The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Auditing
  compliance v effectiveness

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   compliance v effectiveness
John C
Forum Contributor

Posts: 134
From:Cork City, Ireland
Registered: Nov 98

posted 05 March 1999 07:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John C   Click Here to Email John C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What do you say to a person who tells you that their group are doing a great job in very difficult conditions, short of staff, working all the hours, and they donāt have time to keep the documentation up to date or hang around being audited? If you know that these guys are good and what they say is true, then what do you say? What do you do?
In these circumstances, I make plans to bear down on them at Management Review until they squeak. But I usually ease off and try to get positive, do what I can to help, and finish up with all the action items for myself.
The documented system is right for me. It suits my nature and my temperament. Maybe it isnāt always right, for everyone, in all situations.
Shortly, Iām going out to try my hand at consultancy in the big, cold world. That will knock some of the breeze out of me. I feel it already, no longer cocksure of the position I take, knowing itās theoretically correct and that I can back it up Ītil hell freezes. I wonāt be able to say; ĪThis is right and that is wrongā, anymore. Iāll have to say; ĪThis is me and that is my product, do you care to buy?ā.
So, what do I say when the guy says ĪWhatās in it for me?ā. Do I say,
ĪIf you do this, then this will follow.ā? or,
ĪThis is the theory. You put it into practise at your own riskā.
How can you sell a documented system when you, and the other guy both know that these systems seem to fail as often as they are successful, while operations without documents can often be high flyers? Is the documented system really the answer, or is it necessary most of the time because of deficiencies in qualification, training, communication and leadership.
The well armed, trained, disciplined and well officered troops donāt always beat the ragged rebels. In fact, it seems that the ragged rebels usually win out in the long run.

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 05 March 1999 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John,

I asked Marshal Thurber, a quality consultant and Deming disciple, at a lecture his opinion of "documented systems" such as you would find for ISO. I can say that I thought I knew the answer before he gave it. Like you, I thought to myself; what is the benefit of documenting a system if it does nothing to truelly improve the product? Does the customer care if your system is documented? Yeah some. How about the Consumer? Probably not. But it does provide structure for those of us who like things straght forward. His answer: "It's just paper. You need to focus on the system". The only benefit, in my opinion, to documenting a quality system is to help folks to understand the system, a general overview (a training tool as you stated). It is why I my general opinion of ISO is that it is fairly useless (alone anyway). The essence of it is good and consistent with my beliefs, but by itself it ensures nothing. The issue of having to document everything we do, well, it is just paperwork. I believe Marshal is right on this.

So what do you tell the guy who asks "What's in it for me?"...hmmm? I say give him the straight of it, just as you have presented in your post. Perhaps you'll stir up some quality management consulting outside of ISO consulting?

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 05 March 1999 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
·short of staff, working all the hours, and they donāt have time to keep the documentation up to date or hang around being audited?

Try this:

4.1.2.2 Resources
The supplier shall identify resource requirements and provide adequate resources, including the assignment of trained personnel (see 4.18), for management, performance of work, and verification activities, including internal quality audits.

Seriously, if they do not have time to do it right, when will they have time to do it over? Only problem here is that right is subjective. Perhaps appropriate is a better term. It would also appear that a lack of commitment to the system is rearing its ugly head.

quote:
The documented system is right for me. It suits my nature and my temperament. Maybe it isnāt always right, for everyone, in all situations.

Just because a system must be documented does not mean it must be cumbersome and difficult to work within.

My spin. When an organization agrees that a Quality Management System is needed, they must be committed to its effective implementation. The key word is effective. AND, what is effective for one organization may not be appropriate nor effective for another.

quote:
How can you sell a documented system when you, and the other guy both know that these systems seem to fail as often as they are successful, while operations without documents can often be high flyers?

