Would you spend your own $$$ for ISO 9001 registration

[JaneB]

I think this sentence nails it:

We really don't get it here.

Not 'getting it' and then blaming problems on the 'it' that you don't get? The mind boggles.

The previous owner liked to say you could be ISO certified and still build an ancor that won't sink.

A very good illustration of not getting it.

The progressive and successful organisations that I see do get it. They don't do certification just because they 'had to' - they do it because they saw good reasons for doing it, and they have reaped benefits from it. The ones who don't get it and then blame ISO for their failure just add to the problem and the negative stories.

This saying comes to mind: It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

It certainly ain't the Standard. It's all in how it's done (or not done!). Someone else pointed out that its underlying principles, for example, are quite simple. The magic is in the real understanding and application. And I'm fortunate enough to work (mostly) with the best organisations: interested, motivated, and extracting value from it. Those who do, get all sorts of things, like jcbodie says. And they aren't the same things you describe.

Anyone who 'could be ISO certified and still build an anchor that won't sink' certainly doesn't "get it". An owner espousing that view is a good indication of the prevailing attitude toward it.

 

[Paul Simpson]

This posting has been beaten to death and the same people in favor of ISO support it; those who are not, denigrate it. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

I thought this was a great post ... and that's the point. Even though we have all been going round the houses, taking positions and arguing our own corners for a long while every so often there is a post that makes at least one visitor to the cove sit up and think - hey that's good! Over time we all get to find one or two of those and that's why we keep coming back.

As far as billmeye, etal., that is certainly one way to look at things. I certainly would agree that some companies do ISO for less than stellar reasons. That is their choice, really. They don't understand what they may be missing. But, one of the ways to calculate any ROI, etc., was actually part of billmeye's original message. Calculating the time saved in not putting on the "dog and pony shows" (i.e. customer visits), including how much prep time is taken away from actually running the business, is one measurement, isn't it?? The fact that your customers presumably allow your 3rd party registrar to do the auditing, saves them money, too. It wouldn't make alot of sense, to me, to have them come in and audit, if your Registrar is already doing that.

Agreed. The purpose of the system has changed from what the standard developers intended. ISO keep banging on about it, we on the cove are saying the same thing - The standard was not developed for certification, it was developed as a model for a quality assurance system - to manage and assure product quality. As a secondary aspect it could be used with independent assessment to show capability.

The problem is now when someone says 'ISO 9001' most people hear the word 'certificate' after it.

The quality area (including ISO) has always been a tough one to fairly and completely quantify savings in...afterall, if you set up a preventive action program to insure product is not recalled, how would you calculate that which has never happened and how much the savings would be?? This is always the argument when management talks about the cost of prevention (which ISO could be considered part of), if nothing has happened, not realizing that the reason it may not have happened is precisely because you spent money on prevention. Also, I know many companies do not want to publish savings/financials (of any kind) as this gives the competition key information, that can hurt said company.

IMHO the problem is that if an organization has a mature quality management system in place including measures of cost of quality then implementing a system to include ISO 9001 requirements is unlikely to generate any (additional) savings - as the existing systems will already be 99% ISO 9001 compliant.

Without intimately knowing your company, I do think part of the reason your ISO process may not be delivering in your eyes, is because of your comment that 29 see it as a burden (pity the poor soul who's charged with making it happen). In particular, if you all don't "get it" as you say, then at least part of the blame has to be laid at the feet of your management.....which has absolutely nothing to do with the ISO Standard. By the way, your previous owners' "anchor" story is entirely correct. However, in a situation like that, you won't be in business very long anyway, ISO registration or no ISO registration, so it's really a poor argument against ISO.

Now this is an old chestnut - the floating anchor / concrete life preserver argument has been around for years and has largely been debunked - but still it lives on like many urban myths.

Yes, some companies do see it as a marketing tool and yes, some companies are doing this only because a key customer has made it a requirement to do business with them. However, in the last 7 yrs of 3rd party auditing, I have seen quite a different trend: more smaller/medium-sized companies seeing value in the ISO Standard adding infrastructure and organization to their (typically) home-grown culture and less "I have to do this to get the orders" attitude. From what I can tell, many of the companies that "had" to do this at one point, have not maintained registration, once they have a real choice. But there are plenty left, who choose to continue. I say that's a good thing. It leaves 3rd party auditors, like myself, the best possible customers to work with: motivated, interested in improvement and valuing what the ISO Standard's structure can help them to achieve. I'm very fortunate in having a great client base to work with, which exhibit these traits. It doesn't sound like your company fits this description.

My condolences to your 3rd party auditor.

