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
Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  ISO 9001/4:2000
  Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K

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

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 07 May 2000 08:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 19:36:48 -0500
Subject: Q: Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K /Humphries

From: Edwin Humphries

G'day all,

There seems to be a widespread view that the new version of ISO9K will provide all sorts of challenges for companies to do things differently. In my view, the only companies so challenged will be those that took a shortcut to ISO9K in the first place.

How could a good quality system not look at, for example, customer satisfaction, and provide, even by exception, a means of monitoring it? Surely an effective method of dealing with customer complaints and feedback provides an excellent method of assessing customer satisfaction, and correcting it? This was required in the 1994 version of the Standard, and implied in the 1984 version.

I'm becoming increasingly worried that the new version of the Standard will be abused, in several ways:

1. By those who circumstances have prevented from being exposed to a sound background in Quality Management Systems, and who have (for example) only ever seen the system they live in. These people will frequently be interpreting the new Standard in the same (generally literal) method their predecessors interpreted the old version. In this case, it not these people themselves who are abusing the new Standard, but the people who set up their system and trained them in it.

2. By employees who see the new version as their long-sought-after lever to have the company managed as THEY believe it should be. These people are likely to use "we'll lose our certification/registration" as the Damocles blade to hold over the head of the company's management and make them change. The employee will probably be motivated by what they believe to be the best for the company, but it'll be on the basis of "any means to the end", and the end may not be what the managers or owners - or even the customers - want.

3. By consultants, who see the new changes as a wonderful means to earn lots of money by adding to their client's systems heavy overheads of monitoring, measuring, auditing, etc. Most of these "changes" were implied by the older version of the standards to the same extent they are now expressly stated.

I think we need, as a profession, to be making lots of noise to promote a more reasoning and minimalist interpretation of the new revision.

For example, the new requirements to measure customer satisfaction need not be interpreted as mandating extensive customer surveys and similar processes: there are, for those who choose to really think about their systems (or their clients systems) far more simple and inexpensive, but still effective, methods of achieving the same results. This same philosophy applies to most of the other "new" requirements of ISO9K-2K.

Let's not allow ISO's latest attempt to make Quality Management Systems more relevant and accepted go the same way as the previous attempts.

Best Regards
Edwin Humphries

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 08 May 2000 06:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree that we should promote a more reasoned approach to management system implementation, however I don't know that the term 'minimalist' is applicable.
I think it is important to do what is appropriate to control the risk of supplying nonconforming items to a customer. If this involves writing an extensive manual - so be it. However I feel that some people seem to take a very draconion approach to management (particularly those who feel they have to justify their existence).

IP: Logged

isodog
Forum Contributor

Posts: 51
From:Vernon Hills, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 08 May 2000 11:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodog   Click Here to Email isodog     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ya know, eveybody has to play the cards they ae dealt. I am one of the GDC (G** D*** consultants).

My customers are mostly small manufacturers. A lot of the folks in the quality world don't understand what it means to a small manufacturing firm to comply to the ISO 9000 Quality management system.

It is huge! We all know, and if they work with me I make sure they know this is a minimal system, but, by god, they were audited and they are compliant to a international standard. To a company with less than 200 employes, this validates they have arrived!

Companies with 2000 employees dont understand this. I don't expect them to.

Dave

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 09 May 2000 12:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
...see the new version as their long-sought-after lever to have the company managed as THEY believe it should be...
I also see this as a problem. This is one reason I disagree with you so often, Alan.

I agree with the minimalist statement and believe minimalist is the appropriate adjective.

The customer satisfaction thing is a good example. One small client (14 souls) doesn't need a survey - the owner visits customers regularly 'just to say hello' and to make sure everyone is happy. This is just how they do business. They don't need a survey. They don't need to do anything other than what they do now. And they don't need a mandate to do it in the first place.

But I also believe it is not the place of an 'international standard' to require monityoring of, or even consideration of, customer satisfaction in the first place. What ever happened to survival of the fittest? I thought that businesses competed for customers in their market place where, if they abuse their customers their competitors will get their business. This requirement is just plain stupid. An international standard like ISO 9000 is midway between a government requirement (and as we all know in many cases ISO 9001 actually is a government requirement) and freedom to do whatever you want to. So - effectively, if the standard passes as is, monitoring and reacting to customer satisfaction will be a government mandate. How absurd.

I can understand customer satisfaction with respect to QS-9000. But QS-9000 is a requirement of GM, Ford and Chrysler. It is in their interest to make requirements such as: "Damnit - you will satisfy us!" You also have the APQP process you must follow and 5 other documents from the AIAG alone to satisfy (MSA, FMEA, etc.). This is not to say I believe MSA, FMEA and such are bad. In fact, I see FMEAs as basic to any business - even the service industry. But QS-9000 is an automotive specific document.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 09 May 2000).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 09 May 2000 01:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:25:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K /../Whitcomb/Summerfield/Whitcomb

From: Gary Whitcomb gary_whitcomb@4funlsi.com

George: I want to try and point out a subtle nuance as it relates to the
your reply. In your reply, to my reply, you wrote:

> I agree that it's just a matter of people becoming accustomed to the
> changes; however I believe that they go beyond being nuances - in
> a very good way. The scope that you quoted is basically a vague
> statement of "what" the requirement "intends" the registered
> company to achieve through complying with the ISO standards.

