Packaged ISO Systems - Are canned policies and procedures worth it?

[JaneB]

ISOJoe9000,

I dislike this kind of underhanded attempt to push/flog your product without even being straightforward enough to declare your interest.

You've been registered on the Cove since mid-2007, since when according to your stats you've made a not so grand total of 4 whole posts. I wonder if they also were only when you took an opportunity to flog your 'products'.

The Cove isn't for that - it's a place to help out people and discuss and debate and share opinions. And it's just normal professional behaviour (let alone common courtesy) that if there should be a case of conflict of interest or even the perception of the same, to be upfront about it. You did none of these things,. And as someone who does, I don't care for it.

Yes I have products also. I sell a 'Get ISO 9001' product (a DIY Pack) for people wanting assistance and clear guidance. And yes, it has support with it too.

But that isn't why I came (nor continue to come) to the Cove. And most ifnot all people do not come to the Cove searching for people to market stuff to them! (That's why search engines, for example exist). They come for info, they come for help, they come for conversation with like-minded professionals etc.

I certainly didn't have the hide to attempt this kind of not-so-subtle marketing trick on post #4 (or was it post #3?).

Problem is - people who do that kind of stuff make it difficult for everyone. Including people like me who don't. I don't attempt to push my products nor market them or flog 'em here, and neither do the many, many other people who actually regularly contribute to the development & helpfulness of the forum, help out and show up, day after day. Yup - they have day jobs too, and yup, they work (many of 'em) for organisations that sell services or products related to ISO 9001. Not all of them, but some of them.

But they give, not just take. And they don't just try and USE this place for their own self-serving ends, either. Please don't do this.

I think I'd written nearly 1000 posts before I so much as mentioned my own product, and then only because it was related to the thread topic and I thought it reasonable to be clear about my own position and possible interest. But I don't sell, and never will sell, that type of canned old-fashioned and oh so dreary and useless 'manual' written in turgid and incomprehensible 'ISO-ease'!

 

[amanbhai]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems-Canned policies and procedures, is it worth it?

I sympathize with the anxiety. Many quality professionals were initiated by being thrown into the deep end of the pool with zero training or experience. It can be tough to make a rational decision when you are fighting for every breath just to stay alive [employed.]

May I suggest you first research the concept of "gap analysis" - comparing your present system with the "ideal model." Depending on your budget and what your firm does, you might be able to find some relatively inexpensive help through your local ASQ Section to hold your hand while you perform a gap analysis. The key is to LEARN how and what a gap analysis entails so you can continue on your own as you review your system with internal audits (which lead to management review) on a regular basis.

My personal experience with small and medium sized firms is the most frequent gap is the lack of a WRITTEN plan for quality system, followed closely by the lack of internal audit plan to determine if the organization's plan for a quality system is being followed and suggestions for

1. leaving things as they are because things are going to plan
2. making corrections because the action has deviated from the plan
3. following up on suggestions to improve the plan

Reading through various posts and threads here in the Cove, you will learn of the purpose and benefit of having a written plan as a baseline from which to judge your organization and thereby have a marketing edge in convincing prospects and customers your quality system will produce quality goods on a consistent basis.

Another aspect is getting your top managers to ALSO believe in the value of a good quality system, as opposed to feeling blackmailed by customers into having a quality system. This is probably either the easiest or the hardest part of the entire process. Easiest if their motive is a good, efficient operation; toughest if they resent being "forced" into it.

Good luck on your journey and be sure to let us know from time to time how it's working out! Welcome to the Cove!

What if we feel that he is blackmailed from customers to adopt ISO 9, 8 and a lot of other standards.

 

[ISJOE9000]

Dear Jane-
I agree with you that the cove is not for pushing products, and I think that you will find I never ONCE mentioned our products, site, or anything else in my posts. I merely stated an opinion that I believe templates have a purpose if well constructed and that they should not be sold without support. To be honest, since I am not a frequent contributor, I didn't notice until today that you could connect our site to this discussion - or I wouldn't have said anything.

I was asked to comment on this by a potential customer, and so I did. It would be no different than a consultant who votes against templates in this forum because he/she makes a living creating them for people. I feel my opinion is worth something - since I have experience in this matter. This is the reason for the site - isn't it? To gather different opinions so people can make a decision? How do you get to 1000 posts without stating your opinion?

