Quality Management Principles Working Group

[Sidney Vianna]

Continuing thoughts gratefully received.

In my perspective, the principles and it's potential application in the standard (9001) will be highly affected by the potential decision on having a common structure for all ISO Management System Standards N968_Consultation_on_Draft_JTCG_Identical.pdf.

The presentation that BorisS linked in his previous post concerns me. I am afraid TC 176 SC2 might start suffering from "analysis paralysis", trying to appease all stakeholders involved. Also, I am concerned that the standard development process ignores the conformity assessment process associated with it. The purists like to believe that we can dissociate ISO 9001 from it's conformity assessment process. They ignore the obvious fact that the primary reason for the success of ISO 9001 (as a standard) is the fact that a worldwide certification protocol exists around it. Remove the ISO 9001 conformity assessment process and you will see 9001 following 9004, 10002, 10004, etc... towards oblivion.

 

[Paul Simpson]

The advantage of selective quoting is that I can reply to just one of the points in your post.

I'll let you off this once ... there is a danger that the context is missing, though.

I can't really disagree with the draft proposals you make (and now for my favourite word) but.......

Try incorporating requirements for leadership or fact based decision making.

How many organizations do you think would be driven out of the ISO 9001 registration system if these principles were incorporated as requirements? (OK some might go for a lower grade if such a thing were introduced.)

Would that be such a bad thing? If organizations are not prepared to have a quality management system based on sound principles then should they be certified to ISO 9001 or even 9001 'lite' anyway?

How many auditors (internal as well as external) do you reckon would be up to the job?

The $64,000 question. Judging by the lack of understanding of the existing principles (not singling out the process approach by any means ) not many. But that is the other point of this work - to look at existing QMPs and decide how well they are working.

Good thread this. I'm disappointed more opinions aren't being expressed.

My fault, I'm afraid. I've developed a thoroughly deserved reputation for critical posts and my guess is many don't want to contribute. Except you and Sidney who a) know I'm a pussycat and b) will give as good as you get!

In my perspective, the principles and it's potential application in the standard (9001) will be highly affected by the potential decision on having a common structure for all ISO Management System Standards N968_Consultation_on_Draft_JTCG_Identical.pdf.

Thanks, Sidney. I'm aware of the work of the JTCG and believe there is no conflict with these requirements and the '8 principles' work. The JTCG is all about providing a framework that any management system standard should be able to use with the specifics for quality, environment, business continuity developed by the working groups. Some of the principles (Leadership, Involvement of People etc.) would apply whichever standard we are talking about - maybe that is another piece of work by another Joint Task Group.

The presentation that BorisS linked in his previous post concerns me. I am afraid TC 176 SC2 might start suffering from "analysis paralysis", trying to appease all stakeholders involved. Also, I am concerned that the standard development process ignores the conformity assessment process associated with it. The purists like to believe that we can dissociate ISO 9001 from it's conformity assessment process. They ignore the obvious fact that the primary reason for the success of ISO 9001 (as a standard) is the fact that a worldwide certification protocol exists around it. Remove the ISO 9001 conformity assessment process and you will see 9001 following 9004, 10002, 10004, etc... towards oblivion.

Again I think these are parallel paths. Yes TC 176 needs to be aware of conformity assessment and any requirement in 9001 has to be assessable but, as has been discussed in these threads for more years than I care to remember, the requirements standard has to be meaningful in terms of a quality product or service to the customer at the end.

If that means we have to find a way of making 'Leadership' a requirement in more than just words on paper and organizations having to demonstrate that they truly involve people before they get their piece of paper to frame and out in reception then so be it.

 

[tyker]

Would that be such a bad thing? If organizations are not prepared to have a quality management system based on sound principles then should they be certified to ISO 9001 or even 9001 'lite' anyway?

I'm beginning to enjoy selective quoting. If others want to see the context, let 'em read your full post for themselves!

My answer to your question has to depend on which of my two faces you're talking to.

Face 1, as normally portrayed in the Cove, says that it would be an excellent thing. The CBs might object as their market would shrink and maybe the whole 3rd party certification edifice would come crashing down.

Face 2 however quite likes the idea of an effective 3rd party certification scheme which in turn requires a viable number of committed organizations. This face likes the prospect of fewer idiotic customer auditors and of being able to trust that suppliers with accredited certificates would deliver good product on time.

