John Seddon's 'The Case Against ISO 9000'

J

John Seddon

ISO 9000:2000

Want a systems approach to ISO 9000: 2000? The systems approach ensures you get ISO but you aso get improved performance. But it is not for the feint hearted. It first requires that you are prepared to change the way you think. Visit www.lean-service.com for a free guide to ISO 9000: 2000 from a systems perspective.
 
C

Chris May

Topic for Debate ?

Guys,

Have a look at and download the VANGUARD STANDARD, a system thinkers guide to interpretation and use of ISO 9K2K.

Should promote some comments..................+ & -

Regards,

Chris May

PS: Sorry guys,

Due to pending meeting, I forgot to "point" to relevant info.
The VANGUARD STANDARD is available at www.lean-service.com.

Regards,

Chris.
 
A

Atul Khandekar

How does this go down with - 1. auditors and 2. managements?
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
I scanned the first few pages but don't have the time to read it all (very lonnnng document!). My initial impression is this will get very little attention. If it confuses auditors (more) and requires me to learn both this "Vanguard standard" and the ISO standard it seems to be making life harder than it already is. I'm confused enough by ISO requirements :ko: -- the last thing I need is to have to learn another "standard" and make a system compliant to both. I don't see enough value in what I've read to warrant the effort. Just my 2 cents worth.

Mike
 
M

M Greenaway

Its appears to be quite a lucrative business to knock ISO9000.

nuff said really.

Bear in mind that ISO9000 is created from a committee of highly knowledgeable individuals from a variety of major industry representative groups. Also the standard goes through a rigourous review/approval process.

The Vanguard Standards, on the other hand, are written by John Seddon, who I believe is actually a psychologist.
 
And that's not all...

ISO 9000 is an excellent document. Any company that uses it in the spirit in which it was created AND with a little COMMON SENSE will maintain a strong quality system and will benefit from continual improvement.
Yes Carl. I wholeheartedly agree.
The trouble is that most organisations are suckered by their registrars (and many 'consultants' and 'quality managers') into applying only the requirements sections of the ISO 9001 part of the document - just 12 out of the 100+ pages of the whole document.
Actually, it's even worse, Jim... :( There are a lot of people in the positions you mentioned who have not even understood those 12 pages...

/Claes
 
E

energy

So?

Originally posted by Jim Wade or one of his other personalities The trouble is that most organisations are suckered by their registrars (and many 'consultants' and 'quality managers') into applying only the requirements sections of the ISO 9001 part of the document - just 12 out of the 100+ pages of the whole document.

This bad practice is very widespread; it is evident that many contributors to these discussions fall into the camp of believing that clauses 4 to 8 comprise a 'standard'.

Is the air a little thin up there? Most people in those positions are not in a position to "live" to the 100 pages of ISO9000. They are not CEO's, Presidents or General Managers. The people who contribute to these discussions have their hands full just getting Sections 4 to 8 implemented satisfactorily.

Consultants and Managers know first hand how difficult it is to get everybody on board. Get the things done that get cited the most. Your view of some of these types of people failing to see how the standard should be implemented is without foundation, IMHO, and just another opinion. No more, no less.
:p :ko: :smokin:

Claes Gefvenberg said:
Yes Carl. I wholeheartedly agree. Actually, it's even worse, Jim... :( There are a lot of people in the positions you mentioned who have not even understood those 12 pages...

As long as I'm at it, and of course you aren't one them. Just ask you.:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:
 
R

Randy Stewart

I agree Energy. I've been here for over 6 years now and things are finally starting to change. We have been registered for 5 so the implementation has happened, it just hasn't changed anything. This company was started in the previous owners garage and no one could tell him how to run his company, but he needed the registration to keep the B3 contracts. Once Ford bought us we changed CEOs and we are starting to see a few of the benefits from ISO & QS. But it has come from the top down.
IMHO and I firmly believe this, the biggest injustice to the "Standard" is putting "Quality" in the title. It makes everyone believe that it is something for QA and it can take years to change the thinking.
:frust:
 
Touché

As long as I'm at it, and of course you aren't one them. Just ask you
Oh, I may certainly be one of them for all I know... After all we keep learning every day, and that has to mean that there is something left to learn... :bonk:

/Claes
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Re: So?

energy said:
Is the air a little thin up there? Most people in those positions are not in a position to "live" to the 100 pages of ISO9000. They are not CEO's, Presidents or General Managers. The people who contribute to these discussions have their hands full just getting Sections 4 to 8 implemented satisfactorily.
You ain't just whistlin' Dixie, Energy! I'm no Einstein, and certainly not as experienced as many of the contributors here, but it became very clear to me very quickly when I got into the "Quality Area" that you can only get as much done as the Head Honcho lets you get done. I've never "suckered" (Jim Wade's word) my organization into limiting itself when it comes to the QMS, nor have any of my peers that I speak with. Rather I've fought tooth-and-nail to get them to embrace what they have. Many (not all, but many) of the Honchos I know of make the Quality organization have to fight for every inch -- only the lucky ones have the Honchos pushing them. Many Honchos' actions don't match their words. My former company once hired a VP of Operations who, during his interview, wowed most of the Senior Staff with his goal of making us a Malcom Baldridge Award winner within 5 years. Hah! He got the job, largely on those kind of comments, but once hired he fought me at every turn. One of my favorite quotes became "What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say" - Emerson. Shipout of product was everything, and it that meant cheating on testing or eliminating completely training classes for entry-level (and experienced) workers, so be it. This attitude rubbed off on some of the Supervisors under him too, of course. We'd hire HS grads off the street, with no experience, and put them on a machine by themselves the same day. Yields predictably went to h#$%, and labor spending went up, but hey, we'd (sometimes) reach that $ goal for the month. Despite my shouts of protest, the President was only weakly pushing him to work more closely with me (Quality). My new company is not too different.

I'll bet if there was a poll of Quality Managers/Leaders asking how many of them have to push their company's leaders to improve quality vs. how many company leaders push their quality leaders to go further, the overwhelming majority would vote for the former.

Sorry -- off my soap box now.

Mike
 
Top Bottom