I am sorry :truce: for not knowing that people could find our site with the info here. And if I didn't notice that, most others won't either. But I believe my opinions are as valid as anyone elses.

We have not always sold these products, only after repeatedly creating a similar framework for customers did we determine the need. Since then (2001) we have helped 100's of customers achieve certification - with support. Just like you have helped customers with your business which is displayed in the same manner as mine.

The real violator of trust is iso9000council.org who is owned by the same guy who owns the sites the "org" recommends. He created the site (recently adding a false address in Switzerland to appear related to ISO) and only "recommends" his own products. That is proactive misrepresentation. Mine was an honest mistake resulting from inexperience

The cove does not seem to be the place to carry out this type of conversation, and I think a private message would be better forum for this discussion in the future.

Joe

 

[oldlady]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems

You can find many QMS templates, for FREE, on a site called Clinivation .You only have to register and then you're off an running....

 

[Marc]

You can find many QMS templates, for FREE, on a site called Clinivation. You only have to register and then you're off an running....

Clinivation has a lot of good 'stuff', and there is, of course, a lot of good stuff here as well.

ISOJoe9000,

I dislike this kind of underhanded attempt to push/flog your product without even being straightforward enough to declare your interest... <snip>

I'd prefer that posts be reported for Moderator action than disrupting a thread.

 

[JaneB]

For your own sanity, don't use a canned documentation package. You'll wind up having to basically re-write them to fit you organization. Although the requirements of the standard apply to each organization, how your organization chooses to approach those requirements is as varying as individual fingerprints.

Good advice.

You can't really appreciate how cumbersome a canned package can be until you actually go through one.

Yes, very true.

All QMS's follow the IDENTICAL standard so naturally (at a high level) the QM will have the same (or very similar) statements.

No, not true. This is a topic that's been debated many times in the Cove - do some searching & you'll find some good results. In a nutshell

• 1. some people believe what you say above (ie, all QMs are & should be much the same) while
• 2. others disagree strongly and think that kind of 'Quality Manual' is useless and of nil value and that every organisation's quality manual should be unique to the organisation & thus useful.

Opinons are strong on both sides - I by the way am very firmly in camp #2.

well written templates unquestionably save time and money by providing you a structure to build on. But I would use a reputable source with a guarantee who offers samples because this IS your company's quality strategy you're talking about...

Again, I think that opinions are strong on both sides in this one too. Some people agree with you that they're useful, others disagree strongly. Fortunately it's a big wide world and a democratic one and there's room for differing opinions.

 

[AndyN]

To beat this particular horse a bit more - what are we speaking of when we say 'templates'?

If we are describing a structure for documentation, such as :-

Purpose, Scope, Responsibilities, Definitions, References, Records, Change History, Approvals, etc. etc. - then I fail to see how this saves money and time! Anyone still with a foot in this part of documentation history would be better served by a time machine!

If we are using 'template' as a means to describe the basics of procedure content - not format - then serving such things up does indeed save time and money - BUT - at the expense of ownership, understanding and support, since the people who take this course of action take no ownership f the resulting documentation.

Companies who provide such templates have no part in the aftermath, of course!

Software packages for quality systems are the ultimate 'template' and it's rare to find any organization who can really show that the software is an effective and efficient solution to implementing and maintaining a quality system.

I'd offer the following aphorism to would be documentors: "Be careful what you wish for........"

 

[JaneB]

what are we speaking of when we say 'templates'?

Good question - I think it's another term that mean different things to different people.

If we are describing a structure for documentation, such as :- Purpose, Scope, Responsibilities, Definitions, References, Records, Change History, Approvals, etc. etc. - then I fail to see how this saves money and time! Anyone still with a foot in this part of documentation history would be better served by a time machine!

Say what you really think, Andy Jokes aside, I do totally agree with you! I'd like to see that ghastly stuff and that old-fashioned, rigid and bureaucratic model completely consigned to the garbage can of history. Dead and buried.

If we are using 'template' as a means to describe the basics of procedure content - not format - then serving such things up does indeed save time and money -

I think that's one way of thinking of a 'template' - perhas as a model or models to use. It's all very well saying to people 'just do exactly what you like and what will work for your company' but all my experience as a consultant (and not just in quality consulting) has been that people like to see examples and models.