ćThroughout History, Civilizations Have Risen by Setting Noble, LongöTerm Goals for Themselves, but Civilizations Have Fallen by Being Shortsighted in the Attainment of Those Goals.ä

Research and Development, Innovative Notebook

I do not believe that you sell a documented system, you sell its benefits. The usual criteria goes something like this: If everyone in your operation were abducted by aliens, how would you stay in business? Remove Ītribalā knowledge from the system, and it can continue to function without the tribe. But again let me state that just because a system is documented does not mean it must be cumbersome. What is appropriate is better. A master machinist does not need work instructions to manufacture a product from an engineering drawing nor does a Registered Nurse need work instructions to administer a flu shot. I also believe that when systems do fail, it is because of a lack of commitment and a lack of understanding of what is actually required from ISO (or whatever). Contrary to what most believe, ISO 9000 does not require reams of documentation and paperwork. That is one of the ćmyths.ä

The standard requires that you document what you do and do what you document.

The standard requires procedures in only certain sections. While most companies develop procedures for each of the twenty clauses, they are not required except in the clauses that state ćthe supplier shall establish and maintain documented procedures·ä The content and format of the procedures is entirely up to the company. The standard states in 4.2.2 that ćthe range and detail of the procedures that form part of the quality system depend on the complexity of the work, the methods used, and the skills and training needed by personnel involved in carrying out the activity.ä

Upon critical review, ISO 9001 only REQUIRES 16 (17?) procedures. But does 16 procedures make for an effective Quality Management System. The organization must determine this.

quote:
The well armed, trained, disciplined and well officered troops donāt always beat the ragged rebels. In fact, it seems that the ragged rebels usually win out in the long run.

When the well armed, trained, disciplined and well officered troops do not have the commitment of their leaders, this is very true. Vietnam taught this lesson and the Gulf War taught the inverse of this lesson. Even Sun-Tzu knew this:

ćOne Whose General Is Capable and Not Interfered With by the Ruler Will Be Victorious.ä

Sun-Tzu; The Art of War

Did this help, or did just muddy the water?

Regards,
Don

IP: Logged

Steph
Forum Contributor

Posts: 20
From:Concord, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Mar 99

posted 09 March 1999 05:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steph   Click Here to Email Steph     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don,
This may seem like a very simple question, but you had mentioned that procedures are only required for 16(17?) sections. What 4(3?) are they not required for? I know Servicing is not required.

Thanks,
Stephanie

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 09 March 1999 06:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Stephanie,

OK. Hereās the scoop. Everywhere you see Īshall establish and maintain documented procedures,ā they are required, otherwise they are not.

These are the sections:

YES: 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20.

NO: 4.1, 4.2, 4.9, 4.12

Therefore, for 4.1, 4.2, 4.9, 4.12, procedures are not required. Are they needed? That is up to you and the system you decide to put in place.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Don

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 10 March 1999 06:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Forgot something. Section 4.19 is optional, depending upon if it is a requirement.

Regards,
Don

IP: Logged

Christian Lupo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 11 March 1999 09:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don's comments are right on the mark, and I have had similar experiences with documentation systems. One of the biggest complaints you hear about ISO is that it proliferates documentation.

Although obvious to quality professionals, the purpose of ISO is not to have a "big honkin' Binder" (Sun-Tzu - Dilbert, what's the difference? ;-) Documentation is the preservation of knowledge.

I work in a union shop where many manufacturing personnel have worked 20 plus years, and did a great job long before ISO came along. Documentation was and still is, a tough sell, keep in mind some of these marketing stategies when faced with someone irate about having documentation:

1) Documentation is not necessarily for what you do on a day to day basis when processes are going as they should. One of the biggest benefits of documentation is that it should describe what to do when things do not go as planned. Who to contact, what to do with the product, or how to CYA!

2) Since I inherited a company that had many long time experienced workers, they would not immediatly be sold on the theory that documentation is needed in case "Aliens abducted them". Something far more strange happened at my company -- forced early retirement! I'm sure this concept seemed as strange to them as alien abductions seem to us, until it happened. All that experience is lost - it wouldn't have been if was documented.