Let's take a look at the definition of quality as defined in ISO 9000-94 version compared with the DIS 9k-2K. "94: "quality is the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs" (ISO 8402-1986). I would also call your attention the note #7 in this same publication: "In some reference sources, quality is referred to as "fitness for use "or ...use or "customer satisfaction"..." Here is the catch phrase in this: "Since these represent only certain facets of quality fuller explanations are usually required that eventually lead to the concept defined above".

9K-2K: quality is defined as :" ability of a set of inherent characteristics of a product, system, or process to fulfill requirements of customers and other interested parties"

I am not disagreeing with what you say but I think with this somewhat new definition of quality , the scope becomes more focused and less vague. I may have gone way off the deep end, but one of little nuances is Customer Requirements are more than just facets. It seems to me, companies will have to be better able to define customer needs and show they are incorporating these needs and requirements in the quality system. OR, some thing like that!!!

Gary

-------snippo----------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:30:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Q: Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K /Humphries/Darracott

From: JDARRACOTT

I agree with Edwin.

I have an even greater concern that 3rd Party certification auditors may expect to see activities in documented management systems which they believe are specified by ISO 9001 - 2000 but which are not actually specified in ISO 9001 - 2000. These activities may well contribute nothing to either profitability or compliance with specification.

-------------snippo----------------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:49:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Q: Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K /Humphries/Whitcomb/Humphries

From: Edwin Humphries edwin

Gary,

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I think the example you raise is an excellent case in point.

> In the '94 version, paragraph one: SCOPE says: "The requirements
> specified are aimed primarily at achieving customer satisfaction by
> preventing nonconformity at all stages from design through to
> servicing".
>
> In the new version DIS/ISO 9000-2000 SCOPE sets a somewhat
> different tone by stating: "Monitoring of customer satisfaction, as
> stated in b) requires the evaluation of information relating to customer
> perceptions of whether or not the organization has met the customer
> requirements". (DIS/ISO 9001,1.1)
>
> IMHO the new version is requiring organizations to do more than just
> monitor customer satisfaction, after-all perceptions are different from
> satisfaction(s), and satisfactions are a different focus from
> nonconformities. I doubt many organizations have asked or measured
> customers perceptions. I think most organizations are going to have to
> put more thought and some measurements in place that were not in
> place to meet the requirements of ISO 9000-2000.

The original scope was, unfortunately, open to several interpretations. In the same way that the traditional definition of Quality (fit for purpose) implied some basic questions (what purpose? who defines the purpose? who defines what's fit?), the 1994 scope did not define how customer satisfaction was to be assessed. A common sense response would have been "by the customer", but common sense is not a particularly common phenomenon, and for a company wanting a "quick and dirty" quality system, such considerations were not specifically defined by the standard, and were therefore regarded as optional.

The new version merely clarifies whose judgment is important: the customer's. Although the word perception is often used to identify "fuzzy judgment", its dictionary meaning is "The representation of what is detected by means of the senses; basic component in the formation of a concept; A way of conceiving something; The process of detection by means of the senses; Knowledge gained by detection by means of the senses; Becoming aware of something via the senses". Clearly, this extends well beyond subjective judgments, to include all means of forming a view of customer satisfaction.

As you quoted, the new version requires the "evaluation of information"; it does NOT require the implementation of entirely new measurement system: that is merely one possible response (and may not be the best, or for many companies, necessary).

> So, I am not so sure we have misinterpreted the standard as much as we
> have yet come to fully understand all of the nuances of the requirements.

I think it would be more accurate to say that many are finally coming to terms with the nuances that were, in fact, in the original, 1987, version of ISO9K.

Best Regards
Edwin Humphries

IP: Logged

AJPaton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 73
From:Fayetteville, NC USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 09 May 2000 11:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJPaton   Click Here to Email AJPaton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry, I didn't realize that there were businesses out there who didn't see customer satisfaction as a major factor in business.
If the customer isn't satisfied, what cause does he have for product loyalty?
Also, how do you increase marketshare without satifying your customers.
I would think that your marketing functions would be vitally interested in making customer satisfaction a prime mover in your business plan.
I do agree that not all companies need a formal survey for this. However, even if it's just a plan for your sales staff to visit each customer site on a yearly/monthly/weekly basis, you are conducting informal surveys.
AJP

[This message has been edited by AJPaton (edited 09 May 2000).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 09 May 2000 11:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is my point exactly. This is part of the 'typical' business process. My question is should this be mandated by ISO9001.