Whichever face you're talking too, I support a standard that promotes effectiveness in satisfying customers. I can understand that some may want a badge to show they're better than the herd but I would tend to push them towards Baldrige or Shengo prizes rather than ISO 9001.

 

[vanputten]

As a member of the US TC176, we were told repeatedly not to consider how a requirement could be audited. We were told repeatedly that the auditability of a requirement should not affect (effect?) our decision as to what should be a requirement.

But in practice, auditability was almost always considered.

How would anyone create principles that are understood and practiced with equivalence in all of the cultures of the world? I say impossible.

I wonder if the reason why there are few posts to this thread is that it is very difficult to have a complete and healthy discussion of such a vast topic via a discussion board. I don't know of a single graduate school that has absolutely defined "leadership." Leadership in one organization/economy/culture may not be leadership in another.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

As a member of the US TC176, we were told repeatedly not to consider how a requirement could be audited. We were told repeatedly that the auditability of a requirement should not affect (effect?) our decision as to what should be a requirement.

I am surprised with that instruction. Especially for a requirements specification such as ISO 9001. The Design specification for the ISO 9001:2008 amendment even had a guidance on that. It stated:

consideration is given to the auditability of all requirements. (This should focus on the need to eliminate or reduce ambiguity rather than produce prescriptive requirements for documents or records that are of minimal value to those implementing the standard).

But in practice, auditability was almost always considered.

So it should; at least for for 9001. As for the many other "guidance" documents developed and maintained by the TC176, I would agree that auditability should not be a major concern.

 

[vanputten]

Per my memory from 1999 and the early 2000's, we were told that ISO is not in the business of determing how to determine compliance to requirements. The ISO 9000 series of standards was developed as a tool for improvement. It was not developed to be used for certifications. The conformity assessment industry built up around the standard. In the US, it was up to RAB or the IAF or whomever to determine how to audit things or to determine if things could be audited. I can't remember the name of the conformity assessment oversight body from 1999.

We were instructed to concentrate on what should be required for a good quality system. It was the conformity assessment world's problem to determine how to audit the content of the ISO 9001.

Now that ISO 9001 and conformity assessment are one in the same, and no one uses the 9000 series for simply continual improvement, I agree that auditability now is part of the review of the content of the standard.

Also, ISO has CASCO, Council Committee on Conformity Assessment so I never really understood our instruction anyway. And we didn't really follow it so who cares? And then there is ISO 17021.

How would one audit leadership? Would there have to be an ISO guide 17021 for auditing leadership in China? Syria? South Africa? Canada? Belgium? Netherlands?

How about mutually beneficial customer supplier relationships? Would the ISO 9001 auditors have to audit the organization's suppliers too?

And finally, TC 176 is trying to determine the quality management principles, what should be incuded in the scope of ISO 9001, and the common text between management systems all at the same time. I thought we should determine the base principles first, which would then help guide what should be included in the scope of ISO 9001, and then finally we can determine the common text between all managment system standards. Ah well.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Per my memory from 1999 and the early 2000's, we were told that ISO is not in the business of determing how to determine compliance to requirements. The ISO 9000 series of standards was developed as a tool for improvement. It was not developed to be used for certifications. The conformity assessment industry built up around the standard. In the US, it was up to RAB or the IAF or whomever to determine how to audit things or to determine if things could be audited. I can't remember the name of the conformity assessment oversight body from 1999.

For my sins I remember the days before accreditation existed and it is worth remembering that in the UK the first accreditation body (NACCB) grew out of one of the certification bodies, BSI. I wonder if they could turn the clock back now ....

ISO 9000 series (and BS 5750 before it) grew out of the need for organizations to be able to demonstrate they had effective systems in place and were used by the major purchasers as a way of assessing suppliers. The third party certification industry grew up around those companies that wanted to demonstrate their capability through independent assessment or who wanted someone independent to assess their suppliers.

We were instructed to concentrate on what should be required for a good quality system. It was the conformity assessment world's problem to determine how to audit the content of the ISO 9001.

Quite true but for standard developers one acid test for a requirement is always: 'Now what would this look like if the requirement is met?'

Now that ISO 9001 and conformity assessment are one in the same, and no one uses the 9000 series for simply continual improvement, I agree that auditability now is part of the review of the content of the standard.

TC 176 for quality management is still separate from CASCO for conformity assessment (even if there are too many of the latter involved in the former for my liking) and there are still a few purists who try to resist ISO getting dragged along on the coattails of the IAF.

