posted 10 November 1999 11:08 PM              

Nice to know you're all out there...

I just wanted to get a feel for people's perceptions about ways to adopt to the requirements of the CD2/DIS revisions of ISO 9001.

In particular, the structure of 2000 is entirely different to that of 1994. I know that many companies have based their QMS manuals around the 20 elements of 1994. Any plans afoot to change the QMS structure to account for the reduction to 4 elements in 2000 (I see a lot of interest in correspondance matrices about the place)?

And what about the process model? How do I allay potential fears among some staff that the transition to 2000 is not some covert attempt at Business Process Re-engineering? Examining business processes in detail can have a disconcerting effect on some people, suspicious (often with justification)that such scrutiny is a precursor to something other than quality assurance...

Are the 2000 revisions as radical as they seem at first bite?

Jase E.
Australia

posted 11 November 1999 10:10 AM               

There's some verbiage about legal stuff and more safety stuff, but it isn't earth shaking.

posted 11 November 1999 09:02 PM            

An interesting response.I deliberately ('oh, sure...') framed my questions to this group as I have had the questions asked of me lately: ie."what the hell is goin on here?!?".

You mention that the changes are not earth shaking. I agree. But there are some who would have the earth shake anyway (and furiously at that!), and those who fall apart at the mere mention of movement. We are registered to 1994, but a certain atrophy has set in of late: the 2000 revision is seen by some as a bitter but essential panacea for these ills, a mechanism around which corporate revitalisation may revolve. Others, of course, fear any change to the status quo and jump at the shadows cast by 2000. A wired-in response engendered by bad experiences in the past, and quite understandable. One person's atrophy is another's stability.

And here's me, meat in the sandwich, between the "Hey, lets change everything!" crowd on the one hand, and the "Please don't hurt me" crowd on the other.

Solution? I don't rightly know, but I'm attempting to placate both camps in some way by focussing on the process model. To the "Lets change!" crowd I can say: "OK, we'll fundamentally alter the QMS structure to integrate process and coordination management into the quality system". Apparently, this seems radical. To the "Please don't" crowd I can say: "Everything's OK. It's the same as before. All we are doing is simplifying things a little bit. Please don't worry". They don't really believe me, but at least I'm not mouthing off to them about 'necessary change'. Besides, they can handle simplification. It sounds comforting...

A very fine line to walk, granted. You made mention that people are going overboard on what's going on. I get the feeling that this is because some people are seizing on a moment of transition to push for bigger things - and good on them for trying; the problem arises when these people fail to take into account the legitimate concerns of others who do not share their aspirations for change. The appearance of 9001:2000 has merely given a focus to previously obscured concerns.

Any thoughts?

posted 11 November 1999 09:25 PM               

Not trying to be an ass - just is that it's that simple. I think you're reading too much into it right now. You can't 'comply' until you know what it is. To placate your 'clients' you might want to suggest alcohol and/or drugs (hey - our possible future president Bush is a former coke freak - a rich one by his parents, but none the less - Can you say Silverado Savings and Loan??)...

posted 12 November 1999 07:27 AM               

For what its worth, i read an article in Quality world last month where one particluar consultant was giving ISO 9000:2000 a terrible slagging.

I think i better go back to the proposal and have another read, but on first view i felt all the changes were positive. At the very least the language is becoming more user friendly. It actually calls suppliers suppliers (instead of sub-contractors) or the organisation the organisation (instead of the supplier).

I think when we work with ISO on a day to day basis we come blase about how important these small changes are.

Additionally i find the other changes quite positive, especially the emphasis on Continuous Improvement. I consider this as fact.
1. I would be very lucky to get a company certified that has a 25 year old dog-eaten wooden 12 inch rule NOT CALIBRATED.
2. Its NOT difficult to get a company certified that has no Continuous Improvement philosophy or mentality beyond rectifying defects.

Personally i think the changes are positive.

posted 12 November 1999 11:27 AM               

You make several interesting comments in your post. The first is that some individuals in your company look at the 2000 standard as a panacea to what's ailing with your QM system. If that's what they're hoping for they are going to be sorely disappointed. If the system isn't working, changing it isn't going to make it any better. You also have the "let's change" folks at your heels. Well, if they want change so they don't have to fix what's already in place, they are barking up the wrong tree. And, as for the fear mongers, nothing will ever placate them, and ISO 9001:2000 is just one big scary monster to gripe about.