The ISO 9001:2008 addendum - What would you like to add or subtract?

[Sidney Vianna]

Hmm. No mentions of the Quality Policy. This will probably make me a pariah, but I’m on my soapbox to say: Remove any mention of a quality policy! ....3. People new to the workforce who have not yet adopted either of the above attitudes. These people have no need for a quality policy.

I agree with you, Tym. Having a quality policy, environmental management policy, information security policy, etc... is an archaic requirement. Do people need to have a policy statement to work in an ethical manner? My take on requirements for policies embedded in all these international standards is a well meaning intention to communicate to the work force that quality is a priority for the organization, but I believe that progressive organizations can accomplish that without having to have a "quality policy".

Now I know the academics and others who may audit quality systems but never have to assist in actually making a business function will be up in arms about my assertions here....Flame me if you must, but ...

I think you will be surprised to realize that many Covers are out of the box thinkers and question established "quality dogmas". I don't think your coment will be flamed. Probably the opposite.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think you will be surprised to realize that many Covers are out of the box thinkers and question established "quality dogmas". I don't think your coment will be flamed. Probably the opposite.

There'll be no flames from this quadrant. Quality policies, as ISO requirements, are a huge waste of time.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Quality policies, as ISO requirements, are a huge waste of time.

Jim, this sentence can be read in more than one way. Do you mean that all ISO requirements are a waste of time?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Jim, this sentence can be read in more than one way. Do you mean that all ISO requirements are a waste of time?

Well, now that you mention it

No, I meant to say that quality policies that exist solely due to ISO requirements are a waste of time.

 

[stanislavd]

I think the standard should be renamed. It is not about the quality, it is about the process effectiveness and efficiency. So, ISO 9001:2008 "Process Management Requirements" is good one.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Whoah right there!

In advance I apologize for the use of emphasis - I know it's shouting but sometimes my messages are reacted to directly without the understanding of what I'm trying to say - and no, I'm not getting at you, Sid.

I agree with you, Tym. Having a quality policy, environmental management policy, information security policy, etc... is an archaic requirement.

I can't agree with this statement. You have to look beyond the garbage output that results from the process (the laughable apeing of the particular standard that sits on the wall in reception and is ignored by all) and ask the question - why have the standard makers put the requirement in there in the first place? I believe the reason is simple - the standard requires that the organization's "top management .... provide evidence of its commitment to the development and implementation of the quality management system and continually improving its effectiveness by .... establishing the quality policy" because unless you can get the top team to think about what they want from quality and get them behind a system that is intended to meet the requirements of the standard, customer requirements etc., etc. then you don't stand a hope in **** of the system meeting the spirit of the standard - even if it does meet the letter because there is a framed pile of poo in reception.

Do people need to have a policy statement to work in an ethical manner? My take on requirements for policies embedded in all these international standards is a well meaning intention to communicate to the work force that quality is a priority for the organization, but I believe that progressive organizations can accomplish that without having to have a "quality policy".

Strictly speaking no, we don't have to have one. But take it the other way - if you take out the requirement from the standard then it is another dilution of the involvement of the top management team in a system that relies on them for a lead.

I think you will be surprised to realize that many Covers are out of the box thinkers and question established "quality dogmas". I don't think your coment will be flamed. Probably the opposite.

Well I'm just an old stick in the mud - I don't like the current output from the process that develops policies (sweeping generalization). I do think the requirement needs to stay in the standard though.

Perhaps we can just get the MD, CEO to take some responsibility for the contentrather than leave it to the "professionals" to make sure it ticks all the clause boxes for the auditor. I'd much rather see a policy that is non compliant with ISO but means something to the organization's employees than one that addresses all the shalls of ISO and is totally invisible except on the 6 monthly audit.

 

[mlthompson]

You can take this with a grain of salt. In a previous company, the corporate management conducted "vision" seminars with the entire supervision/management staff. The attempt was to brainwash.., uh uh, I mean to cast the corporate vision statement throughout the organization. In the seminar, the business consultants that lead the discussion mentioned the power of having a vision statement. They mentioned that a study was performed involving three groups of companies: 1) companies who had no vision statement, 2) companies who had a vision statement, but didn't live it, 3) companies who had a vision statement and lived it out in the daily operation of the business. The results of the study indicated the group 1 companies only had marginal growth of their business, Group 2 companies had moderate growth, but Group 3 companies has substantial growth.

I believe that it is important to have a vision statement or quality policy. A statement defines the management's direction, intentions, commitment, etc. As a company grows in size (employee count) it is important keep the herd going in the same direction. A vision statement, well crafted, will provide a common course to plot so everyone is headed in the same direction. But as they say, "the road to **** is paved with good intentions." Of course having a well crafted vision statement will get squashed like a bug, if it is not driven, enforced, supported by the management teams.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

You can take this with a grain of salt. In a previous company, the corporate management conducted "vision" seminars with the entire supervision/management staff. The attempt was to brainwash.., uh uh, I mean to cast the corporate vision statement throughout the organization. In the seminar, the business consultants that lead the discussion mentioned the power of having a vision statement. They mentioned that a study was performed involving three groups of companies: 1) companies who had no vision statement, 2) companies who had a vision statement, but didn't live it, 3) companies who had a vision statement and lived it out in the daily operation of the business. The results of the study indicated the group 1 companies only had marginal growth of their business, Group 2 companies had moderate growth, but Group 3 companies has substantial growth.

I believe that it is important to have a vision statement or quality policy. A statement defines the management's direction, intentions, commitment, etc. As a company grows in size (employee count) it is important keep the herd going in the same direction. A vision statement, well crafted, will provide a common course to plot so everyone is headed in the same direction. But as they say, "the road to **** is paved with good intentions." Of course having a well crafted vision statement will get squashed like a bug, if it is not driven, enforced, supported by the management teams.

Every winning athlete - football, baseball, basketball, etc. has a driving, passionate "vision" of their goals. Without a vision, there is no success.

Now, whether corporate management actually believes and drives it to acceptance is left to them to decide. Winners claearly have a vision of where they want to go. Other than lotteries, I don't think any winner stumbles into the winner's circle.

 

[Jim Wynne]

They mentioned that a study was performed involving three groups of companies: 1) companies who had no vision statement, 2) companies who had a vision statement, but didn't live it, 3) companies who had a vision statement and lived it out in the daily operation of the business. The results of the study indicated the group 1 companies only had marginal growth of their business, Group 2 companies had moderate growth, but Group 3 companies has substantial growth.

This is the logical fallacy called "affirmation of the consequent," which takes the form "X implies Y, and Y is known to be true, therefore X is true." There is simply no good reason to believe that the existence of a "vision statement" is a causative antecedent.

 

[Paul Simpson]

This is the logical fallacy called "affirmation of the consequent," which takes the form "X implies Y, and Y is known to be true, therefore X is true." There is simply no good reason to believe that the existence of a "vision statement" is a causative antecedent.

Phew, you almost left me behind there Jim with your "causative antecedents" but I'm hanging in there! The trouble with any research (like that mlthompson refers to) is that complex arrangements like organizations cannot be distilled into nice neat A to B to C logic diagrams. But that doesn't mean that you don't do the research or bother with the results (or "buy" the first consultant who tells you about it).

You just have to look at its applicablility to your own organization (and the problems the opinion formers already realize are there) and then - if you feel it will give you something - implement it in a form that will work for your organization without diluting what you are trying to achieve.

The panacea is never a good solution to any problem.