John Seddon's 'The Case Against ISO 9000'

[Peter Fraser]

I find very interesting that John Seddon states that the huge number of certificates transitioned from the 1994 version to the 2000 Edition in a "short" amout of time depicts the corruption of the accreditation/registration processes, in front of the UKAS most senior executive. I would like to know if Lord Lindsay rebutted Seddon's allegations

Did anybody attend this panel?

Sidney

I was in the near 200 audience. First, to "correct" some of the implications in the "PR" email from Vanguard (which seems to be spreading faster than some viruses!): Frank Steer of the IQA didn't just "attend" the meeting, he was in the chair. John Seddon was only one of three speakers, with a 4th panel member (the link above is for all speakers' notes and slides).

The meeting title was "ISO9001 - Benefit or Burden - Do Quality Models and Standards Lead to Improvement?", but it focused almost entirely on ISO9K. In retrospect, it would have been informative if the second part of the title had been given more attention. Although one comment from Frank Steer did worry me - I am fairly sure that he said that "ISO9K is a model for a management system". In my opinion that is where many implementations go wrong - people use it as a model (as they did with the previous version) rather than first describing how they run the business, and then using the standard as a way of assessing their system.

And no, I don't think that there was a real response to the query re the last minute rush. There is obviously a widespread concern about that. Peter Gamble made a good case for his own company's approach of providing non-UKAS acredited certification, but admitted that there was a risk of cowboy assessors entering the market (maybe they are there already).

 

[The Taz!]

Another thing:

We all know that ISO9001 is not perfect, but I'm not used to looking at the world as someting either black or white. Let's for the sake of discussion assume that it is just as bad as Seddon claims... What about other standards? How harmful is for instance TS 16949 compared to ISO9001? Is it fair to direct the crusade against one standard only?

/Claes

I have to say, IHMO, that TS-16949 being based on ISO-9001:2000, has all the faults. . . as well as those added in by the automotive community . . . plus the Customer Specific requirements that still say they can't agree on anything.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Sidney, I certainly understand your comment but given the numbers and the one year time increment are acurate, I think I have to agree that 200 a day is quite a few. If they were done that fast I think it might raise a few eyebrows. Do you dispute the numbers or are you saying it is reasonable to do the 200 a day?

Just curious.

Dave

Dave, in my estimation, the numbers were somewhat inflated. Nevertheless, if you have enough resources, i.e., 1000+ auditors in your roster, you can perform a high number of transition audits.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Where is the alternative?

Once again, assuming that ISO 9001 really is as bad as Seddon claims:

What is there to replace it with? I certainly don't want to go back to the bad old days when everyone "rolled their own". It may have it's faults, but at least we have a common base to lean on. I wouldn't mind getting rid of it, if that means we'll get something better to replace it with, but for the time being I don't see anything better... Are we not better off trying to improve what we have instead of chucking it out without a decent replacement?

Surely, with reasonable interpretation we can make ISO9001 work?

/Claes

 

[Mike S.]

Once again, assuming that ISO 9001 really is as bad as Seddon claims:

What is there to replace it with? I certainly don't want to go back to the bad old days when everyone "rolled their own". It may have it's faults, but at least we have a common base to lean on. I wouldn't mind getting rid of it, if that means we'll get something better to replace it with, but for the time being I don't see anything better... Are we not better off trying to improve what we have instead of chucking it out without a decent replacement?

Surely, with reasonable interpretation we can make ISO9001 work?

/Claes

There you go again, Claes - taking us back to the real world!

A while back in this thread I asked folks what they would do if they could pick any quality standard or system they wanted for their company and not too many people answered. Maybe there are many reasons why so few answered, but I think one reason is that many don't know what else they'd use. It is very much easier to criticize someone else's plan when you are not under the gun to create a viable alternative.

I've done my share of bashing ISO 9001, I admit. My biggest gripe is the requirement in many cases (imposed by customers) that you become certified regardless of whether this brings any value to your company. This is not the standard's fault. JMO.

 

[Ilias]

John Seddon Follow up

Well, the banter has been intersting for me at least. John Seddon spoke at Aberdeen and I have just finished reading his book 'Freedom from Command & Control'. I am in no position to answer in every case but I will attempt to give comments to some of the points raised by Claes, Sidney, Peter and others.

I did not attend the Aberdeen session, but I have talked to someone that did. Apparently they asked John to attend so that they would have a good attendance. Johns speech was well received, so he had some supporters there.

In response to John Frank Steer repeared the standard approach that the IQA would normally do; the old approach all quality people say when in a corner about number of companies certificated, etc. In essence he did not answer any claims. Frank Steer asked who in the audience thought ISO helped organisations (my words), and less than half put their hand up.

Lord Lindsay seemed genuinely impressed by John. Lord Lindsays response was to say something about research going on at ACAS, but gave no details! It was clear that ACAS is set up to monitor standards like product safety, and barely seem to know about ISO as a management model.