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 09 May 2000 04:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I get the impression that a lot of people take a 'what do we have to do' approach to ISO9000. And this might be well and good to get the flag flying outside the door, and get access when tendering, or entering markets. But I ask the question - what should the real objective of having a quality system be?

I suggest the prime reason for having a quality system is to control the risk of supplying a nonconforming product or service to a customer. A second reason is to empower our workers to make the necessary decisions involved in supplying the product or service, by providing documented guidance material. A third reason is to provide a system for 'locking in' improvements to the delivery process (the 'act' part of TQM).
A fourth reason is to provide an audit trail for certifying bodies, customers and the organisations management, to prove that all necessary operations in the delivery process have been performed.

I agree with Marc, that the documentation should be 'minimal', however it should be sufficient to fulfil the above objectives.


Of the three types of audit, second party audit can be the most harrowing. When the customer approaches your organisation to see how you are handling his contract, by assessing its processing, referencing your quality manual, you will find the real gaps in the documentation - too late! Second party audit directly affects the bottom line, and will really spark your CEO's interest.

I realise that many organisations are involved in continuous production and the customer is one or more steps away, they wouldn't usually experience this type of audit. For organisations involved in production of custom built equipment the second pary audit is more likely to occur.

When it happens you will realise what nice guys the auditors from certifying bodies are.

The reason you do the ISO9000 thing is that it benefits your organisation by facilitating its management, everything else is secondary.

If you don't at least satisfy your customer, you might not get paid.

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 09 May 2000 04:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Perhaps I am confusing two terms - minimalist and compliance?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 09 May 2000 08:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For some reason, Alan, you seem to believe every company needs ISO9000 and/or needs a formal quality system. That simply is not the case.

Alan, you say: "... But I ask the question - what should the real objective of having a quality system be?" I suggest the first question is does the company need a formal quality system...

I have many clients who did not need ISO or a defined quality system. What they were doing was fine. Then came along a couple of customers who wanted ISO. One client was required because the customer (MTD Yard Machines) also serviced the US automotives as well as the consumer market. MTD passed down the ISO requirement (MTD first requested QS, of course). So my client did it and raised prices to customers requiring ISO.

In this instance I define minimalist as the least a company must do above and beyond what they already do to meet the intent.

"...The reason you do the ISO9000 thing is that it benefits your organisation by facilitating its management..." Nope - most companies do the ISO dance because they are required to do so by a major customer and/or because the company sees the potential for increased sales. ISO does benefit some companies but for many it does little to nothing.

"...If you don't at least satisfy your customer, you might not get paid..." It is in no way an issue of being paid. If companies weren't satisfying their customers before ISO they wouldn't have customers and wouldn't be in business. You may want to argue % of satisfied customers, but that's an incursion into YOUR perception of what a satisfied customer is.

I recently bought a pellet rifle made by Crosman. It failed as I sighted in the scope. I was pissed. The mon&pop shop I bought it from made me madder. I sent a copy of my e-mail to the the shop I was dealing with to Crosman. A representative from Crosman called me (yes, called me on the phone) and told me if there is any question at all in my dealings with the company I bought it from that they would be happy to refund my money or exchange it for a new one. I asked if Crosman knew what ISO 9000 is. I was told yes but they aren't registered. I'll tell you what - Crosman, like many companies, do not need a mandate, or lessons, on customer satisfaction.

IP: Logged

isodug
unregistered
posted 10 May 2000 09:36 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc
I have to disagree when you imply installing a ISO 9000 system because you want to improve your system is superior to doing it because your cuatomer('s) request or require it.

There is no better reason for a company to do anything than a customer requests it
Dave.

IP: Logged

AJPaton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 73
From:Fayetteville, NC USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 11 May 2000 01:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJPaton   Click Here to Email AJPaton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually, I think it's like saying a preventive action is better than a corrective action, or it's better to be PRO-active than RE-active.
That, and you start resenting systems forced upon you by outside sources. Buy-in is important on any quality program

IP: Logged

Don Reid
Forum Contributor

Posts: 68
From:North Walsham, Norfolk, England
Registered: May 2000

posted 11 May 2000 06:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Reid   Click Here to Email Don Reid     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In my experience in this country the main reason companies adopt ISO9000 is because they are under pressure from the customer to do so.

The company I currently work for is a good case in point. When I joined the company they were ISO registered. A major customer stated that unless QS9000 was acheived, a resultant loss of business would occur.

QS9000 was acheived. Then, this March, we were told by the same customer that unless we have Ford Q1 by year end we would lose all their business (and in the same breath almost it was 'hinted' that next year's moving target would be ISO14001.)

Now, we are small in comparison (45 employees). Installing, maintaining and monitoring these systems cost money. Who pays? Customers won't.

