Speech of ISO Secretary-General

[venkat - 2011]

Implementation of ISO and subsequent follow up is a kind of policing the departments. There is a saying in finance " An auditor is a watch dog and not a blood hound"

This is true here too. The QA team is watchdog team and they police the other departments and make reports and send to senior management.

The standard should mandatorily state that the object of ISO implementation is a must for the entire organisation including, administration,finance, security etc

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim

Interesting to read in this report that the predominant factor still applied by purchasers is the price.

Is it therefore any wonder that there is no perceivable improvment in quality ? You get what you pay for really.

I wonder if these companies insist on purchasing from an ISO9001 source, I also wonder if their purchasing process is adequate for them to assure receipt of quality product, i.e. are they actually expressing in satisfactory terms exactly what they want.

Just wondering why they lay the blame on the ISO9001 tool - what is it they say about bad workmen............

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Why we complain about a tool not being used.

M Greenaway said:

Just wondering why they lay the blame on the ISO9001 tool - what is it they say about bad workmen............

Exactly, marcus...

Usually a hammer is no good for anything... Unless you happen to use it for it's intended purpose. So we can easily agree that the tool is not being used properly.

Now, then: Why? Presumably because we have not been successful in telling them how to use it... I've frequently heard quality staff people say that marketing is the very toughest area to "get into shape", and that it's completely impossible to turn them around. That may be, but we can learn one thing from them: They know how to sell things, but we certainly don't know how to sell ISO 9000, do we?

I think we generally have a major improvement potential there.

/Claes

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim

I didnt find the results of this report to be very overwhelming. The percentage stating comments such as 'no improvement', 'no benefit', etc were always in the minority. The vast majority seemed to say some or much improved.

I guess its just how the authors of this report viewed the glass - a third full as opposed to two thirds empty (or vice verca - you get my point ?).

 

[Mike S.]

Jim Wade said:
They say, of course, "it's a bad workman who blames his tools".

I guess, in this case, the writers of the report, having noted that a large percentage of the available workmen were saying such "overwhelmingly critical" things about one of their tools, concluded that there might be something in it.

But, like you, I can only read between the lines here.
____________________
I have not read the report except for the portions in this thread, but for the sake of stirring the pot a bit I'll add a few comments/opinions:

Sometimes when a workman blames his tools, he (or she - hope none of the ladies of the Cove are offended when I use the term "he" -- it is meant androgenously) really DOESN'T have the best tool for the job. If I supplied a tool for my company that a "large percentage of the available workmen were ... overwhelmingly critical about" I'd darn sure have a really close look at the tool and what they were saying about it. Wouldn't you? (Consider the "tool" a piece of test or manufacturing equipment.) Smart quality professionals try to work with the people "on the floor" and really listen to their inputs and try to work with them instead of approaching them as superiors from the ivory tower. The vast majority of the time a compromise that makes everyone happy and is in the best interest of the company can be reached.

However, with ISO, we're dealing with a tool that is often either mandated or those who don't choose to use it exactly as written (and interpreted) are stigmatized. Compromise just doesn't work with ISO if you want the certificate.

Why the stigma? Some people have business to lose if companies move away from ISO; others feel threatened that their certificate will mean less if ISO has less support; others are envious; some may be just plain elitist.

ISO 9001-2000 (and the similar standards) exactly as written can be a great tool -- maybe the best tool -- for some companies. God bless 'em. Wonderful! But I am 100% convinced that it is not the best tool for ALL companies. IMHO if more flexibility were built into ISO it would go over much better. Sometimes one size doesn't fit all. Can all the detractors be wrong?

Again, I think we tend to forget, many great things were designed and built, and many great companies with great quality have flourished, before any of the ISO 9000 series came about. ISO 9000 is not a prerequisite for quality and success!!!! Indeed, there are many good ways to skin a cat, you just wouldn't believe that by listening to some folks who are so blindly pro-ISO that they probably have ISO9000 compliant flower gardens at their home.

As always -- JMHO.

Mike S.

 

[gpainter]

Came across this the other day:
ISO and IAF to pool information on ISO 9000 complaints


ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the IAF (International Accreditation Forum) are to share information on complaints they receive relating to ISO 9000 certification and on actions taken to deal with them.

The move was announced in a joint communiqué on 23 April 2002 by the ISO Committee on conformity assessment (ISO/CASCO), the IAF, which is a grouping of national accreditation bodies that have been established in a number of countries to verify the competence of organizations whose business activity - known as "conformity assessment" - is to evaluate other organizations, products, services, systems, processes or materials against standards, regulations or other specifications, and the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), which verifies the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

Pooling information on complaints relating to certification of conformity to ISO 9000 quality management standards was proposed by ISO's late Secretary-General, Dr. Lawrence D. Eicher, who in November 2001 had appealed for action by the conformity assessment community to tackle malpractice by unscrupulous operators.

His proposal for the exchange of information and cooperation in dealing with complaints was welcomed by the IAF Chairman, Dr. Takashi Ohtsubo, when he visited ISO Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, in February 2002 to emphasize his organization's support for the ISO Secretary-General's call to action.

The ISO/CASCO-IAF-ILAC communiqué was issued by the joint working group (JWG) set up in December 2000 to protect the image and integrity of conformity assessment. The group announced in its communiqué that in its efforts to protect the customers and users of conformity assessment services from unethical or inappropriate practices, it had identified three kinds of problem:

malpractice (unethical and dishonest practices) by conformity assessment bodies;
misleading advertising of the status of conformity assessment results, including misuse of marks of conformity;
confusion in the market-place between "certification" and "accreditation".
"ISO, IAF and ILAC share the same goal to help users of conformity assessment services to select conformity assessment bodies which operate ethically and competently, and to eliminate malpractice in conformity assessment," the JWG declared in its communiqué, adding that a number of measures had been decided to deal with the above problems. One was to publicize the existence of complaint handling systems and to encourage dissatisfied customers to use them.

"Accredited conformity assessment bodies must have complaint handling systems, based on relevant ISO/IEC Guides and Standards," the JWG stated. "Customers of conformity assessment services dissatisfied with the service they receive are encouraged to lodge their complaints with the relevant conformity assessment bodies. When accreditation bodies have proof that an accredited conformity assessment body has behaved inappropriately, they will take the necessary action, including the suspension or withdrawal of accreditation, according to their documented complaint handling procedures.

"IAF and ILAC together with their members and ISO have procedures in place to receive complaints about the practices of accreditation bodies and accredited conformity assessment bodies, to investigate these complaints (via the relevant accreditation body where the complaint is against an accredited conformity assessment body) and advise on the appropriate action to be taken."

The JWG said that further announcements of measures decided will be made as they are implemented.

Note to editors
"Certification" is when a conformity assessment provider gives written assurance in the form of a certificate that a product, service, system, process or material conforms to specific requirements. The most well known examples are the certification of quality management systems and environmental management systems as conforming, respectively, to ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards. Certification is known in some countries as "registration". The providers of these services are known as "certification bodies", "registration bodies" or "registrars".


"Accreditation" is the procedure by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. In the ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 context, it relates to the work of the accreditation bodies that have been set up in a number of countries to evaluate the competence of certification bodies. An accreditation body will accredit - approve - a conformity assessment body as competent to carry out ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certification in specific business sectors. Accreditation is also carried out of testing laboratories, inspection bodies and product certification bodies.


It should be noted that ISO itself does not carry out either accreditation or certification; it does not issue either ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 certificates and does not control the activities of accreditation or certification bodies. However, through ISO/CASCO, it develops voluntary ISO/IEC Guides and Standards that encourage best practice and consistency in accreditation and certification.