I agree that nobody uses 9001 for continual improvement (it is a simple set of requirements after all) but if you have an effective QMS (that meets 9001) you will automatically have continual improvement (indeed it is a requirement that you be able to demonstrate that you have CI processes in place and evidence that they work).

It might be pedantic but the 9001 standards developers need to consider how 9001 requirements can be demonstrated but not how they should be audited. That is the role of the 19011 working group and the CASCO groups.

Also, ISO has CASCO, Council Committee on Conformity Assessment so I never really understood our instruction anyway. And we didn't really follow it so who cares? And then there is ISO 17021.

Probably best leaving that point hanging there!

How would one audit leadership? Would there have to be an ISO guide 17021 for auditing leadership in China? Syria? South Africa? Canada? Belgium? Netherlands?

One doesn't audit leadership but does audit the 9001 requirements that are supposed to describe leadership. So (for just one example) that the top management shows its commitment ...

by
a) communicating to the organization the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements,

So the organization needs to provide evidence that top management do this. I take the point that this could be different by country or culture but that is the role of the auditor to decide if they are genuinely doing this.

How about mutually beneficial customer supplier relationships? Would the ISO 9001 auditors have to audit the organization's suppliers too?

Now this is the hardest principle for me to find in 9001 (hence the thread) but I'll give it a go! The requirements are hidden away in purchasing clause 7.4:

The organization shall evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply product in accordance with the organization's requirements.

Criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation shall be established. Records of the results of evaluations and any necessary actions arising from the evaluation shall be maintained (see 4.2.4).

Week, I know but there it is.

And finally, TC 176 is trying to determine the quality management principles, what should be incuded in the scope of ISO 9001, and the common text between management systems all at the same time. I thought we should determine the base principles first, which would then help guide what should be included in the scope of ISO 9001, and then finally we can determine the common text between all managment system standards. Ah well.

As mentioned in response to Sidney's post I think the various pieces of work can go on in parallel. The QMPs will apply whatever the scope of 9001 and this QMP piece of work is expected to be carried out at a fast pace so that the output can be considered for the rest of the 9001 text. The common structure of the standards has been covered elsewhere but does not materially affect the requirements related to quality, environment, business continuity etc. Even though a lot of the principles will apply elsewhere at present the 8 QMPs only apply to ISO 9000 family standards.

 

[vanputten]

Hello BorisS:

Great stuff. I think the subtlety bewteen how 9001 requirements can be demonstrated and how they should be audited is important to understand and not pedantic.

Also, my questions about auditing leadership and mutually beneficial customer supplier relationships were in response to suggestions that they be requirements in 9001. If the 8 QMP's were requriements, how might compliance be demonstrated around the world? This is a rhetorical question. I was trying to share my concerns of how difficult it might be to standardize leadership, involvement of the people, and beneficial relationships.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Hello BorisS:

Great stuff. I think the subtlety bewteen how 9001 requirements can be demonstrated and how they should be audited is important to understand and not pedantic.

Also, my questions about auditing leadership and mutually beneficial customer supplier relationships were in response to suggestions that they be requirements in 9001. If the 8 QMP's were requriements, how might compliance be demonstrated around the world? This is a rhetorical question. I was trying to share my concerns of how difficult it might be to standardize leadership, involvement of the people, and beneficial relationships.

Thanks again for the reply. I look at this as a bit of a process.

• An ISO Working Group is charged with reviewing and potentially revising the 8 quality management principles;
• starting at the same time (but taking a while longer) there will be other working groups reviewing and revising the text of 9001 to define requirements for a quality management system based on the 8 QMPs;
• a separate working group is finalizing ISO 19011 as guidance for auditors on ways of planning and conducting audits;
• a further working group is finalizing ISO IEC 17021 for certification bodies defining requirements for how they are structured and how they should operate to ensure assessment and certification is carried out in a controlled way

Now for all this to work well as a process each group has to be aware of what the other is doing and how 'their' work affects the other group.

So the '8 QMP' group needs to define principles that can be adopted and described as requirements that can be audited by competent auditors that certification bodies can employ as part of a meaningful 3rd party certification scheme.

Simple!

 

[Manix]

A couple of years ago I was asked, at a job interview for an auditing role, which 2 of the principles I rated the most important. I went for customer focus and leadership. I toyed with continuous improvement but felt that wouldn't happen without the other two.