And yet, I can honestly say that with all the systems we have put into place, our product quality has not improved (it has always been good), customer satisfaction has and is high and our delivery performance has maintained 100% (we do point of fit deliveries)

In small companies, who benefits?

Don

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 11 May 2000 07:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From my viewpoint---the Mojave Desert of California---no organization would go to the trouble and expense of establishing any type of non-mandated management system just to get a "warm fuzzy".

If an organization is continuing to make profit, and is increasing it's annual sales or whatever, and new customers are begging for it's stuff, why on Gods Green Earth would that same organization crawl through the bowels of hell to implement a management system it clearly may not need?

If your customer keeps buying your product, even though it may not work occasionally - so what? Especially if they and others keep buying.

If customers and potential customers did not demand the adherence to all these various ISO, QS, TS, AS, ABCD123 standards, life would be easier and most of you guys would be in another line of work. (Not me---there will always be OSHA & EPA and thats what I do most of the time).

Lets have more standards and demanding customers, because I want to cash in too.

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 11 May 2000 07:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with you that some organisations do not need a QMS, in particular one man businesses do not need ISO9000, as the CEO and the Emloyee are the same person. However I suggest that as soon as the CEO wishes to instruct his employees on his wishes 'in the manner of performing work', documentation is necessary to avoid crisis management and provide consistency of direction.
In a previous post I mentioned the 'Maturity Model of Organisations'.
The Maturity Model of Organisations is:
Initial (chaos)
Managed
Planned
Integrated
Optimised
I don't know of any Australian organisation where all processes are optimised towards efficient product delivery, and I suspect very few have a system in which control of operational risk is on an integrated basis.
I think a rational approach to ISO9000 involves a desire to DO IT RIGHT FIRST TIME, and be the best in your area of expertise, I doubt that many organisations approach ISO9000 in that light. I think it's unfortunate that organisations need customers to specify certification of suppliers to ISO9000, before the organisation will adopt the standard as the basis for its management system. Any CEO worth his salt should recognise the potential benefits of formalising his control over the organisation and getting controlled input from his employees.
I suggest that implementation of an Integrated Risk Management System (ISO9000/ISO14000/AS4801/AS4444), can place the organisation at the 'Integrated' level, optimisation can then be achieved through TQM or intelligent auditing.
I recommend reading of Australian Standard AS4581:1999 Management System Integration - Guidance to business, government and community organisations. It is available from http://www.standards.com.au.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 11 May 2000 08:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alan, I'm going to be blunt. I believe you are young and that your experience is extremely limited and you always say the same thing. Risk management. Documentation. Specifications for control. The cop attitude as if no business can be trusted to meet your requirements.

Your answers are always the same: "Integrated Risk Management System (ISO9000/ISO14000/AS4801/AS4444)".

Your theoretical bull shit is based upon a static large company model and you want specifications to be required in order to control companies. You would do well in a socialist society where companies are controlled by the government.

You always cite Australia. Hey - get a grip. This site hosts the world. Australia is not the holy grail any more than San Jose is.

I don't think you have posted a message here that hasn't contained your trademark "Integrated Risk Management System (ISO9000/ISO14000/AS4801/AS4444)" tag line and comments about how the Australian standard AS4581:1999 Management System Integration - Guidance to business, government and community organisations is god's answer to all wrongs and problems.

You say things like: "...Any CEO worth his salt should recognise the potential benefits of formalising his control over the organisation and getting controlled input from his employees..." You must think they are all stooges, idiots. You do have a masters and an MBA, right?

You tell me - what company do you currently run? You are CEO where? How many employees in the company your run? How many locations in Australia? How many locations world-wide? Tell us how much market share the company you are CEO of has gained since you took the position. Tell us (let's have some numbers) how much the stock (or value or sales) of the company you run has gone up since you took control. Tell us the financials - how many $ has your company saved in reduction of scrap and rework since you optimized all processes towards efficient product delivery.

Stop with your rhetoric. On with the data! Give us the FACTS! Tell us your experiences and 'Things gone right'. If all this of which you constantly speak and promote is so great, give us some data - PROVE it to us.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 11 May 2000).]

IP: Logged

Don Reid
Forum Contributor

Posts: 68
From:North Walsham, Norfolk, England
Registered: May 2000

posted 12 May 2000 07:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Reid   Click Here to Email Don Reid     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Looks like the boxing gloves are coming off.

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 12 May 2000 09:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good for Marc.

I work for ITT Industries (a world-wide corporation), and I think our CEO is worth his salt, but even Travis Engen is demanding that all ITT locations do ISO 9K, 14K or anything else. It is all customer driven Alan. "CUSTOMER DRIVEN"

Your my kind of dude Marc, open, honest, and gutsy. We could work together.

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 12 May 2000 12:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dear Marc, let me say at the outset that I am not some bleeding heart socialist, however I recognise the benefits of getting rid of the confrontationist/directive approach to HR management, which can lead to an adversarial situation in the workplace. I was a manager for about thirty years in laboratories in a very dangerous industry and also in a normal manufacturing environment. Much of the comment I have made about Integrated Risk Management is derived from that experience.

