Looking for alternatives to ISO 9001 accreditation

[Helmut Jilling]

So there are those who want to play games. and they continue on your roster with a valid certificate. They dont get a warning or get kicked out. Is it $$$ speaking?

.

SO SORRY! TYPO! Those that want to play games quickly get REMOVED from my roster.

I work very hard for my clients, and those that want to play games would quickly get irritated with me anyway. They would not want me to work with them.

 

[Colin]

Eventually, it gained momentum, and a lot of the focus was applied to suppliers...but they got much better as a result, didn't they? Overall quality improved tremendously from 1998-2004.

You are certainly right about improvement in most industries, especially the automotive in the UK (what is left of it!). The quality of most UK made cars in the seventies was dreadful. At least build quality is much better now, even if most of the cars built are not UK based companies e.g. Honda, Toyota etc.

I just don't think that improvement was the initial motive behind the standard - I believe it was more about compliance and making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted i.e. it was a purchaser's standard. Fortunately, it has changed over the years so that it now addresses some of each.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

... I just don't think that improvement was the initial motive behind the standard - I believe it was more about compliance and making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted i.e. it was a purchaser's standard. ....

I think you are actually making my case. Customers used it as a "purchasing standard" to press suppliers to improve, thereby "making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted..."

Customers wanted better quality and delivery, and everything I have seen, didn't those both improve tremendously in that period? Even costs improved.

After the stock market crash and recession (2001-2002), very short-sighted OEM Purchasing VPs foolishly tossed those gains aside and demanded price, price, price. They never learned that cost reductions come from improved processes.

Oh well, they'll have to do a few more laps... It should be pointed out, during that time the Asian OE's climbed tremendously, even though Big 3 quality had already improved a lot. As I frequently point out, the Big 3's problems are no longer their suppliers. Their primary problem is their completely distorted, counter-productive approach to working with their supply chain.

Maybe we all should reread the nursery story about the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs. It's a good metaphor for the Big 3 Supply Chain Management.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

That is pretty reliable data, though obviously I am not permitted to show the objective evidence for obvious reasons.... On the other hand, I offered some solid data some time ago, as a challenge to the Cove, and not a single person took up the challenge to compare data

Since you can not offer customer data due to confidentiality issues, what data could you offer to prove your point?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Since you can not offer customer data due to confidentiality issues, what data could you offer to prove your point?

I offered two long, detailed posts, explaining summaries of the changes and improvements I have seen in the field over the last 10 years. If that does not satisfy your curiousity, then I don't think I will be able to offer you enough to put you over the top. I offered summaries, GM info, and general observations.

I'm not sure what else I can offer you, short of a detailed, empirical analysis and presentation of the clients' confidential info. And frankly, if you don't believe the info I have shared thus far in several posts, I'm not certain you would believe it even if I offered empirical data...

If you are not seeing the same improvements in your clients, then I'm sorry. But, it does not change what I see on a regular basis. Clients who put their right efforts into these programs get results. Clients who skim the surface, don't.

I'm not sure what else I can offer you. I'm not concerned about "proving" anything. I was just reporting solid, interesting info. I would assume you would see the same data with clients at your agency.

 

[20110108 Request]

There is a way: It's called a "Supplier's decaration of conformity." The requirements are found in ISO 17050, parts 1 & 2.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I'm not sure what else I can offer you,

You (not me) offered to share data. Opinions and generalization do not constitute data. When you stated:

I offered some solid data some time ago, as a challenge to the Cove, and not a single person took up the challenge to compare data

I thought that you meant you had DATA to share.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

You (not me) offered to share data. Opinions and generalization do not constitute data. When you stated: I thought that you meant you had DATA to share.

Sidney, sometimes our discussions get strangely crosswise. I can't figure you out sometimes, and have no interest in academic debates.

As I already said in my previous post:

I believe I stated clearly that obviously I could not share the empirical, underlying client data (confidential client info, obviously), but I could offer a summation of the data I regularly review.

I detailed some specifics of that summary. I offered two long, detailed posts, explaining summaries of the changes and improvements I have seen in the field over the last 10 years.

That's all I offered. I never offered to prove anything. And I didn't post it for your benefit. You have your own clients, who's data you are permitted to review. Most folks on the Cove don't get that opportunity, so I wanted to support the premise that this stuff has indeed helped the industry.

If that does not satisfy your curiousity, well, sorry...it does not change what I know my clients and many others have achieved with their systems.

After this many years, there are some folks who still don't think ISO has made anything better. Frankly, they don't want to change their view, no matter how much evidence may be presented. I'm not concerned about trying to persuade that group. I participate for the other half.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I just don't think that improvement was the initial motive behind the standard - I believe it was more about compliance and making sure that the customer could be confident of getting what s/he wanted i.e. it was a purchaser's standard. Fortunately, it has changed over the years so that it now addresses some of each.

Just had a response from Charles Corrie at BSI. Thanks, Charles

The development of the BS 5750 standards in BSI followed from the puiblication of the earlier BS 4778:1971 "Glossary of general terms used in quality assurance", the 3 part BS 5179:1974 "Guide to the operation and evaluation of quality assurance systems" standards, and only eventually to the requirements standards of BS 5750:1979.

All of them were is some way based on the prevailing Defence Standards (DEF STAN) 05-21/1 to 05-29/1 series, which were also equivalent to the NATO Allied Quality Assurance Publication (or AQAP) standards.

These in turn were derived from earlier US military standards, particulalrly MIL-Q-9858A.

The driving force for the development of the civilian standards was the recognition that many sectors of industy, that were not involved in
military supply, also needed quality systems.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) provided a first set of drafts that became the basis for the BS 5179:1974 series of standards.

The reason given for the conversion of BS 5179 into the BS 5750 series is "the growing demand for the application of quality assurance principles to contracts and for the assessment of suppliers' quality management systems, has led to the publication of a number of quality assurance standards by various purchasing and third party organizations.
This proliferation has highlighted the need for a British Standard that will encourage the rationalization envisaged in Sir Frederick Warner's report on 'Standards and specifications in the engineering industries', published by the National Economic Office (NEDO), February 1977.

The other organizations recognized in the development of BS 5750
include:

Confederation of British Industry
Consumers' Association
Institute of Cost and Management Accountants
Institute of Quality Assurance
Institute of Statisticians
Institution of Electrical Engineers
Institution of Production Engineers
Ministry of Defence
National Council for Quality and Reliability
National Terotechnology Centre
Aluminium Federation
British Electrical and Allied Manufcaturers' Association (BEAMA)
British Gas Corporation
British Industrial Measuring and Control Apparatus Manufacturers'Association
British Non-Ferrous Metals Federation
British Nuclear Forum
British Plastics Federation
British Railways Board
British Rubber Manufacturers' Association
British Steel Corporation
British Welded Steel Tube Manufacturers' Association
Consumer Standards Advisory Committee of BSI
Electrical Supply Industry in England and Wales
Electronic Engineering Association
Engineering Equipment Users Association
Institute of Purchasing and Supply
London Transport Exectutive
National Coal Board
Post Office
Process Plant Association
Rotating Electrical Machines Association
Scientific Instrument Manufacturers' Association
Society of British Aerospace Companies Limited
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited
Transmission and Distribution Association
Water-tube Boliermakers'Association.

 

[JaneB]

Clients who put their right efforts into these programs get results. Clients who skim the surface, don't.

Yes. Exactly what I see. Those who use it as a good tool get results. Those who do it superficially, with poor understanding or without 'embracing quality' (a cliche, I know, but can't think of a better way to put it) don't.

In the IT field they call it GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.