The only time these principles have been discussed with me were at that interview and as part of the ISO 9001:2000 lead auditor qualification process. So how important and relevant are they to commerce? As has already been pointed out, they're only tenuously linked to ISO 9001 and, even if that link were strengthened, it would be a brave auditor who raised a nonconformity about lack of leadership or inappropriate decision making. In developing and implementing systems in my current organization I consider the requirements of EN/AS 9100 and lean principles but have felt no need to refer to ISO 9000 or these 8 points - laudable though they may be. Don't good managers learn principles just like these at management school without having to buy a copy of an ISO?

I accept that they represent good practice but who's using them and would there be any significant change in the field of quality if these points along with large chunks of ISO 9000 and the whole of ISO 9004 were quietly dropped?

This is a good point and one that leads to mine, in that there is too much emphasis on what can and cannot be audited and what can can't be proven or analysed by a third party. IMO, the management principles are not tools that can be implemented and then checked by someone, they are approaches tailored to an organisation, the results of which can then be checked and balanced. I think that the ISO standards public and professional perception requires a radical overhaul in order for these principles to have any meaningful existence within them.

Principle 1: Customer focus - Rather than focusing on 'How do you focus on customers?'. Let's lead a cultural revolution that means that this happens, without thought or question. The auditor would be someone who reviews the steps to achieving this and perhaps audit the effectiveness through facts, but don't loose sight of the core principal, creating customer focus as a matter of day to day life, not through sending out a questionnaire every six months.

Principle 2: Leadership - Rather than asking 'Is your leadership any good?' why not develop leadership attributes that are conducive to obtaining results that meet the requirements of your environment, not 'does it conform to a predetermined standard'!

Principle 3: Involvement of people - Involve people to the extent that it provides value to all stakeholders, not just because a standard says so!

Principle 4: Process approach - Yes have documented and known Processes, but this is more than documentation and people knowing their processes, it is about the way people see their work, how people resolve problems, improve the system overall. For that you have to develop a process based thought train. This is can be standardised and have minimum levels of achievement but the changing of behaviour and attitudes to align to such an approach requires more than a documented, audit-able system.

Principle 5: System approach to management - Is this not the basis for ISO9001?

Principle 6: Continual improvement - Again as with customer focus, people and leadership, this is a cultural element that has systems to support it. IMO this one area that ISO9001 is the least helpful. It offers nothing on how to achieve the cultural revolution required to have a continuous cycle of improvement. Again the cultural element is ignored and we should have a system of improvement. Yes we should, but long term, you want that system to be embedded within your organisation, not an audit-able system. I accept that the use of data, review processes etc are all important, but this has to be extended beyond the tangible, humans recognise and instigate improvement and to maximise that you need the correct cultural foundations.

Principle 7: Factual approach to decision making - I think ISO9001 does provide a good foundation for this principal, given the requirements to measure, monitor, review, action (or PDCA!), but again it supports the principal. You have to get PEOPLE to make decisions using that data.

Principle 8: Mutually beneficial supplier relationships - This is a massive one and one well beyond the current ISO approach. IMO you cannot certify an organisation in isolation on this. One organisation can action things that create beneficial supplier relations, but this involves a number of organisations beyond your own. Your dealing with relationships and complex cultural elements that need more than just 'they are certified to ISO9001' in order to create a relationship that works. This principal also seems to be missing the term 'long-term'. Whilst there can be short term relationships of benefit, those for sustainability purposes are, in most cases going to need to be long term. Management system elements can certainly support this, but again I think this is beyond a standardised approach and would need to be tailored to the organisation.

Overall, I think self assessment and a firm cultural basis will be required for the principles to be truly embraced and I think this is far removed from the current ISO 'way'. I am a firm believer in excellence models being the focus, with management systems being a tool to help achieve the principles. I do not believe the auditor/certification root creates long-term sustainability even with the supposed greater incorporation of QM principles.

What is ISO's thinking? Are they looking to create their own excellence model? I would be interested to see the development work and where this is going, but IMO ISO has been "embraced" ("worked" or "effective" are of course debatable) because companies can see some benefit in a standardised system and there is a financial cost and clear set of guidelines on becoming 'certified'. The above principles, whilst a foundation for standards, require more than financial investment and time, they require a firm belief and understanding and a commitment to work on the intangible elements that for me hold organisations back from truly adopting these principles.