Training Records - Do all employees have to be trained on ISO 9001:2000?

[Roger Eastin]

I hear you, Marc, but I think the "Japanese phenomenon" is way overplayed - Toyota included. I had a GM van that had over 270,000 miles on it which is an American car from one of the much-maligned Big 3. All I did is change the oil regulary and did some other simple maintenance items.
My cost argument is based on a within-same-car-class comparison. I don't see Toyota as any more cost-competitive as any other car maker. I'm not trying to bash Toyota, I'm just saying that I wonder from all these quality management initiatives (especially from Japan) - where's the beef? Anyway, that's my humble opinion, such as it is....

 

[Marc]

I'm not pushing a Japanese is better thing. I just used Toyota and Honda because of the automotive bent. As I said, I don't put much faith in consumer reports so to me their ratings mean little. To me it's a person's experience. While I don't think all American manufacturing is sub-standard, I stand my my comments that internal audits are bunk in any well run company.

And cost is relative. If I buy a certain 'class' of car, I don't always expect price parity among the contenders. +/- a couple of thousand isn't always a deal breaker.

No big deal. I just believe the 'internal audit' phenomena is 'over played' in its importance, particularly to well run companies.

And again, I don't see this as a 'Japanese superiority' thing. There are many well run companies world-wide. Fed Ex comes to mind in the service sector.

 

[Andy Bassett]

Im not so sure Roger. Toyota are pretty well-known to have a cost effective structure, they are siad to be able to operate the plants at 78% capacity and still make money. (Womack and Womack 'the Machine that Changed the World)

They have consistently made money over the years, and out of proportion with their size. Many years ago when Mazda was rescued it was only done on condition that they adopted the Toyota Lean Production method.

I travel quite a lot and i am consistently hiring cars, Toyota's are definitely one of the best designed vehicles on the road. In my corner of Ireland the old cars that you see most often tramping along are Toyota's.

Their secret is a consequent displined approach to work, that i believe lies in their culture.

But if you beleived that, maybe consultants should be offering courses in 'How to run Disciplined Companies', instead of Baldridge, TQM, ISO 9000 etc.

The world is too complex and dynamic to say what makes companies succssful, which is why most management fads are just that. The only common factor that i have seen that exists in nearly every successful company is discipline.

Regards

Regards


------------------
Andy B

 

[CJacobsen]

I have to agree and am happy to have found some similar trains of thought to my own. Although I have created, trained persons in use, and implemented some fairly comprehensive process and system audit schemes, this quote could not be any more true:
"Internal audits are only effective in companies with low discipline levels (people don't do what they're supposed to do)."
Excpet that even here their effectiveness is questionable. If the discipline is that bad more than likely the supervision or management is seriously lacking. In this case no audit scheme in the world is going to ever do anything more than point out the problems - repeatedly!

 

[Dave Davis]

I'd have to slightly disagree on the issue of internal audits. 1) You are discussing Toyota as an example - the information source needs to be questioned. Are you sure Toyota does no internal audits, or are you taking the word of the person making the post. 2) Internal audits are more like verification of process and system capabilities and effectivness. How does Toyota rate it's process capabilities and effectiveness without some sort of audit? I agree that without the support of the executive management that no internal audit system would prevail... but disagree that it's does not add value in measuring a quality system.

[This message has been edited by Dave Davis (edited 01 November 2000).]

 

[Don Evans]

Please do not confuse good business practice with "culture" Japanese or otherwise. How many of you followed the Mitsubishi Automotive problem last year with the raid on the Mitsubishi Automotive President's personal house? The Japanese government carted away several boxes of customer complaints. This was reported in the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Internal Audits are only as good as the people doing them and in some cases are very necessary. "Control" of employees or not.

Please be careful. Toyota is doing and has been doing a good job but only time will tell if they can continue. Internal audits proper conducted and sustained can only help.



------------------
Don Evans

 

[Ron Byrge]

The folks on the floor need to know their job, what to do with non-conforming product, and what to do with suggestions on improving the system/process. As for ISO awareness, they should be able to tell me what the policy of the company is, and the fact that they are working to meet their customers requirements (internal or external). Other than that, additional training, while maybe a tax right-off, really isn't necessary or even beneficial.
Just my $.02 worth...

------------------
Ron Byrge
Operations Manager
CwC Registrar, Inc.
https://cwcregistrar.com

 

[Randy]

I agree with Ron. I couldn't give a hoot less if an employee didn't know what clause "5" says. That goes for the Top management too.

I feel as long as people are aware of the procedures they are to follow, and verifiably follow them, they are meeting the standard.

Sure someone has to be trained.....but not everyone, and definitly not on every word.

Business is not in business to have training. Minimize and supply the basic information.

The load of dung that some put out saying that everybody has to know everything about a particular standard is just so much hog wash. I'm a registered EMS-LA and I don't even have the stinking 14001 thing put to memory. I know the basics and I keep one nearby at all times for referencing to. For me to ask more of an organization would not be correct by my way of thinking.

 

[Marc]

-> I feel as long as people are aware of the procedures they
-> are to follow, and verifiably follow them, they are
-> meeting the standard.

Undocumented procedures as well, I might add.

 

[barb butrym]

well....my 2 cents worth....

I do an awareness training for my clients...Its a no nonsense quickie that leads into the quality policy (communicate the policy...yada yada yada)....its for all hands, abeit modified for each group dependant on how they fit into the scheme of things...as Sales/contract review spends a bit more time there...design....manufacturing...quality etc...based on who owns what requirement. talks about how their piece fits into the whole picture in support of the Quality policy, and for all groups i detail/support audits and corrective action and the feed back loop. How to submit a document change, and the importance of timely procedural updates etc. is covered when appropriate. the hand out is a element by element clip art presentation. The new standard reqirements are verbally inserted right now, as i haven't had the time to update the presentation. Will do it before I present it again though!!!!! Lasts about 45 minutes typically, with questions. Lots of good feedback on it...short sweet and informative, lively...can also include the "how to be audited" stuff easy enough.

it works for me.....and my clients like it

ok, now for the original question. 9000.2000 training updates...Does what people do in support of the Quality Policy change? probably not....if the policy didn't change....maybe add a quickie on continuous improvement and customer satisfaction measures, etc... for applicable bodies, but not for all hands unless all hands will be doing CI and CS stuff??????? Only what applies to who it applies to, should be the rule

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 08 July 2001).]