Look at how many people come to the Cove and immediately ask for 'a manual' or a 'procedure on this' for example. Why do people going for tests and exams want to see examples of previous papers? So they can 'get an idea' of what it might be like.

Now you know and I know and I hope we both know that we know that 'it' in terms of an implemented ISO 9001 system can look very different in different organisations. And that its documentation not only can look different but ought to be different! But seeing some 'real live examples' and getting help is useful. Again, that's what a lot of people ask for on the Cove.

BUT - at the expense of ownership, understanding and support, since the people who take this course of action take no ownership f the resulting documentation. Companies who provide such templates have no part in the aftermath, of course!

Here I beg to differ from you, but of course can only talk in specific terms of my own. Why would people not take ownership of the 'resulting doco' if the models/templates were good ones? I haven't seen this 'lack of ownership' happen in my cases.

And I don't walk away either, whether as consultant or product seller. For my Pack, yes I include support and have often gone way above & beyond, just to make sure things work out OK. There's a 'money back' guarantee. And believe it or not, I'll also tell someone if it's not going to work for them/wouldn't be suitable for them; I quite often have lengthy phone conversations with people beforehand.

Look, I do share your loathing of many of those canned things, with their ghastly old-fashioned headings and 'make it 20 times as complicated as it needs to be'. I've seen some at client sites (they've tried a canned system at times, with woeful results). I couldn't believe how rigid, awful or crappy they were, and coulnd't imagine how anyone could sell that stuff and look themselves in the mirror.

But also I used to get a lot of calls from people particularly in farflung or remote locations (Australia is a BIG country) and/or they just could not afford consulting costs. BUT they really, really wanted or needed to 'do ISO'. Larger companies have more resources - smaller ones in particular often don't. And eventually I figured out a way of putting together a bunch of models and various things that had worked successfully, and writing out how to go about it, using these, adding in support and pulling it together into a DIY pack.

The feedback I got was good, so I keep selling it, & I keep improving it and tweaking it and adding in stuff. I'll never make a fortune on it, and I don't want to. But I do know that there some contented customers around who used it to get where they wanted to be and with nice clear doco in place and with a sensible practical quality management system. In which my pack & I played a helpful part.

But ultimately - they did the work and they made it their system. And their doco. Which is as it should be.

 

[AndyN]

Jane:

I should have added in the fine print 'All preceding comments don't apply to Jane in Australia".

You are, of course (by any estimation) the 1 in a million (I bet many guys have said that, eh? ) and my comments can/are only related to the other 999,999 of implementations (some of which I've seen) which didn't offer a money back guarantee, or support or even had a clue that problems may even occur after the sale is long forgotten..........Too many providers justify the efficacy of their 'templates' with a trite 'We have X registered clients.......'

Oh, as an engineer my experience of a template is something - a pattern - you use to transfer to material by simply drawing around rather than putting in the effort to measure and draw what you want. It's quick and painless compared to doing it 'properly'.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I hesitate to put my oar in the water because I'm not quite sure were this thread is heading because it's already been to a lot of places.

Apologia finished - my primary concern with a package (either completely written where only the name changes or a set of "templates" for everything from quality manual to work instructions) is that some foolish boss will try to remake his organization to fit someone else's pattern.

When ANY consultant suggests a package BEFORE conducting a rigorous gap analysis [between the current status of an organization and its ideal status], my "spidey sense" begins to tingle and I begin to suspect the motive and competence of the consultant.*

*(my definition of consultant - see below.)

Consultant: An independent business person (or member of a firm of such business persons) whose primary value given is ADVICE or EDUCATION. This would include, but not be limited to, folks who advise about mergers and acquisitions and whether to add or delete product lines or enter new markets. It would also include on-site and off-site trainers of employees of an organization who come in to teach something not readily available from experts within the organization (Hazmat processes and procedures, English as a second language, etc.)
Contractor. In the sense we use here, a contractor may be completely independent or work for an agency, but he is essentially a temporary worker performing a job which would be handled by a full-time employee at an organization, but for a number of reasons which have nothing to do with this discussion (perhaps another thread?), the organization prefers the temporary status of the person fulfilling the function. Such temporary contractors include folks working as technical writers, inspectors, assemblers, internal auditors, statisticians, accountants, bookkeepers, typists, clerks, even at supervisor levels, like crew chiefs, quality managers, design engineers, process engineers, etc.