posted 02 June 2000 09:06 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff:

Like Marc says, if you are dropping a supplier just because they don't have a ISO/QS flag flapping in the wind, then shame on you. I think we all need a sanity check on this certification stuff.

---

posted 02 June 2000 09:11 AM               

There two words in the standard that we fail to take into consideration when determining our compliance to the standard;
suitable and effective.
Which, by the way are the determination of those people in the process and not internal or external auditors.

These comments are remeniscent of the old Mil-Q days.
We (American business) didn't want the Gov't telling us how to define our quality system and not knowing how to develop our own we climbed on the backs of our foreign competitors;ISO standards. We then immediatley tell them how it should be done;after all hindsight is always better, Hence the development of QS,AS TE etc.

posted 02 June 2000 10:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Savramis:

Why does everyone seem to be under the assumption that QS 9000 will disappear.

---

posted 02 June 2000 12:34 PM              

Laura - I agree with you 100%. I have visited companies which have a certificate hanging on the wall and it looks like it has been purchased for $10.00 (they certainly don't deserve it). I have also visited other companies which don't adhere to any standards but have the sweetest and most efficient systems you've ever seen. For years I have preached; why do you have to be certified if you already have good systems? What is wrong with self declaration of compliance? The responses I have gotten are (among others): Well if you're compliant why don't you take it to the next step and become certified? It all boils down to money Laura. Who can afford to play the game and who can't.Like you say you are or you aren't. (B3 philosophy right?) I have been lucky to work for a company which has the capital to invest in certification like TS 16949 for example. Are we perfect? No one is, but we always want to challenge ourselves and continuosly improve. This is how we grow and get more business from our customers. For us certification has paid off so far.

Spaceman - Maybe a reality check is what's needed afterall. but as I mentioned if money is not an issue why would you fight certification/registration. No one says your systems can't be more robust than the standards (just like the companies you mentioned) and be certified at the same time.

Let me ask you all this: If the Federal government (or maybe the Big 3) picked up the tab for certification and surveillance would we be having this discussion.

posted 02 June 2000 08:13 PM               

quote:

---

Let me ask you all this: If the Federal government (or maybe the Big 3) picked up the tab for certification and surveillance would we be having this discussion.

---

Please explain what in ISO9001 makes a company better if their history shows good parts consistently at good prices.

quote:

---

It all boils down to money Laura.

---

quote:

---

why don't you take it to the next step and become certified?

---

Why do I always hear "ISO9000 has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with consistency."?

ISO9000 has more to do with liability than anything else.

posted 02 June 2000 11:24 PM               

Agreed, ISO has more to do with liability, However, I've worked with a couple of multi-nationals and a small family business, and the large businesses NEEDED a structure to operate within.

In the family business there was one person certified to make quality judgements, and was vitally involved in all jobs. No need for an elaborate system.

But the multi-nationals had hundreds of people generating sometimes conflicting documents. They'd get burned when information did not flow smoothly, or was not consistant throughout the company.

ISO, for better or for worse, does force you to look at the document portion of your communication process. So, if your corporation, like mine, passes information on mainly through drawings, instructions, etc. I think ISO offers some guidance on where to look for weaknesses/strengths in your system.

That said, there's got to be a better way

posted 03 June 2000 03:07 AM               

My point is ISO 9000 does not tell anyone much and with the standard now turning into a Customer Satisfaction requirement I believe it is ensuring it's own eventual death at least as far as usefullness goes.

That said, I have done quite a few implementations since 1993. I really cannot say I have done one which was not positive in some way - a few dramatically. However, the question becomes was this due to the ISO requirements? No - not really. It was due to the fact that they took the time to take a good look at how they did business and, in some cases, spent MILLIONS (large company, I grant you) of $$$$ doing so. Even a small company (<50 souls) will spend (on average according to Quality Digest, if I remember correctly) around US$60K.

Give me the same money (and time - including the man hours the employees put into their part of the project) and I don't need ISO as a framework - there are other good models and elements of TQM which I can apply.

While I applaud the earlier ISO 9000, it is drifting into an abyss of popularism unrelated to what it does for a company. Early on ISO was something that few customers were demanding - most companies were doing the ISO dance in an improvement effort. No more. It is now simply a customer requirement (in what - 98% of the implementations?). You have to do it as a requirement of doing business with certain companies.

If ISO helped your company, that is good. However it just might be that had you spent your time and money on a solid TQM implementation you may have gained even more.

quote:

---

What I wrote is that they are not willing to take their companies to the next level....

---

Inquiring minds want to know. Just what is the 'Next Level'?

I might also add that many customers are requiring suppliers to register because (in addition to ISO 9000 having become a fad) they see a cost reduction to themselves. The usual "....we'll not have to watch them so closely...." is one I hear a lot. Automotive's chant for QS-9000 was a cost reduction chant - "...We'll save money if we don't have to monitor suppliers so closely and we put the financial burden on them by making them pay for a third party to monitor them...."

quote:

---

...however we would expect them to be certified or working towards it...

---

quote:

---

Sam said:

TQM in the 80's was doomed to failure because it requires three things which cannot occur with subjective standards; Reason, Logic and Common Sense.

---

posted 03 June 2000 04:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura M:
I'm dealing with a few small companies that only want to do QS-9000. To them, 16949, equivalent or not, is not popular enough. If B3 pull out of QS, the backlash will be tremendous. Suppliers will think the B3 just want them to spend more $$. And for what? Those of us on the exterior may see the advantage, but the small businesses just catching on to the QS thing can't fathom spending money implementing something they really haven't hear of yet.

---

posted 13 June 2000 11:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura M:
Suppliers will think the B3 just want them to spend more $$. And for what?

---

I thought that from the very day I heard the term "QS9000."

They constantly cut their nose of to spite their face... particularly where "cost reductions" are concerned. I mean, they have all but railroaded themselves into having suppliers such as us, quote them grossly inflated prices (so we can reduce them later) rather than have us give them the best price up front. This is one example in a whole host of issues... not to mention rolling the costs of certification into the pricing of the product and so on...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc:
Those who live in the past will pay in one way or another.

---

...however, THIS is definitely the case. It is just another form of extortion in my opinion. I am a quality guy who hates the "standard" which, in and of itself is an oxymoron... I mean, it can't be all that "standard" if we have "interpretations, miscommunications, changes to changes to changes" and so on.