What Next For ISO 9001?

[D.Scott]

I may be oversimplifying here but I would think that, as the new standard is based on inputs and outputs, it would be relatively easy to determine the degree of efficiency in meeting the goals already established. Each 9000 company defines its own process and measures its effectiveness toward meeting goals. Obviously, the larger, more complex company will have different criteria than the mom & pop but they both share common ground on working toward meeting their own objectives (which logically include customer satisfaction). A realistic evaluation of already collected company data should allow for a comparison of system effectiveness. You can’t determine if a company is sound by looking at the checkbook balance without considering a balance sheet. How could the worth of a company’s quality system be determined without balancing it against its own goals?
I know this isn’t anything new but IMHO the need for registrars no longer exists. Assuming a QMS is established based on ISO9000 and confirmed by the customer, measurement of the results against the expectations will determine if the system is effective. Evaluation by the customer of their expectation of the supplier will determine if the process is effective.
If as a customer you want to bring in a new supplier and need to judge their quality system, don’t just accept someone who has a certificate hanging on the wall. Get out from behind the desk and go do the job you should be doing. Look at the supplier’s inputs and outputs and see how they stack up to their own expectations. If they don’t meet their own, how can they meet yours? If they don’t stack up, don’t buy. I don’t know any CEOs who don’t understand that bottom line and the incentive for continuous improvement that goes with it.

Dave

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

Dave, Welcome back!

 

[energy]

Always felt that way

ISO 9000 is truly an international standard costing billions of pounds to industry and supporting the consultancy, training and certification industries worldwide.
Simon

You got it.

The aim of the standard is to help organisations to improve and hopefully to generate increased market share, revenue profit etc. - but in reality does it?
Simon

No.

Has it now not just become a necessary but expensive overhead that buyers and contract awardees blindly require of their suppliers?
Simon

Yes.

 

[Mike S.]

But how do you really feel, Energy?

But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. IMO, ISO 9001-2000 (or 9001-1994 or 9004) can certainly help a company improve if properly applied. Yes, it would be nice if it were written more clearly, and I might wanna change/delete some parts, but as a generic standard it ain't all that bad. The biggest problems IMO come in when a company is required (i.e. by customers or ignorant higher-ups) to pay lotsa money to a 3rd party registrar which may not add any value but may cause several significant negatives. If 3rd party registrars were eliminated from the equation I think we'd all be better off for it. After all, it is my responsibility to make sure I have good suppliers, not the registrars. And if the company wanted to take quality seriously, they would get what they deserve; and if they did not take quality seriously, they too would get what they deserve. Trouble is, a company that does not take Q seriously can get a cert, and one that does might not get a cert.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I know this isn’t anything new but IMHO the need for registrars no longer exists.
. . .Evaluation by the customer of their expectation of the supplier will determine if the process is effective.
If as a customer you want to bring in a new supplier and need to judge their quality system, don’t just accept someone who has a certificate hanging on the wall. Get out from behind the desk and go do the job you should be doing . . . .
Dave

Precisely! Now, how do we convince those customers there is benefit to doing their own research instead of being lazy and adding a cost factor [the price of registrars] to their supply chain? After all, the registrar only says the organization has a plan which it meets. It doesn't say the plan guarantees a quality product or service suitable for the customer.

 

[CarolX]

I'm going to turn on the "way back machine".


Many of you were in the defense industry and were already familiar with MIL-I-45208. Most of you know that the 1994 version was nothing more than a regurgitation of the Mil standard.

When I came to work here, the only system in place was a over written quality system that a consultant fabricated for the company. It didn't describe anything correctly, and everyone thought it was a joke.

I took what we were already doing and plugged it into the format of the Mil standard. Years later, time to go for the cert, I could just re-type a few things, address some issues not addressed, and I was done.

My point to all this....
You don't need a standard, certification process, auditing, scoring or any of that to do things right. Sound business operations don't need a standard to tell ya how to do what you already know.

JMHO,
CarolX

 

[Mike S.]

CX,

When you started in the Q biz, did you know exactly everything a good Q system should include? I didn't. Sure I could figure some of it out as common sense, but MIL-I-45208A was my guide. It gave me a template for what a good Q system should look at and address, at least for starters. It gave everyone (customers and suppliers) a baseline for compliance, comparison, and discussion. Imagine if there were thousands of different ideas as to what should be included in a Q system with no standardization at all to speak of. I think having a standard, or a few different standards to pick from, is a good thing. No one is saying you cannot go beyond the standard, but it at least gives some basis for comparison and getting started. JMO.

 

[Icy Mountain]

Just 2 parties needed.

I think that the various 20 points standards that led up to 9k2k and TS2 are indeed a great foundation. I think that the AIAG members (not just the B3 but the truck guys, too) have got it right (ducking under the desk). Not only are you required to 3rd party register, but your customers visit the plant, check your APQPs for new products so they know you covered the development bases, and witness PPAPs so that they know you covered the manufacturing bases (at least my customers do). Then they send you CA/PA requests once you are delivering product, which you must answer. Why do we need the 3rd party? How much more would the QS/TS requiring customers really spend on Quality Departments if there wasn't a 3rd party involved? How long does it really take to determine that your supplier doesn't meet the intent of 9004?

P.S. I sometimes get the hinky-heeby-jeebies <10 minutes into a plant visit. I wouldn't let companies that do this to me supply me with urinal cakes, let alone components or services, I don't care what kind of QMS they have, registered or not.

 

[Simon Timperley]

From the way this thread has developed I think I’m safe to say that registrars / cert bodies are the devils sputum. Agreed? And certificates have a detrimental effect on the environment. If so, which of you has the gonads to draft and send a letter to all your customers explaining that you will no longer be maintaining certification to ISO9001:2000. Has anyone actually tried it? Why don’t we all try it?

Icy Mountain
“Not only are you required to 3rd party register, but your customers visit the plant”

A disgraceful waste of resource!

Simon

 

[CarolX]

CX,

When you started in the Q biz, did you know exactly everything a good Q system should include? I didn't. Sure I could figure some of it out as common sense, but MIL-I-45208A was my guide. It gave me a template for what a good Q system should look at and address, at least for starters. It gave everyone (customers and suppliers) a baseline for compliance, comparison, and discussion. Imagine if there were thousands of different ideas as to what should be included in a Q system with no standardization at all to speak of. I think having a standard, or a few different standards to pick from, is a good thing. No one is saying you cannot go beyond the standard, but it at least gives some basis for comparison and getting started. JMO.

Mike,

I couldn't agree more. I guess my reasons for my post were....we can do it without registration, auditing, scoring points, etc., etc., etc.
MHO is the success with MIL-I-45208 is you didn't have anyone making money of the compliance process, accept for the contractor. If you didn't comply with the standards requirements, you didn't do business with the DoD.

CarolX