In 1995 a group of 40 persons were sent from America to Geneva to oppose the development of an ISO9000 type Health and Safety standard. I suggest that this action suggested slight paranoia due to a perceived threat of industrial unrest, (the issue probably being democracy and control in the workplace).

Australia continued to develop the standard (AS4801). It has now been published and along with ISO9000, ISO14000, and AS4444 ö Information Systems Security is the basis of the integrated management system. AS4581 ö Management System Integration , gives guidance on the method of integration of the four sub systems. ISO is now about to continue the development of the international health and safety standard.

As you are aware ISO9004 encourages improvement of the management system, and suggests that employees should have the authority to raise nonconformance reports for quality problems. This raises an issue related to closure of the reports, and their viewing by certifying bodies. The level of transparency this represents may cause some embarrassment, however I suggest that under the law as it stands in Australia, an employer still maintains the status quo. The law in Australia may be different from yours however the following aspects are relevant :
The employer has the right to direct his employees in the manner of performing work .
Both the employer and employee have a Īduty of careā.
An employee Īmust not go off on a frolic of his ownā.
An employer has a duty to consult with his employees, particularly on safety matters (Robens style legislation).

In one organisation I recently worked for, the employees were aware of improvements, which could be made to substantially increase productivity. These were not made known to management, as the employees knew reductions in personnel would result rather than more product being made. There seems to be a level of hypocrisy attendant to the introduction of ISO9000 where no incentive is provided for employees to reveal manufacturing techniques for documentation.

In the same organisation inspection personnel were highly stressed when reporting quality nonconformances, as there was a culture of Īget it out the doorā. In Australia workers are more likely to report OHS problems than problems with the product.

During 1998 there was an explosion at Longford in Victoria which totally disrupted gas supplies to the whole state. Two men were killed and eight injured. As a result of this the Major Hazard Facilities legislation was developed, which will require organisations to submit safety cases. It is expected that these safety cases will describe the management system. There are about 40 sites in the state, which will come under this legislation. I suggest that AS4581 will have a role to play. (One of the organisations I worked for recently is a ĪMajor Hazard Facilityā).

Iām sorry I canāt be more specific about the companies I worked for, suffice to say they were people who really should have known what they were doing, however a culture persisted which evolved during WW2. Some of that culture is still around today, it gives rise to few deficiencies which make their workplaces unsafe.

I also apologise that I canāt give an example of any company in which the management system is fully integrated to control all operational risk. I do not know of any instances where AS4581 has been used to set up a management system (it was only published in 1999), however one company in particular has espoused the integrated approach in its annual report. It has one of the best performing shares on the Australian Stock Exchange (Comalco). (Being a single case this probably has no statistical significance).

As ISO9000 was in 1984 it is all probably yet to come.
Incidentally, if you are so knowledgeable about risk management, why is there no American or International Standard equivalent to AS4360 ö Risk Management? It was a global first.


IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 15 May 2000 07:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wow..... and I thought I was testy and defensive sometimes.

All that said lets get back to basics. We all have our "hot spots" (lets not count them), and differences in theories.........isn't that what makes a discussion?

Me thinks both of "ye protest too much" on this subject. Its not about being right...its about showing all sides. WE all need to be sure our generalities/prejudgices don't get in the way.

Now go to your corners, and come out smiling

IP: Logged

Randy
Forum Wizard

Posts: 228
From:Barstow, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 15 May 2000 08:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randy   Click Here to Email Randy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alan I can give you a company where the management system is integrated to control all operational risk. This company is international, highly dangerous, diversified, multi-cultural, and motivated, but makes no profit at all. It's called the US Army.
Risk Management is stressed from the highest to the lowest level. This is also a highly ineffecient organization because of over or micro-management in many areas which you seem to stress in your argument.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 16 May 2000 08:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by barb butrym:

Wow..... and I thought I was testy and defensive sometimes.


We're just having fun (I'll post my reply soon). Alan and I both have thick hides. We can take it!

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 29 May 2000 10:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nice to have a joust with you. On a more serious note however, you might like to have a look at the following site: http://www.idsa.com.au
I have for a long time wondered about the real cost to the community of 'ad hoc' management practices. The discussion we have had on quality systems, is also relevant to safety, environment, security. If many organisations do not need ISO9000, do they need safety, environment and security management systems.
Do we pay for the high profit level of some companies with the lives of workers and environmental damage?
After many years of pushing we have finally got an Australian Standard on Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems. I wonder whether it will make a difference, and reduce the loss of life on Australian work sites (greater than the road toll).