3) Another part of the documentation legacy my predecessor bestowed upon me was, the author (usually management) could write and approve his/her own documentation. The system now requires 3 different signatures (this can vary depending on company size): the author (now usually the operator), the author's supervisor or manager, and QA. The documents are now seen as a "contract" )(agreed upon by both parties) between management and union employees as to what should be done. This was a slow change and in it's infancy, but already has had positive benefits. It eliminates the "he said - she said" arguements, and reduces the number of grievences due to misunderstanding the requirements of the job. In addition, it is beginning to make quality (i.e. ISO-9001) a part of their job, as opposed to a quality add-on.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Christian Lupo (edited 03-11-99).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 11 March 1999 09:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I hadn't thought of documentation in the sense of a contract. Good point.

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 11 March 1999 12:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Christian,

Very good input there. Thanks.

Regards,

Kevin

IP: Logged

Bryon C Simmons
Forum Contributor

Posts: 65
From:Zeeland, MI USA
Registered: Dec 98

posted 12 March 1999 09:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bryon C Simmons   Click Here to Email Bryon C Simmons     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, a little more of the philosophical stuff here.....

The longer I stay in the ISO/QS "world", the more I am struck by the fact that we seem to be more interested in satisfying the standard, (and indeed our registrar), than the customer. We sometimes lose sight of who the customer really is. WHile taking nothing away from the "system" that ISO and QS purport to build into an organization, it sometimes seems that the tail is wagging the dog. I have heard this over and over from people, when it comes to questions of product or process quality ;"What will our registrar say if they saw it?" THe last time I heard this from a manager, I quickly fired back, "Well, what do you think the CUSTOMER will say?".

I am not insulting the ISO/QS environment, I just think that we have lost sight of what this is all about. Ask yourself this question: If it came down to a question of keeping a customer happy, or coming through a surveillance audit with no findings, which would you choose? My point is this: We are so busy keeping up with our documentation, we forgot what quality is all about.

Two years ago, I would have picked a good audit, now, I am starting to understand true customer satisfaction. Correctly stated earlier in this thread, the customer probably doesnt care that your system is documented; all he is interested in is a quality product on time. WHile the ISO/QS system will provide a vehicle for that, it still forces time to be spent on less meaningful things than the pursuit of quality improvement.

Any thoughts out there?

Bryon

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 March 1999 09:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Myth: ISO9000 is about Quality Systems
The Reality: ISO9000 is about Liability and Responsibilities.

Comments anyone?

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 12 March 1999 10:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc,

Enough said and right on target. Is it precisely accurate? I think so.

Bryon,

Good post. Where is the Customer? Does the Registrar care? Even with QS, are their own best interests at heart or the Consumer's? I get the impression that the Consumer's benefit of QS9000 is nearly totaly residual. Make an OEM profitable: that's the bottom line I think.

Back to the group...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 March 1999 10:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When I first turned on to ISO9000 in 1991-3 timeframe I attended a lecture where the fella went through the history of standardization - starting with Egypt. Reasons for specs, checks, fraud and abuse. He visited the Civil War (US), WW1 and WW2, and the Korean and Viet Nam wars. Came through the international specs, US Mil-Q-9858 and through to the ISO9000 series. He was really heavy. Talked about contractors supplying ammunition back in WW1 who 3/4 filled bullets (screwing the government - fraud & abuse - by US manufacturers) and other stuff. It was a wonderful, detailed, thought provoking lecture. Along the way he talked about the European Union back in the 60's and 70's and the taking on of the project in 1978 by the ISO organization. He convinced me back then, and I still believe, that the ISO standard was the result of a way to address liability issues across borders. This is why I liked the comment above about documentation being a contract - which it really is. The fella took documentation to be what a company agrees to do and, of courswe, responsibilities are defined for donig things. Management Review grew from the need to prevent upper management from being able to say "Gee - If only I had known!" and bull like that. In short, they cannot exonerate themselves from overall responsibility for knowing what is happening under his/her nose.

If you look at each section of ISO9001, they make sense and - ell, I like the document. But it has little to do with 'quality'. The movement is to make quality an issue. This is evident in the Customer Satisfaction movement (did it come from the QS9000 customer focus?) within ISO. It is going beyond a requirement to know & define customer requirements via the Contract Review and the Design sections to the more subjective Customer Expectations.

