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

[Sidney Vianna]

Policy setting is way overrated!

You have to look beyond the garbage output that results from the process

If the process does not accomplish the goal, you have to re-think it.

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.

I already mentioned my understanding of the probable intention to have policies in place, but there are other ways to accomplish it. For example, without giving much thought to it, if we were to revise 5.2 of ISO 9001 to state:

5.2 Customer focus​

Top management shall ensure that customer requirements are determined and are met with the aim of enhancing customer satisfaction (see 7.2.1 and 8.2.1). Top management must communicate to the workforce the importance of delivering customer satisfaction. Such communication must be reinforced at defined intervals.

I think we accomplish the same without having to have this figure of a "quality policy", subject of jokes and meaningless discussions. If an organization needs to have a policy to define objectives and be reminded that they need to improve the effectiveness of their systems and processes, they don't deserve to be in business.

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.

An organization that subscribes to several standards would have to have several policies: one for quality, one for the environment, one for safety, etc... That, in my opinion, dilutes the importance. When everything is a priority, nothing is. We don't need a policy for getting to work on time, to be polite, not to talk with our mouths full...In my estimation, having a quality policy statement does not make top management more accountable and involved with the QMS. It just distract attention from matters of significance.

We will disagree on this one.
​

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

That might be true in many cases, but if it is, it's because there was no deliberate logic present in the design. Businesses are too often allowed to evolve on their own, which causes most of the problems we see. It's lack of leadership. Companies that are logically constructed--where correlation is never mistaken for causation, are the ones with the "vision statements" that are actually verifiable. The fact that they have vision statements makes people who don't want to accept the burden of leadership think that the container is equal to the thing contained, or that veneer=substance.

As for the "research": Let's say I choose 10 companies with "vision statements" at random, and elect to study them and find out if they "live out" their statements, and whether there is any significant difference in the profitability of the companies. We discover the Green Hat Corporation, and its vision statement that says,

We believe that in order to satisfy customers, provide jobs, and make lots of money, all of our employees must wear green hats.

We take a tour through the factory and offices, and indeed, all of the employees from the CEO on down are wearing green hats. We then have a look at the P&L statement, and sure enough, the performance of the Green Hat, Inc. is outstanding, and much better than any of the other nine companies we study, where there is no obvious evidence that vision statements are being lived out.

The inescapable conclusion: Companies who live out their vision statements will perform better than those who don't.

The panacea is never a good solution to any problem.

Panaceas are always efficacious, otherwise they wouldn't be panaceas.

 

[JaneB]

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.

Could not agree more. Just because something is done badly on a number of occasions isn't an argument to entirely take it out of the Standard. It is an argument for a rethink, and look for ways to do it better.

No one stumbles blindly into success - every truly successful person talks of the importance of having a clear vision of where they want to be or what it will look like. Ditto companies.

A clear vision was one of the essential components of successful companies from Jim Collins' research (Built to Last, Good to Great, etc).

But I do agree with Jim: only having a policy because 'ISO says you gotta' usually doesn't work or work well. But then does just doing anything in there without any real understanding & appreciation of the importance underlying the requirement?? Isn't one of the things we're aiming to do is achieve real improvement?

Mostly, the arguments seem to be 'take it out because it isn't necessary/doesn't work'. What's the alternative? I like the suggestion of getting the company focussed on satisfaction - but doesn't the company occasionally, just occasionally, want to achieve some other things as well? What help would this provide to a company faced with a very real ethical dilemma: choose to make the customer happy & blow anything else?

 

[Paul Simpson]

That might be true in many cases, but if it is, it's because there was no deliberate logic present in the design.

Is this the design of the research or of the organization itself? I presume from what goes below you mean the organization but please correct me if I'm wrong ....

Businesses are too often allowed to evolve on their own, which causes most of the problems we see. It's lack of leadership.

But surely that is what organizations do - they evolve based on the culture that is evident to the workers - based on the leadership they see.

It is the old idea of motivation. I cannot motivate you but what I can do is create the environment where you find your own motivation.

Companies that are logically constructed--where correlation is never mistaken for causation, are the ones with the "vision statements" that are actually verifiable. The fact that they have vision statements makes people who don't want to accept the burden of leadership think that the container is equal to the thing contained, or that veneer=substance.

I hope I have made the point earlier. Vision statements (or policy statements) without substance are not worth the paper they are written on. My point is that a policy statement that is seen to have had the involvement of the management team and is in line with what the organization's workers see and believe is an effective means of getting the employees on board.

