ISO wants Feedback: ISO Survey on USE of ISO 9000:2000 Series of Standards

[Peter Fraser]

An interim report of the results is attached.

For your perusal.

Oh dear - the summary says "2.2.2.4 Were you able to integrate ISO 9001:2000 with other management systems?" Heaven help us if even ISO think that the standard is a management system, rather than a way to assess one.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The final report is available here.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Beg to differ

Oh dear - the summary says "2.2.2.4 Were you able to integrate ISO 9001:2000 with other management systems?" Heaven help us if even ISO think that the standard is a management system, rather than a way to assess one.

Peter, much as we agree about a lot of things I have to disagree with you on this one. 9001.2000 is a model for a quality management system. The fact that it has been hijacked and is considered only as an assessment standard is a pity.

Sidney, thanks as ever for the prompt. I will have a look at what ISO say!

 

[Peter Fraser]

Peter, much as we agree about a lot of things I have to disagree with you on this one. 9001.2000 is a model for a quality management system. The fact that it has been hijacked and is considered only as an assessment standard is a pity.

Paul

You are right - we disagree on this!

0.1 General

"It is not the intent of this International Standard to imply uniformity in the structure of quality management systems or uniformity of documentation.

This International Standard can be used by internal and external parties, including certification bodies, to assess the organization's ability to meet customer, regulatory and the organization's own requirements." ???

If people focussed on defining how they operate in a way that suits their own business, and then used an external standard to assess how (well) they meet specific requirements (for Q / HS / E / people development / CSR etc), they would have a better system than just parroting stuff out of a standard. Or so I believe!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If people focussed on defining how they operate in a way that suits their own business, and then used an external standard to assess how (well) they meet specific requirements (for Q / HS / E / people development / CSR etc), they would have a better system than just parroting stuff out of a standard. Or so I believe!

Left to their own devices, without the pressure of following certain minimal requirements, most business enterprises would not have several features required by standards such as ISO 9001. For example, without being forced to have a corrective action process in place, most organizations would repeat mistakes ad nauseum, even though few would disagree that, from a business and bottomline perspective, it makes a lot of sense for organizations to have a corrective action process in place.

 

[Marc]

Left to their own devices, without the pressure of following certain minimal requirements, most business enterprises would not have several features required by standards such as ISO 9001. For example, without being forced to have a corrective action process in place, most organizations would repeat mistakes ad nauseum, even though few would disagree that, from a business and bottomline perspective, it makes a lot of sense for organizations to have a corrective action process in place.

Well, most 'bad' businesses. Maybe ISO 9001 is bad in that it gives a false sense that a company is doing something they really aren't.

What I mean is - for example, where you say "For example, without being forced to have a corrective action process in place, most organizations would repeat mistakes ad nauseum". Maybe it would be better for bad businesses to die. I have LONG figured that any business without an effective nonconformance and corrective action system is going to be problematic and will probably die. The person who runs or owns the cmpany obviously is not real smart (despite the money s/he may make). I'm not convinced that ISO 9001 makes a bad company much, if any, better. I'm not convinced anyone should be forcing any company to have such a system especially using the ISO 9001 hammer. If a company is providing good product, why twist their arm to do the ISO 9001 dance? In most cases my bet is it won't make the system in such a company particularly effective.

With some caution I'll revert to around 1991 when I first started working with companies in ISO 9001. I maintained then, and do now, that such a standard is not necessary - That companies should live or die based upon the systems set up by the owners (or whoever). When he started the restaurant no one had to tell my friend how to run a business, even though he had never run a business. It was common sense to him. One tracks customer complaints, scrap (wasted food, etc.) and other aspects and makes adjustments as necessary. Shift reviews with employees were there from the start because he wanted to know what the problems were and what could be done. He wanted to hear about complaints. He didn't need ISO to tell him what to do. The restaurants have been successful because he did everything ISO 9001 asks for (including training, etc) but had never seen a copy of ISO 9001.

I'm just not convinced ISO 9001 is such a great thing. Too many of my implementation clients going back to the early 1990's already had existing, effective systems in place before being forced, for one reason or another (marketing, customer demand, etc.), to register to ISO 9001. On the other hand, most of the problematic companies didn't really improve that much (if at all) after ISO 9001 (and QS-9000 for that matter) was implemented.