I cannot remember a more comprehensive lecture on 'quality', the reason and need for standards and specifications, and ISO9000 (the series).

I like ISO9001 because I have seen implementation projects wake a company up. Yup - I've seen where the project did little, but I've seen some real good results.

QS9000 is another issue all together....

IP: Logged

Bryon C Simmons
Forum Contributor

Posts: 65
From:Zeeland, MI USA
Registered: Dec 98

posted 12 March 1999 11:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bryon C Simmons   Click Here to Email Bryon C Simmons     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, far be it for me to blast the ISO/QS program, because it is still my livliehood, as it is for most of you guys as well, but IMHO, I think that QS is about money. I think maybe when it was originally created, there may have been some lofty ideals about improving product quality, but now, it is about money....how much money can you save internally, through use of all of the required "tools", and how can you pass those cost savings down to the car makers. HOw many of you have NOT had them ask you to cut your costs? I think that they lost sight of the fact that a good portion of the costs incurred for products sold to them, are in an attempt to recapture costs incurred to maintain the QS system at the suppliers facility; satisfying the MANDATED "customer requirements"; all the while, is the QUALITY of the product actually being improved? Now, in the face of all the impending changes to the ISO document, and the recent revision of the QS document, and the resurgence of the TE supplement,.....sheesh, we are swimming in standards, and "customer requirements", and not doing what we should be doing....improving our bottom line.

A whole new industry was created to appease this "customer requirement" When is the last time you saw that happen?

Not being cynical here.....but I find myself reverting back to the fundamentals of quality improvement; in the near future, when every business on the planet, (including doctors. dentists, and probably at some point, my neighborhood grocery store) is registered to ISO, or QS, or some other industry equivalent, what is going to set us apart? It will still be the solid fundamentals: quality of process, product and service. Everybody is going to be registered, and yet, some will still go out of business......"quality" at a very high price....

Thoughts?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 March 1999 11:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Another 'Marc Smith' shortie...

QS is a customer requirement. If you choose to sell to GM and Chrysler and Ford (assuming Ford now will allow the TR16949, it still requires most of the QS stuff through TR16949), you accept the hassel and costs and required price reductions. I don't agree with a lot of QS, but lots there I do agree with s 'good business sense'.

Any company which goes broke trying to comply with QS9000 made bad business decisions.

QS9000 is about conformity, communication and meeting GM, Ford and Chrysler 'requirements'. And about money in more ways than one.

IP: Logged

Christian Lupo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 12 March 1999 12:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc, you said it all when you said that any company that goes broke trying to comply to Qs-9000 made bad business decisions, AMEN. I will go even further and say that if you are not satisfying the customer and complying to QS you set up QS wrong! In my entire career I have never said, "gee, that will satisfy the QS auditor but not the customer". That statement is impossible. The very first thing I was taught when on my journey to become a QS certified lead assessor, is that "if you are not trying to get the customers requirements, you are not meeting the intent of the standard" yes there are many auditors that have not learned this lesson, but they are getting weeded out. The B3 mandated that all QS certified auditors be retested in 1999. Many auditors who were QS certifed failed the exam, and cannot perform QS audits until they prove they take a training course and pass a retest.

ISO and QS are just good business practices if implemented correctly. In fact it's a misnomer to call them "quality standards" because they are business standard....the way to run your business. Unfortunatly, by calling them "quality" standards it become the responsibility of the "quality" department to implement and maintain the system and not the businesses.

Try this: Recently (about a year ago) I was so sick of people saying "We got to do (fill in the blank) cause QS says we have to" that I challenged myself to never implement a new system or change to the system while using the words Quality, ISO, or QS. In other words i would have to sell it to the company as something that makes good business sense internally and to the customer. This tested my understanding of the intent of the ISO/QS system and got people away from "we gotta do it for ISO/QS". results: I have never had to say we need to implent this because of ISO/QS and we have made all the auditors happy....neat huh?