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 30 May 2000 05:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dear Marc, and others. I am going to place two postings on this message board and I promise to not raise this issue of Integration again.
The first posting is a submission to the New South Wales Government Standing Committee on Law & Justice (Inquiry into Workplace Safety), which I made during 1997. It recommends a wholistic, risk management approach. The second is a simple Scanlon Plan for improving productivity using an Integrated Management System (for more info - http://www.gainshare.co.nz/Gainsharechapter.html ).
When you read this second posting, you will probably think I'm a raving socialist, but I'd like your opinion as to whether it would work.
INQUIRY INTO WORKPLACE SAFETY ö SUBMISSION

I am offering this submission to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice to express my opinion on matters relating to workplace safety. I hope that others may benefit from my experience ,gained in a working life of over thirty years as an industrial chemist in defence manufacturing.

For many years I have been aware that industrial incidents occur mainly as a result of management system failures, and in particular the failure to integrate risk management strategies.

The introduction of ISO9000 type management system standards offer management system models aimed at managing the four main areas of industrial risk (quality, safety ,environment and security) related to work processes. The difficulty lies in the fact that there are tradeoffs between the four areas. For example a simple process of electroplating high tensile screws with cadmium involves quality problems ö some processes cause hydrogen embrittlement, safety problems ö cadmium plating must be used to stop corrosion, it is toxic ,the baths contain cyanide, both cadmium and cyanide present environmental problems, cyanide presents a security problem.

Substitution of any component of the process causes development of new problems. This combination is common in industry where hazardous substances are in use and must be extreme where radioactive substances are used. The management system must cope with this type of problem in a way which is acceptable to its customers and society.

The ISO 9000 approach is for organisations to express their management policy in the form of a documented management system, and subject this system to continuous improvement through audit and team based problem solving activities. There are Australian Standards which relate to the four main areas of industrial risk , organisations which are certified to these standards are committed to ongoing risk management and improvement.

In my experience the implementation of ISO9000 management systems meets with opposition from middle managers , who understand that Īif you do not state your policy on any subject, you can never be wrongā, and wish to manage on an ad hoc ,directive basis. It is my contention that most managers in industry do not have formal training in risk management, do not know how to counsel staff ,train staff, have only a rudimentary knowledge of industrial law ,and have poor problem solving skills.

A major improvement could be effected by introduction of requirements for management training and competency testing of supervisors and team coordinators. I suggest that direction of employees by incompetent supervisors is completely unacceptable. The fact is that under a directive management system employees can be directed to perform tasks which place them at risk, with little redress.

This brings me to the matter of industrial democracy. ISO9000 type management systems encourage continuous improvement of processes and systems, this is difficult to achieve under a directive management system. I suggest that most certified organisations will embrace a participative management system, and will become the more competitive for it.

Employee involvement is of paramount importance for workplace safety, quality of product ,protection of the environment, and security. I suggest that a major improvement would be implementation of tax incentives for employees to undertake salary sacrifice for the purposes of purchasing shares in their organisation. A simple expedient of discounting shares on the basis of productivity improvements would provide the incentive for employees to improve the efficiency of their organisation.

The key to integration of risk management systems lies in the work practice documentation(procedures, codes of practice, process specifications).The Īprocess controlā element of ISO9001 requires performance of work under controlled conditions ,including documentation of work practices where lack of such documentation could adversely affect quality (safety, environment, security). This implies that where there is a reasonable expectation that an incident could occur due to a lack of administrative control that the process should be documented. The very act of documenting the process means that the process is visible to all and can be evaluated easily by any competent person.

The processes involved in manufacture of most product are decided during the design process. In industry it is quite common to design without proper configuration management. This means that there is no basis for systematic risk assessment. The modification of processes should be performed during development of prototype product and continued by the manufacturing team only under controlled conditions. By this I mean that design engineers should be trained in process application and have a basic understanding of toxicology so that Īsafeā and Īnonpollutingā products are used in their designs.

Workplace teams should evaluate processes and determine whether the safety risks involved are acceptable to them. The need to consult with competent persons where hazardous substances are involved should be the subject of legislation.

The principle I have discussed may be simply put:

SAY WHAT YOU DO

DO WHAT YOU SAY

BE ABLE TO PROVE IT

BUT IF YOU CANT DO IT SAFELY,DONT DO IT AT ALL


Alan G. Cotterell
26th June 1997

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 31 May 2000 08:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes - you're a raving socialist....

quote:
Originally posted by Don Reid:

Looks like the boxing gloves are coming off.


They're never on! They're always off....

Alan said: "...Incidentally, if you are so knowledgeable about risk management, why is there no American or International Standard equivalent to AS4360 ö Risk Management? It was a global first...." We have not found it necessary. Just because Australia found that they needed such a 'standard' does not mean other countries have the same problems Australia has.

