What are Your Expectations of ISO 9001?
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
Frankly, I have a lot more respect for companies following ISO9K2K than those who followed the 1994 version.
However, my philosophy vis a vis registered ISO9k2k shops is "Trust everybody, but count the cards!"
I don't buy ANY custom work without a personal visit by some qualified person from our organization to the work site and subsequent approval. ISO9k2k registration just gives us a [usually] easily followed roadmap to the QMS.
Standard item purchases of components (fasteners, cable, connectors, etc.) may entail correspondence to ensure we can have complete traceability and we will not receive mixed lots of goods.
(i.e. if we order one thousand bolts and they come from two separate lots, we want each lot packaged and identified separately, not mixed in one package. For example, when we manufacture an assembly, we ensure only bolts from the same lot are included in an individual assembly. If that's impossible, we maintain a chart of which bolts from which lot went where on the individual assembly and keep the chart with the Quality records. We're obsessive about this because we adhere to FAA-PMA traceability expectations for products which go into commercial aircraft.)
Summary of ISO9k2k registered vs unregistered:
I generally find more consistency (products, documentation, service) in companies which are registered or self-declared. I attribute this to general ignorance of good quality system practices by the others. I have found absolutely no difference in any material way between formally registered and self-declared organizations. Almost always, a company that's self-declared is not bluffing. I still do a lot of business with non-ISO9k2k organizations as long as I am satisfied product quality, service, and documentation associated with my products will meet my requirements.
(when I have a piece of sheet aluminum cut to my specs, there are few hidden factors which cannot be covered with some foresight - material cert, plating cert, sample of the trim material to check for hardness, tensile strength, chemical composition, etc. With those details negotiated before the product is made, I've never been disappointed - usually the supplier is happy to have such a detailed list. We are obsessive on traceability, but we also make sure we don't over-engineer anything by using 3 decimal tolerances when one decimal will serve or fussing about 1 or 2 degrees on a corner radius when no fit or function is involved.)
However, my philosophy vis a vis registered ISO9k2k shops is "Trust everybody, but count the cards!"
I don't buy ANY custom work without a personal visit by some qualified person from our organization to the work site and subsequent approval. ISO9k2k registration just gives us a [usually] easily followed roadmap to the QMS.
Standard item purchases of components (fasteners, cable, connectors, etc.) may entail correspondence to ensure we can have complete traceability and we will not receive mixed lots of goods.
(i.e. if we order one thousand bolts and they come from two separate lots, we want each lot packaged and identified separately, not mixed in one package. For example, when we manufacture an assembly, we ensure only bolts from the same lot are included in an individual assembly. If that's impossible, we maintain a chart of which bolts from which lot went where on the individual assembly and keep the chart with the Quality records. We're obsessive about this because we adhere to FAA-PMA traceability expectations for products which go into commercial aircraft.)
Summary of ISO9k2k registered vs unregistered:
I generally find more consistency (products, documentation, service) in companies which are registered or self-declared. I attribute this to general ignorance of good quality system practices by the others. I have found absolutely no difference in any material way between formally registered and self-declared organizations. Almost always, a company that's self-declared is not bluffing. I still do a lot of business with non-ISO9k2k organizations as long as I am satisfied product quality, service, and documentation associated with my products will meet my requirements.
(when I have a piece of sheet aluminum cut to my specs, there are few hidden factors which cannot be covered with some foresight - material cert, plating cert, sample of the trim material to check for hardness, tensile strength, chemical composition, etc. With those details negotiated before the product is made, I've never been disappointed - usually the supplier is happy to have such a detailed list. We are obsessive on traceability, but we also make sure we don't over-engineer anything by using 3 decimal tolerances when one decimal will serve or fussing about 1 or 2 degrees on a corner radius when no fit or function is involved.)
Bear with my cynical response, please....haven't had my first infusion of caffeine yet.
What does it tell me? As jaded as this may sound, it means that one company has a formalized process to handle my complaints and the other one potential does not.
Ideally, it means that one company will consistently meet my requirements and the other may or may not.
So, my organization has taken this route....delivery performance to us must be >80% if you are registered to ISO 9001 or ISO 9002 (and have yet to transition) or another recognized quality standard or >90% if you do not have it.