As for the "research": Let's say I choose 10 companies with "vision statements" at random, and elect to study them and find out if they "live out" their statements, and whether there is any significant difference in the profitability of the companies. We discover the Green Hat Corporation, and its vision statement that says,

We take a tour through the factory and offices, and indeed, all of the employees from the CEO on down are wearing green hats. We then have a look at the P&L statement, and sure enough, the performance of the Green Hat, Inc. is outstanding, and much better than any of the other nine companies we study, where there is no obvious evidence that vision statements are being lived out.

The inescapable conclusion: Companies who live out their vision statements will perform better than those who don't.

While your "simple" examples are clear, Jim, in this case I don't think they help the argument. I agree that people who jump on any bandwagon without thinking it through deserve to lose their hard earned money.

Panaceas are always efficacious, otherwise they wouldn't be panaceas.

The problem is panaceas are not always an effective cure all! The original "Green hat" initiative worked for one organization and all the other companies who jump on the bandwagon have not understood how it works but think that by wearing green hats their P & L will magically improve

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Policy setting is way overrated!

If the process does not accomplish the goal, you have to re-think it. I already mentioned my understanding of the probable intention to have policies in place, but there are other ways to accomplish it. For example, without giving much thought to it, if we were to revise 5.2 of ISO 9001 to state:

For some reason your original idea didn't copy across but I take the point that it could be covered elsewhere in the standard. My own preference at this stage is to get the process of policy definition more part of system design (and assessment).

I think we accomplish the same without having to have this figure of a "quality policy", subject of jokes and meaningless discussions. If an organization needs to have a policy to define objectives and be reminded that they need to improve the effectiveness of their systems and processes, they don't deserve to be in business.​

So the problem is organizations have a "check box" idea about satisfying this clause of ISO - meet the letter of the requirement without addressing the spirit of top management setting the direction and (dare I say it) policy for the organization. Maybe we need to go back and retrain the auditors again to expect more evidence of involvement - above and beyond the signed statement in the pretty frame.

An organization that subscribes to several standards would have to have several policies: one for quality, one for the environment, one for safety, etc... That, in my opinion, dilutes the importance. When everything is a priority, nothing is.

An organization need not have more than one policy but the danger of subscribing to multiple standards are that the commitment to all the standards does become diluted. Somewhere in the system (not necessarily hanging in reception this policy does need to be communicated to those who need to know. Most new employees have an induction and maybe that is the place for the policy to sit.

We don't need a policy for getting to work on time, to be polite, not to talk with our mouths full...

OK, I take the points about simple basics but most of these ARE covered in employee codes of conduct where the organization defines its policy for how employees should behave when on company business.

In my estimation, having a quality policy statement does not make top management more accountable and involved with the QMS. It just distract attention from matters of significance.

This seems to be our main point of disagreement. I think the policy is important in that it demonstrates the organization's commitment to quality and you (IMHO) have seen that the process abused to such a degree that the output is rendered meaningless.

We will disagree on this one.

In a gentle and friendly manner as ever, Sid.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The problem is panaceas are not always an effective cure all!

That's like saying, "Green hats aren't always green." The statement is self-contradictory. Would-be panaceas are not often effective, but actual panaceas always are, or as I said, they aren't panaceas.

 

[Paul Simpson]

That's like saying, "Green hats aren't always green." The statement is self-contradictory. Would-be panaceas are not often effective, but actual panaceas always are, or as I said, they aren't panaceas.

OK, I was using the term in its commonly used form of "a supposed cure for all diseases or problems" having only checked the definition in Microsoft's Encarta dictionary - silly me, thanks Bill!

I accept that the true Oxford English definition is that it is an actual cure all. My apologies - I should have known better than to try to correct your use of English!:truce:

Any substantive contributions to the debate, anyone?

 

[Jim Wynne]

OK, I was using the term in its commonly used form of "a supposed cure for all diseases or problems" having only checked the definition in Microsoft's Encarta dictionary - silly me, thanks Bill!

If you're going to use an online dictionary, I recommend either American Heritage or Merriam-Webster, in order of preference.

The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—'tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. Mark Twain

I accept that the true Oxford English definition is that it is an actual cure all.

As long as you've got access to the OED, you're all set.

Any substantive contributions to the debate, anyone?

Gratuitous dig noted.

 

[mlthompson]

Any substantive contributions to the debate, anyone?

No, actually you guys burnt me out on the topic 20 replys ago.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Fair comment - point taken.