Some points of note are the actual decline of ISO in mature countries. And the rapid inclease in certain countries. John Seddon attributes the increase to coersion by government departments, and the EC, as a requirement for international trade. The pooint is that this is taking a standards approach and not for the good of the organisation, so management will not care as long as they have the certificate.

Talking to John Mortimer at the Vanguard office where John Seddon works, according to John Seddon the alternative cannot be a set of standards. The alternative is to follow the correct method for managing a business. And in fact this is what most of our organisations do at the moment. Who really uses ISO to run an organisation? There can never be a standard or a model. But there must be good theory. John Seddon argues that Lean Thinking is such a method that will allow managers to truly understand the conceps that ISO struggles to mimic. ISO was created from a management style that is not compatible with Lean, and you cannot mix the two. They have diametrically opposed theories and a meeting in the middle cannot happen. That is why John Seddon is so hard against ISO.

To go back on a poster, this is what Toyota do, and they are recognised as the most effective car manufacturer in the world. Apparently Toyota threw out ISO, and still retain it in certain parts for compliance in the US. John Seddon put up a letter he got from a Japanese consultant saying that Japanese managers hate ISO.

I must stop now. Sorry it is so long...

Ilias.

 

[Steve Prevette]

Once again, assuming that ISO 9001 really is as bad as Seddon claims:

What is there to replace it with? I certainly don't want to go back to the bad old days when everyone "rolled their own". It may have it's faults, but at least we have a common base to lean on. I wouldn't mind getting rid of it, if that means we'll get something better to replace it with, but for the time being I don't see anything better... Are we not better off trying to improve what we have instead of chucking it out without a decent replacement?

Surely, with reasonable interpretation we can make ISO9001 work?

/Claes

I'll make the argument we would be better off chucking it. Yes, force everyone to "roll their own". Those companies that satisfy the market with the lowest total costs will survive, those that don't, don't. Survival is optional. And survival will be based upon performance, rather than what color flag is flying in front of the plant.

Me, I would implement Dr. Deming's 14 points and systems thinking, with the appropriate amount of documentation of processes (and more importantly, having efficient and effective processes and systems) to achieve lowest life cycle costs.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Many people think that ISO 9000 is not compatible with a lot of other programs, such as lean manufacturing, 6 sigma, JIT, etc....

I strongly disagree with that view point. You can effectively implement ISO 9000 and deploy many other initiatives without conflict, as long as they are done in a well orchestrated manner. There is no substitute for "grey matter".

Much has been said about Toyota's Production System. It is true that Toyota (to the best of my knowledge) does not invoke ISO 9000. And why should they? They are the best (my personal opinion). For an insight on TPS check
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/special/tps/tps.html

But, from what I read, there is nothing in TPS that negate ISO 9000. Actually in a number of occasions, it is mentioned the importance of following standardized work:

". . .Standardized work is essential to identifying where things go wrong, Minoura says. "If you're turning out something in a different way from that on the standardized work sheet, or different from the way other people are doing it, that's the definition of a problem . . ."

". . .Train people to follow rules and standards as if second nature.. . ."

Also, if Toyota was so against Management System Standards why would they voluntarily implement ISO 14001 and get their sites certified? Here in North America, I work with many sites of Toyota that are ISO 14001 certified and, even though Toyota is a also a leader in Environmental Leadership, they seem not to dislike ISO 14001.

So, trying to use Toyota as an example of businesses that deplore Management Systems Standards is not correct.

 

[Ilias]

Toyota and ISO 14000

Just a point in answer to ISO 14000 and Toyota that you mention. I would say that ISO 14000 is probably a suitable vehicle to implement an environmental process as environment management. Most people in organisations have little idea as to environmental aspects of an organisation or a suitable management method.

However, ISO 9000 is quite a different animal. It purports to become involved with the key proceses in an organisation, with the work, and with customers in a most fundamental way. I see the problem as people treating management of an organisation like a management standard like ISO 14000.

As far as I understand Japanese manufacturing only use ISO 9000 when they need to comply, and then it cannot begin to describe the management principles behind their success. However, I would agree with you that you can implement ISO together with other approaches, like TPS.

Ilias

 

[WALLACE]

I agree

Me, I would implement Dr. Deming's 14 points and systems thinking, with the appropriate amount of documentation of processes (and more importantly, having efficient and effective processes and systems) to achieve lowest life cycle costs.

I agree Steve,
Yet I would tend to infuse and encourage systems thinking as the primary focus of business in this century.
Demings 14 points, I agree are indeed very useful yet, they're almost IMO alien in their language structure even today and, I would (And do) tend to re-word the Deming philosophies and theories to be more aligned with the business speak of the times in which we live. My analogy would be to reading a modern version of the good book compared to the old King james version, they say the same thing but almost in a different language.
My question would be, how can we deliver Deming's points in an universal format that can be clearly understood in the language of the day? Clarity is key to delivering theories and philosophies, do you agree?

Regarding the Toyota approach to excellence, yes they are very lean in their approach to business and production and, I would say their success is due to the regimented stucture of their culture. It very rarely translates into a western culture regarding business excellence.
Just my thoughts.
Wallace