The quality system thats in place is not perfect, Rome wasn't built in a day either

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 12 March 1999 01:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The following is ISO, not QS oriented. I avoid QS issues. It was not and is not a standard, just something the B3 tries to force down vendorās throats. It is not different than the standards they forced separately years ago, only now they are united in their silliness. But, that is another story for another time.

quote:
the purpose of ISO is not to have a "big honkin' Binder"

AMEN! I preach this and preach this and preach this.

quote:
The documents are now seen as a "contract"

Christian,

I have always tried to take this approach. It give a sense of Īownershipā to the operators. A previous employer of mine took the opposite approach. Management would have someone Īprepareā the documentation and then present it to operators and say ĪThis is what you are supposed to be doing.ā It was a sure kiss of death.

quote:
we seem to be more interested in satisfying the standard, (and indeed our registrar), than the customer.

Bryon,

Yea, I see this a lot too. Sorta sad, really. I have always preferred to see my systems as Īcustomerā oriented rather than Īstandardā oriented. I place heavy emphasis on this in my classes. The STANDARD is the SLAVE, not the MASTER, the customer is. For example, the standard 4.20 requires appropriate statistical techniques. The question I ask is what statistical techniques would add value to my customer, company and product. If the answer is none, then I use none.

quote:
...it still forces time to be spent on less meaningful things than the pursuit of quality improvement.

I would like to think (maybe incorrectly) that a well designed system would satisfy both. Maybe, maybe not.

quote:
The Myth: ISO9000 is about Quality Systems
The Reality: ISO9000 is about Liability and Responsibilities.

I could not agree more. I have always seen ISO as just a standard, nothing more nothing less. ISO is no more about quality systems than any of the older MIL standards.

quote:
But it has little to do with 'quality'.

Agreed!

quote:
In other words i would have to sell it to the company as something that makes good business sense internally and to the customer.

This should be the case for any Quality Management System, not standards compliance. Good points all around.

Regards,
Don

IP: Logged

Bryon C Simmons
Forum Contributor

Posts: 65
From:Zeeland, MI USA
Registered: Dec 98

posted 12 March 1999 04:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bryon C Simmons   Click Here to Email Bryon C Simmons     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting dialogue.....I have created a monster here (laff)

Anyway, perhaps it is just the approach that sometimes is taken towards the standard, and satisfying the auditors.....

I have seen improvement in our processes as a result of QS, but then again, it may be because we are paying more attention to it, and taking the time to understand it. BEing the "quality guy" with my organization...I see it as my responsibility to keep us on the right track, and not get waylaid with insignificant activities.

Thanks for all of your input, and allowing me the chance to air my opinions.......

Bryon

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 March 1999 04:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
I have seen improvement in our processes as a result of QS, but then again, it may be because we are paying more attention to it, and taking the time to understand it.
This is in part what I mean by 'waking a company up'.

IP: Logged

John C
Forum Contributor

Posts: 134
From:Cork City, Ireland
Registered: Nov 98

posted 23 March 1999 10:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for John C   Click Here to Email John C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I asked what I should say to convince prospective clients that their system should be documented and comply with ISO 9000. I certainly got some good feedback. To summarise, Iāll pick out the points that I felt stood out and which I will use in my contact planning. Thanks to all who contributed;

Kevinās contribution;
is critical but I would change it to ĪItās not just paper. You need it to focus on the system.ā (JC; adding in Īnotā and Īitā.) Understanding and training.
ĪIt ensures nothingā - (JC;Yes my clients need to know that.)

Don;
Management commitment and commitment to long term goals, simple, direct. The person responsible having the freedom to do what is right. Systems usually fail due to lack of this commitment and freedom.

Christian;
ĪDocumentation is most important when things go wrongā

ĪDocuments are a contractā.
(JC; A very strong point indeed and one that I havenāt come across before. When I was given supervisor training many decades ago, I was told, ĪNever end a discussion with a worker without double checking they understand what you want and intend to do itā.)