Part of my 'Risk' background:

Until I was in my early thirties I worked in hospitals. You want to talk about risk? Every patient. Every day. I worked with ICI Explosives - which I would say was a pretty serious situation where most employees had a chance of being blown up every day. I worked at Delphi Automotive - involved in the design of both product and of manufacturing processes of automotive air bags. Bad design or manufacturing screw up and one or more people may die. Air bags are no less than bombs. A screw up by an assembler due to 'bad' manufacturing design / planning and KaBoom! goes the assembler and possibly part of the building. I have worked in the military manufacturing arena where one screw up and one or more soldiers could bite the dust (battle field communications and TACON {tank command}. I worked with Cincinnati Electronics and Westinghouse on 'black' programs where reliability was paramount as failure would seriously endanger agents lives. A US perspective, but the AWACS flew during the Gulf War in 1991 because of a 'black' program I was involved in. Pilots depended upon our design and reliability to live through the way. I have worked in a wafer fab where arsenic is used in processing. Talk about high risk! It doesn't take much arsenic to kill everyone in the fab, not to mention the building.

So - I have been involved in risk management from all sides. Design. Production planning. Actual production.

"...During 1998 there was an explosion at Longford in Victoria which totally disrupted gas supplies to the whole state. Two men were killed and eight injured...." You can plan all you want and you can issue all the diorectives you want - accidents will happen as long as humans are involved anywhere.

Will an international spec some day come into being? Probably - as time goes on some politician will force it. But just because Australia needs one doesn't mean we all do.

In so far as your continued emphasis on stuff like "...In 1995 a group of 40 persons were sent from America to Geneva to oppose the development of an ISO9000 type Health and Safety standard. I suggest that this action suggested slight paranoia due to a perceived threat of industrial unrest, (the issue probably being democracy and control in the workplace)..." Yes - many companies do feel that it's not appropriate to write an international standard to address every perceived problem (Who is paranoid anyway? The companies or YOU?). Many companies would tell you they don't need AS4581 ö Management System Integration, thank you. They would tell you they know quite well how to integrate their management system.

Unfortunately you believe you have been beat up by a bad company for years (wonder what company that was) - that's not necessarily how it is in the whole world. In fact, sometimes a person simply has personality problems - they perceive injustices which don't exist.

Just as is the case with ISO9001 - good companies typically are doing everything the standard requires anyway. ISO9001 registration just adds some non-value added cost to their yearly business expenses. Most of my clients have quite honestly had little or no need for ISO9000 - except that customers started asking for it because it has become no less than a fad. They make good products and customers are happy. But then there is the 'ISO Band Wagon'. One client, Eagle Chemical, had 2 customer complaints in almost 8 years. The auditor was agast! "This can't be!" he said. Stan proceeded to prove it. They do very little that they didn't before. Documented management reviews is 1 - but holding them has not changed their business nor their product.

No, Alan, I do not see international specs as the answer to all problems. Some companies they can help. Not that I see implementations as useless. It forces a company to look closely on its business systems. However there are other tools and philosophies available which often, in my opinion, would do more for the bottom line and customer satisfaction if the time and money were invested there (e.g. TQM as a philosophy and its associated tools, 2 favourites of mine are TPM and process mapping, and there is a Baldrige framework, etc., etc.).

I do agree that some standards are good ideas. I like the idea of ISO14001. But it's moot in the US because there are literally thousands of local, state and federal environmental laws and more are being passed every year. However in many countries companies do 'get away with murder'. None the less, typically in those countries an ISO14001 registration can be bought or subverted so I'm not so sure it means all that much anyway.

I have never before run into anyone who could/would not say who they do and/or did work for. You say: "...I was a manager for about thirty years in laboratories in a very dangerous industry..." What industry? You say stuff like: "...This raises an issue related to closure of the reports, and their viewing by certifying bodies..." Alan, you want a Cop to watch companies plain and simple. Why not just station a government representative in every company to monitor it?

You say: "...An employer has a duty to consult with his employees..." While a good idea in my opinion, it is not an employers 'duty' to consult with his/her employees on anything except safety. If I own a company the only thing I owe my employees is to provide them with a safe working environment and to pay them and to comply with terms of employment (promises I have made to the employees). YOU appear to want the employees to be making the decisions and 'keeping an eye on' me (the owner). As owner I believe I have the right to decide, other than adversely in safety issues, what the employees can and can't do and what they can and can't know about my company. If I want the confrontationist / directive approach through HR management it's none of your business or anyone else's business. I'm not saying this approach is smart, but I see no foundation for addressing it through a directive (international standard).

"...which can lead to an adversarial situation in the workplace..." This is a dream. I have never worked with a company where there weren't at least some personalities who would claim the company is adversarial. Unions are often such just by their nature.

"...employees should have the authority to raise nonconformance reports for quality problems...." I have yet to work with a company where employees do not have the responsibility and authority to identify nonconformances or quality problems and in some way act. Most often they can stop production. Your saying every employee has the right to raise nonconformance reports, I disagree. They can identify whatever comes along but whether or not they can 'require' a report (which is what you appear to be saying) is a company specific issue. I would not allow it. I would want a gate. Not everything an employee thinks is a problem is a problem. A company can become deluged in what the various employees believe to be problems. Did you ever see a company where internal auditors paralyzed a company with so many requests for corrective actions for 'bull s__t' findings that corrective action requests became a joke?