What does it tell me? As jaded as this may sound, it means that one company has a formalized process to handle my complaints and the other one potential does not.
Ideally, it means that one company will consistently meet my requirements and the other may or may not.
So, my organization has taken this route....delivery performance to us must be >80% if you are registered to ISO 9001 or ISO 9002 (and have yet to transition) or another recognized quality standard or >90% if you do not have it.
R
Rob Nix
Whenever a company develops any system or process designed to improve them, then that is a good thing. ISO9K2K is a good thing, provided you consider the spirit of the standard and not nit-pick the details.
Often, teams that work on continuous (continual?) improvement want the new process to be nearly 100% perfected before rolling it out. I say, get the process to, say, 85% and implement it! Exponential time and money are wasted bickering and tweaking the fine points (anything relevant will surface after implementation).
It's the same with ISO. My expectation is that they LEAVE IT ALONE! It is a good format for business systems - it is not perfect - but it is good enough to leave it alone for about 10 years. I do not think the benefits outweigh the cost of upgrades. It is not software! I hope I do not see ISO:2002, ISO:2004, etc.
Often, teams that work on continuous (continual?) improvement want the new process to be nearly 100% perfected before rolling it out. I say, get the process to, say, 85% and implement it! Exponential time and money are wasted bickering and tweaking the fine points (anything relevant will surface after implementation).
It's the same with ISO. My expectation is that they LEAVE IT ALONE! It is a good format for business systems - it is not perfect - but it is good enough to leave it alone for about 10 years. I do not think the benefits outweigh the cost of upgrades. It is not software! I hope I do not see ISO:2002, ISO:2004, etc.
R
Randy Stewart
Good Topic
IMO we'll be seeing more and more of this or should I say will have to analyze this more often.
There have been a number of company's that are going away from the certification scheme and "doing it on their own" type of thing. I believe some of this can be contributed to the B3 pushing the 2nd party audits.
IMO we'll be seeing more and more of this or should I say will have to analyze this more often.
There have been a number of company's that are going away from the certification scheme and "doing it on their own" type of thing. I believe some of this can be contributed to the B3 pushing the 2nd party audits.
I actually don't mind if a company says that they are compliant to the standard. Not everyone necessarily benefits financially from having the cert on the wall.
Is a registered company "better" than a compliant company? Dunno. I have no experience with a company that is just compliant. But I do have experience with companies that have nothing...certainly being compliant is better than having nothing at all.
My concern is that even if compliance is all an organization wishes to pursue, that they pursue it in the spirit of the Standard; that we all adhere to the requirements (as applicable/where appropriate/where feasible, of course
)
Is a registered company "better" than a compliant company? Dunno. I have no experience with a company that is just compliant. But I do have experience with companies that have nothing...certainly being compliant is better than having nothing at all.
My concern is that even if compliance is all an organization wishes to pursue, that they pursue it in the spirit of the Standard; that we all adhere to the requirements (as applicable/where appropriate/where feasible, of course
)
J
Jimmy Olson
There is benefit to being certified to 9k2k, but it's not the greatest thing. I used to work at a company that didn't follow any ISO guidelines and had no interest in it (the majority of people there, including management, didn't even know what ISO was). But this company turned out better product and had better customer relations than some companies that are ISO certified. I don't think it's right to have any expectations of 9k2k, other than laying a framework for doing things. I think it's best purpose is as a guidance for developing something of your own. That's why I don't see a problem with 'self compliant' companies, as long as they are actually following everything.
I do agree that the future of 9001 is in question depending on how it's handled. I'm sure ISO will come out with something new in a couple years, and unless they figure out some way to add some value I can see a lot of places passing on it. From what I've seen, a number of customers are no longer requiring it or even asking about it. So based on that there is the question of 'Why bother? Where's the value?'
(Sorry for rambling. I just read it after posting and confused myself . Still too early and not enough coffee )
I do agree that the future of 9001 is in question depending on how it's handled. I'm sure ISO will come out with something new in a couple years, and unless they figure out some way to add some value I can see a lot of places passing on it. From what I've seen, a number of customers are no longer requiring it or even asking about it. So based on that there is the question of 'Why bother? Where's the value?'
(Sorry for rambling. I just read it after posting and confused myself
. Still too early and not enough coffee )Similar threads
