From: ISO Standards Discussion <
[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:25:12 -0600
Subject: Re: Multiple sites each ISO9000 certified /../Star/Hartman/Kozenko
From:
[email protected]
> My question is: Where does ISO 9001 (in any version) require us to be
> so prescriptive in our processes that we create such bureaucratic rules and
> procedures as has been alluded to here? Can we not maintain a
> documented system that states, "Site A will provide Site B with a request
> for ___" without being descriptive about what that request will look like?
The saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and the respective posts of Star and Hartman perfectly illustrate that this applies to ISO9000 as well as to any other art form.
To answer the quoted question, the Standard doesn't require more than a documented QMS.
The problem described by Star in his post was one of corporate rigidity, the inflexible nature of some organizations to adapt to concepts instead of rules.
Typical example: "George does it this way, and he's bringing in the most business so everyone should do it the way George does."
I watched that question bounce around for six months until the common sense answer finally emerged, and only then did things move forward. George had a staff of about 25 people, and the way he HAD to do things was markedly different from some other business centers where a staff of 4 or 5 held down the fort. I was able to "sell" the concept that every business center in the organization had a clean "line in the sand" between itself and corporate headquarters, and each niche of the business needed to simply document the way they did things. The few business centers that didn't do everything required by the Standard (esp. Contract Review) were the ones who squalked the loudest, so it took another six months for folks to realize that (in this example) the Standard's Contract Review requirements were a good idea, and most of the trouble those squalkers were in, was because they didn't conform.
Several times during this year-long self-documented effort, I often caught myself considering the possibility that the organization as a whole would not reach the level of collective enlightenment required for the successful achievement of certification. The rigidity was so prevalent that I was criticized for stating my factual assessment, but failure was guaranteed (as I saw things) if someone didn't say it. And in fact it opened the dialogue that led to reinforcing my original recommendation that one corporatewide certificate could be earned, provided each business center had its "feet held to the same fire" for compliance, flexibility as to "how to" allowed, but "documented" just the same. Successful certification was achieved under this scheme, on the first Certification Audit.
In Star's organizational environment, such a corporatewide approach obviously wouldn't work, and top management should review the comparative costs of "separate business center" certification versus "corporatewide single certificate."
There are advantages to each approach, and in Star's example, it might just be cost beneficial to start getting certifications on a segmented plan, with an eventual long term goal of possibly combining all the "mini-QMS's" at a later date.
David M. Kozenko