Bryon;
Donāt put the standard before the customer.
(JC; In my experience, this is the most powerful point of all. People who concern themselves with compliance, get in the way of those who concern themselves with productivity. ((Iāve said that before)) You ask for comment; I would say, that Īproductivityā is king, not the customer. Give marketing and the finance guys the tools they need ((ie the right product at the right cost)) to grow the company and make the customer happy. Internally, keep your eye on the ball, which is making sure it is the right product and reducing costs to make your cost of sale more satisfactory to both company and customer. So I wouldnāt argue with the Īcustomerā focus, but it isnāt everything.)

Marc.
Contract between supplier and customer.
(JCOf course. But that is the original and basic reason for ISO 9000; To demonstrate ((by third party inspection)) the supplierās capability. Section 1 Scope.)
The idea of making management liable
(JC; is a very good one, but not one that will help me convince my client to give me business.)
(JC; Interestingly, ĪLiabilityā is what ISO 9000 is not about. It is about avoiding liability. If we become the target of liturgation because our product ran amok in the main street of Montevideo, we gather up all our quality evidence and carry it in a wheelbarrow into court, making the case that we are innocent and the incident was an act of God.)

Byron again;
Itās all down to money.
(JC; Powerfull point. We sure wouldnāt make the customer happy if we werenāt going to come out well from it. Nor will we continue to make him happy if we go out of business.
Most important - My client knows this. If ISO 9000 doesnāt improve productivity or open doors to sales, then my client wonāt want it. And right too.)

Christian;
The harm those words can do. ie; Quality, ISO 9000.
(JC; Right on. So many times I walked into a supplierās reception;
ĪHello, Iām John C, Supplier Quality Engineer, Apple Computerā
ĪOh hello, please take a seat and Iāll get xxx our quality inpector or yyy our quality manager, etc, etc.ā
ĪI donāt want your quality anythingā, I would say, ĪI want the manufacturing manager who made the damn things wrong in the first place.ā)

Thanks again. Itās powerful stuff.
and rgds, John C

[This message has been edited by John C (edited 03-23-99).]

[This message has been edited by John C (edited 03-23-99).]

[This message has been edited by John C (edited 03-23-99).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 23 March 1999 10:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
JC; Interestingly, ĪLiabilityā is what ISO 9000 is not about. It is about avoiding liability.
If you go back thru the history of the standard, prior to 1978, you will find the ISO9000 became the vehicle to address liability issues between countries which are now the EU. Liability is specifically what it was about and remains to function as same. I have had calls from lawyers saying 'internal audit results' and 'management review records' were asked for during a trial and asking what 'the score' is. Management review functions to ensure top management cannot use the excuse that they didn't know what was going on. Documented systems. Defined responsibilities. Think about it.

Good thread. And good luck!

(Call me arguementative.... I can take it!)

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03-23-99).]

IP: Logged

Amar Seth
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:New Delhi , India
Registered: Mar 99

posted 27 March 1999 02:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Amar Seth     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

It is an interesting conversation and I would like to share my experience and thoughts.

ISO 9000/QS 9000 are good tools for managing quality and it has done lot of good to Indian Industry . It depends how you look at these standards and the approach.ISO 9000 standard is not so prescriptive as QS9K and gives the suppliers the space for designing their processes which are best suited to meet the customer requirements efficiently. The processes of the company must be customer oriented to achieve customer satisfaction.It is left to company to work within the broad policy frame work of ISO 9000.

Fortunately or unfortunately , if one has to be supplier to Big3 there is no doubt that with the main objective of meeting customer requirement QS9k rigid framework has to be accepted.I think that as it is quite inflexible it has acted as driver for improvement of supplier.

Since, there are always two aspects to every thing I feel there are lot more good in QS9K than the negatives and the attempt must continue to smoothen the abrasive issues in a time to come.

However, unless more flexibility is built into QS9k , it may not be favoured standard in a time to come .


IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 March 1999 04:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Currently I'm surprised QS9000 has lasted as long as it has. With TR16949 we'll see where the power is.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!