) aspect of a business, imagine if we really tried to have a "business management standard" that would be generic enough and encompassing enough to address the needs of all organizations, irrespective of geography, size, economic sector, maturity, etc...:mg:

What about auditing to a business management standard? Would you like an external auditor questioning your pricing strategy, inventory cycles, product positioning, service bundling, absenteeism, carbon footprint, etc...

I don't know if you read the available drafts of ISO 9004:2009, but this is a short extract of paragraph 4.1 of ISO 9004:2009 CD2
Personally, I think that 9004 tries to show the required balance a successful organization must strike, amongst all the stakeholders, but to think that we could really develop an all encompassing management system standard, addressing ALL of business facets, is wishful thinking.

A well reasoned argument, Sidney. Nicely done. I love 9004, and I think we in the industry must do a better job of promoting it among our clients. We need to talk it up more. Many of my ISO clients have adopted it as an internal working document. But, it has to remain a voluntary standard, precisely for the reasons you state.

In another reply, I agreed with Caster's sentiments, but 9004 cannot become mandatory. It would be unenforceable. The marketplace is the only effective regulator of executive effectiveness. Mandated central governance does not work in the real world.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: ISO 9004:2009 - Managing for Sustainability – A Quality Management System Approac

So close but still so far...

The "dirty word" only appears twice now - good progress indeed!

Managing for sustainability – A quality management system approach

4 Quality management principles

Any hope they will finish the job and change "quality" to "business" everywhere it crops up?

How great would it be to have the boss call a meeting and demand we get behind his new Sustainable Business Management System!

Now that would be stealth quality!


As long as they leave that "dirty word" in the title, this will always be relegated / delegated to the quality ghetto and assigned to a person without the authority to implement the activities required. And it will be seen as a cost, the approach will be to do the least possible, and no benefits will accrue to the organization.

While I agree with your intent, I would make a different point. The types of progressive management who would be willing to embrace 9004 in the first place do not need the push you are suggesting. And, those who are not progressive, won't respond to any pushing 9004 might give them anyway. It has to be a voluntary standard. Only thos ewho "get it" can effectively use it, and those types won't be confused by the word "quality" appearing in it.

It has been a great tool, and progressive companies have benefitted from it. I hope the revision will be beneficial.