Good attitude from a 3rd party auditor. It got me thinking. Why do we expect AB auditors to make a difference, or CB auditors. Where the cove has to start is at the quality professional - the system implementer. These are the only guys / gals who can make a difference. More later ? ....

 

[billmeye]

Thanks everyone for the comments. Paul, I'm new to these thoughts, as are so many others, and it's good that you say it's still a value to continue these dicussions, maybe not for the veterans, but for us novices.

JCBodie, I liked your thoughts regarding a possible ROI by time saved not needing to perform multiple customer audits. For a big company that is propably true, but, I'm always skeptical regarding time savings as a ROI since nobody is that efficient or overburdened that 10 or 12 days a year couldn't be devoted to some face to face time with customers.

I'm not new to ISO, have been involved to some degree for 12 years and have had the Management Rep position for 6 years, but I am a novice when it comes to delving deep into the meaning behind the clauses and impressing upon people there value. It's one thing to write the procedures to cover the clauses, see that forms and records are used and perform internal audits. It's another to work them into the operation so they have the intended value, especially when those around you just view things as unnecessary burdens. Forms and records and paperwork and the constant working to improve things just don't float most people's boats. It seems to become an afront to their character or a challenge to their autonomy.

It's great to see this forum for discussions and I look forward to hearing all of the great experience and wisdom that is out there because for many of us it's like being on an island within your own company. Thanks for staying involved.

 

[JaneB]

Paul, thanks for reminding us all of this - it almost needs to be tattooed on the cover of the Standard! (bolding mine)

The standard was not developed for certification, it was developed as a model for a quality assurance system - to manage and assure product quality.

That's why I voted No in the poll. But if the poll had asked something like: 'would you spend your own $$$ for a quality management system using the ISO 9001 model', I'd have voted Yes in a heartbeat. (I already have - the management system I use in my business does use it, because it's a good model.)

As a secondary aspect it could be used with independent assessment to show capability.

The problem is now when someone says 'ISO 9001' most people hear the word 'certificate' after it.

Indeed. And in response to jcbodie's excellent post, you raise a really good question (as so often):

Good attitude from a 3rd party auditor. It got me thinking. Why do we expect AB auditors to make a difference, or CB auditors.

Why indeed? Why expect an outside party whose primary responsibility is to audit to make a difference in a certified organisation, where for example, the prevailing attitude is 'this is a waste of time'? That's about as close to my definition of a no win situation as can be. On occasion I've come across a client/potential client whose top management has this attitude - you should 'do it to us'. Now unless they're really willing and open to thinking and change, I've found it just doesn't work. If there's an heavily entrenched 'waste of time' attitude, coupled with a lack of leadership on quality from the top, we'll part company. Some things just can't be done.

Where the cove has to start is at the quality professional - the system implementer. These are the only guys / gals who can make a difference. More later ? ....

Why just the 'quality professional'? Isn't that still seeing quality as the job of the 'QP' rather than everyone's? How can we get to where it needs to start from - the top?

I'm not new to ISO ... but I am a novice when it comes to delving deep into the meaning behind the clauses and impressing upon people there value. It's one thing to write the procedures to cover the clauses, see that forms and records are used and perform internal audits. It's another to work them into the operation so they have the intended value, especially when those around you just view things as unnecessary burdens.

Very true. I particularly feel for you if just about everyone where you work feels it's a waste of time. I have worked with many people who started off with that attitude - when I was hired at one firm, the 2 owners and the GM all had that one, and had already failed in their certification attempts a couple of times!

But I've also managed to turn it around on many occasions (including in that job) by

1. keeping the system and its doco as simple and practical as it could possibly be and
2. focussing on the real underlying purpose and value of the Standard, interpreting and applying its requirements into the business/organisation language at hand; emphasising the 'sheer good management sense' of the ISO model.

I try never to say or have the 'we have to do this because ISO says' point of view for example. Instead, I suggest thinking about why the Standard would have that particular requirement in there. Which turns it around to no, we don't just do this 'because ISO says' but because doing this is critical to a sound system of quality management as it's good risk management/good practice/safer/faster/better (whatever applies). And choosing relevant examples from the organisation to illustrate. I think it's a fundamental difference in viewpoint.

That said, I have also failed at times. And it took me a while to develop the wisdom to decline or disengage from the situations that just didn't have the preconditions required for success/change, and thus were doomed to failure from the outset ('we just have to have the certificate to hang on our wall'). It's still a fine line to determine when change can be effected, and when it can't. But a boss/owner with the attitude you mention would be a major warning flag to me (good that he's former!)

It's great to see this forum for discussions and I look forward to hearing all of the great experience and wisdom that is out there because for many of us it's like being on an island within your own company. Thanks for staying involved.

Yes, I agree and thanks you to you too! It's good to discuss and debate these things.