Oh well - It's here, has staying power, and some folks are still making a lot of money off of it (myself included, especially considering the 1990's).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I'm just not convinced ISO 9001 is such a great thing. Too many of my implementation clients going back to the early 1990's already had existing, effective systems in place before being forced, for one reason or another (marketing, customer demand, etc.), to register to ISO 9001. On the other hand, most of the problematic companies didn't really improve that much (if at all) after ISO 9001 (and QS-9000 for that matter) was implemented.

I don't disagree with that. But in addition to "BAD" and "GOOD" businesses as you call them, there are other categories, such as "young", "immature", "ignorant", etc.. business that DO WANT to do the right thing. They just do not know how. Following the structure (or requirements) of a Standard help them becoming better organizations.
The old analogy of an ISO certificate as a driver's license. Having one does not make you a good driver, but you have to have one to legally drive on the street. Having one and still being a bad driver will cost you in higher insurance premiums, fines ... If you are really bad, the license gets revoked and you lose the privilege to drive legally. Unfortunately others might suffer the consequences of you being a bad driver or being a "BAD" business in the meantime....

 

[vanputten]

Hello Peter:

It was never the intent of the member bodies of ISO to create an external assessment tool for management systems. The ISO 9000 series was intended to provide a model so organizations can internally assess and improve their system to meet requirements. Requirements meaning regulatory, customer, industry, etc.

The intent was to create a tool to improve management systems to more effectively meet requirements. You are confusing the world of conformity assessment and their use of the ISO 9000 series in determining conformity with the use of the ISO 9000 series as a tool for system improvement.


ISO 9001 can be used by certification bodies to asses how an organization meets the requiremetns of ISO 9001:2000. There is a certification scheme built around the standard. But that was never and is still not the intent of the standard.

Regards, Dirk

 

[Peter Fraser]

Hello Peter:

It was never the intent of the member bodies of ISO to create an external assessment tool for management systems. The ISO 9000 series was intended to provide a model so organizations can internally assess and improve their system to meet requirements. Requirements meaning regulatory, customer, industry, etc.

The intent was to create a tool to improve management systems to more effectively meet requirements. You are confusing the world of conformity assessment and their use of the ISO 9000 series in determining conformity with the use of the ISO 9000 series as a tool for system improvement.


ISO 9001 can be used by certification bodies to asses how an organization meets the requiremetns of ISO 9001:2000. There is a certification scheme built around the standard. But that was never and is still not the intent of the standard.

Regards, Dirk

Dirk (and Paul)

Apologies - I had always understood that the aim was to tell people what their system had to do, and not how to do it. If it is a model, then it (esp the 1994 version) is a spectacular failure. And your description of the idea of a model AND an improvement tool "in the same box" seems to me to be unachievable.

Another belief that I have had for years is that certification of a management system by a third party AGAINST A STANDARD should give a (potential) customer some sort of comfort that a supplier could produce goods and services of a consistent and acceptable quality, and avoid the need for every customer to do their own audit of every supplier. I am not sure that this aim has been achieved!

 

[vanputten]

Hello Peter:

<I had always understood that the aim was to tell people what their system had to do, and not how to do it. > I agree.

<If it is a model, then it (esp the 1994 version) is a spectacular failure.> I don't know about "spectacular" but it was a failure. This failure as a model that should result in improvement is one of the driving factors for the 2000 revision, the inclusion of text on the process approach, the inclusion of the 8 Quality Management Principles, and Figure 1 showing a model of how a business system can result in improvement.

<And your description of the idea of a model AND an improvement tool "in the same box" seems to me to be unachievable.> Maybe I didn't use the most optimal terms in my ealier posting. I am not sure what you are saying. A business model can be an improvement tool but maybe I am missing your point or poorly chose my words?

<Another belief that I have had for years is that certification of a management system by a third party AGAINST A STANDARD should give a (potential) customer some sort of comfort that a supplier could produce goods and services of a consistent and acceptable quality, and avoid the need for every customer to do their own audit of every supplier. I am not sure that this aim has been achieved!> A self assessment could give customers comfort also especially if there is a mutally beneficial and mature relationship between the supplier and the customer (Quality Management Principle #8). I don't think the aim has been achieved either. ISO 9001 is predominantly used as a meal ticket for purchase orders. ISO 9001 is almost always thought of in a conformity assessment sense and not a tool / model to implement and operate an effective quality management system.

Regards, Dirk