"...I also apologise that I canāt give an example of any company in which the management system is fully integrated to control all operational risk..." This is just proof that you have a theory with absolutely no evidence to prove or even support your hypothesis.

No - the cop idea you like so much is bad. It almost appears the control(s) you want to see over companies is really revenge.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 31 May 2000 08:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alan:

Just so that you understand part of my dismay with your posts here is that, like other forums you visit, you have a very specific personal agenda to push.

These forums are for people to ask questions and to answer questions. When one reaches a certain point the message becomes a sermon. Your sermons are always: "...Beware of risk..." (which everyone is anyway) and "...beware of management..." which I think is more of a vendetta than anything else. You talk about risk at every chance to the point that between you and my mother telling me to wear a hat in winter, I say enough! I understand your concern. Now - let's get on with other things.

You repeat (and repeat and repeat) with vigor your philosophies to a point where you are not addressing the question asked, or you address the question quite obliquely giving the over all impression self-promotion.

Yes - I do get on my high-horse from time to time and speil my philosophies. But - it is 'my ball' so to speak, and I don't believe I continually give the same speil in response to questions asked.

Less philosophy - more specific answers to questions.Question: "How do I ....?" Answer: "At our company we address this by ...."

I might suggest you start a forum on the internet which is specific to topics such as your favourites: Risk and the Problems of Management.

By the way, when you say:

> For many years I have been aware that industrial incidents occur
> mainly as a result of management system failures, and in particular
> the failure to integrate risk management strategies.

In my experience I have seen most industrial accidents are caused by employees not following procedures / systems set up by management to protect the employees, not by a lack of management consideration of risk. Recently locally a fellow lost his life when he did not lock out a press and climbed 'inside'. Another fellow lost a hand when he did not use the wooden stick provided and stuck his hand in to un-jam a machine. I won't say management is never to blame, but I bet 90% are where workers did not follow procedure.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 31 May 2000).]

IP: Logged

Spaceman Spiff
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:FL
Registered: Mar 99

posted 31 May 2000 09:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hear, hear! Thanks, Marc. I too grow tired of his pontification on risk management. Thanks for restating the purpose of this forum.

IP: Logged

isodog
Forum Contributor

Posts: 51
From:Vernon Hills, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 02 June 2000 12:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodog   Click Here to Email isodog     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alan,
I understand you have the answer to all life's problems. But the sad truth is nobody in:
The USA
Europe
The pacific rim
Africa
cares what is going on in Austrialia.

You have NO products the world is interested in buying. Nothing to offer to the world market. So let us go on without your sad commentaries.

If you have some innovative products (which I doubt) tell us! Othewise SHUT UP and let us movers and shakers alone.

Dave

IP: Logged

David Mullins
Forum Contributor

Posts: 248
From:Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02 June 2000 02:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Mullins   Click Here to Email David Mullins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey,
We've got Uranium, white pointer sharks, made the lenses for the first man on the moon, just enough tuna to keep the Japanese sushi market hungry and a bucket load of companies now owned by Americans (who must have seen some value here), plus a dollar that is so low we can film an epic for the price of an LA commercial (thanks to our country being run by the USA).

Sure we've got alan cottrell and the royal family, nobody is perfect.

Besides, we've got red wine US wine makers would cut off their reproductive organs to emulate.

I think I'll go and rip the cork out of a Grange Hermitage and ponder about your family heritage.

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

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 02 June 2000 10:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm closing this thread, folks. I think it has run its course.

I want to state that Australia is part of the world and I in no way mean to imply Australia is less of anything than anywhere else. I do believe different geo-political areas have different needs.

To those of us in the US:

My pappy told me back in the early 1960's that the US was (is) no better than any other country. That was not politically correct to say back then. Most of our parents, not to mention ourselves, still see the US as King of the world. To me that is as stupid as Texans who see Texas as 'the' state. I agree one should feel a bond with their locale and their heritage, however none of us is superior to the exclusion of all others.

My pappy took me to europe for a year in the mid 1960's. I was 15 years old. He showed me a lot of the world back then. He gave me books to read such as Catch 22. He taught me to think and not to blindly follow political and opinionated zealots. I have been to many countries since then. I have not been to the pacific rim or Australia, which maybe I will be able to do before I die. Everywhere I have gone there are good and bad aspects - from Kenya to Spain to Norway.

As far as Alan relates to all this, we all know Alan does not represent Australia. The reason many people are not pleased with Alan's posts is that Alan's posts typically are more of a repetitious sales pitch or sermon - or at least are perceived to be such, and are typically quite similar.

Now - back to the show. New topics and new worlds!

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic   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!