30 replies to this topic

[Wallace Tait]

Here's an attachment that I posted at the C*#!.
It was recently downloaded 128 times.
It is a mapped format that overviews and explains the task process elements. The format is from A book called "Management audits" by Allan J Sayle
ISBN # 0-9511739-0-1

Is auditing viewed as an improvement tool or a mere requirement of a standard requirement?
Wallace.

Attached Files

•  The_task__process__elements.jpg   374.75KB   106 downloads

[Simon]

With the 1994 version of the standard for me it was a requirement and you would probably find that it was the norm to audit very much vertically as oppose to horizontally. With the process based approach of ISO 9001:2000 I definitely see it as a CI tool. I advise auditors to spend a large proportion of their time looking at the interaction of the process e.g. the important, hidden and often neglected parts of the process that lie in-between the output of one function and the input of another. In my experience it's in this zone (that doesn't really belong to anyone) where large initial improvements can be made and the foundations for self-perpetuating improvement can be laid.

In historically functional based organisations 'the zone' contains misunderstandings, deep-rooted animosities and few clearly defined measurable objectives. If possible I would suggest spending a week in the supplier department and a week in the customer department and then hold a meeting between the two to talk about 'the zone' findings and how to resolve them. Iron out the misunderstandings, agree measurable service levels, and so long as both parties 'Win' many of the animosities will be lifted. This initial meeting has to become a regular self-managed Process Improvement Meeting between the two functions, the results of which you can audit in the future.

In my opinion you simply cannot see enough in a one or two hour audit. To get best value from auditing that achieves process improvement and initiates continuous improvement you have to live in the process for a couple of weeks and get your hands dirty - there's no other way…in my opinion.

Regards,
Simon

[mikelond]

Simon
I am currently implementing this system of auditing, and can report it has already had further benefits over and above the getting into the NMJ (not my job) areas of the system not previously caught by the more traditional methods of system auditing.
By auditing vertically through the system, the interactions between departments/procedures are caught and hence broughtinto the light for possible corrective actions, but the benefits don't stop there.
By now effectively following a product right through our system, it performs quite an indepth product traceability exercise, impacting into the BRC/IOP side of the business as much as the ISO quality side.
With the exception of the 'peripheral' parts of the standard, Management Review, Auditing, Training etc, this full system audit can be carried out approximately oncer per quarter, with the other aspects being audited on a more traditional format twice per year.

This has cut the number of individual audits down from 36 to around 12, with each audit having a lot more meaning and impact with regard to CI than had previous.
Granted, each audit may take a full day to complete, with a three day period for full response, corrective action etc. This now makes the audit team far more flexible, and allows both the ISO and BRC to be audited at the same time, both internally and externally. The knock on effect of this is that it will save about £1400 in external auditing fees, along with the reduction in time from the eight days a year spent walking the site for two separate auditing bodies.

The format of the procedures are being reduced to flow charts, which more easily demonstrate the links between the individual parts of the system, are easier to read and understand, and can be read from our company intranet system, making it effectively a paperless system.

I will keep you posted as the project develops, but I am now wondering why I didn't do this years ago!!

[Simon]

By auditing vertically through the system, the interactions between departments/procedures are caught and hence brought into the light for possible corrective actions, but the benefits don't stop there.

I think you mean horizontally sorry for being:

You are right the internal customer supplier chain is a very basic and long standing element of quality management folklore, yet some of us are only just beginning to look at it.

Perhaps ISO 9001:2000 is helping to make the change?

Simon

[mikelond]

I think we have a difference of interpretation here!
I have a list of individual procedures form the old ISO9002:1994, which used to get audited individually.
By now auditing vertically down through the procedures on the list, the interactions between the procedures will be picked up.
Either that, or I was reading your response whilst having a midday lie down :D

Anyway, a worthwhile exercise that can only reap further benefits as I get deeper into it!

Mike

[Simon]

Yes, sorry about that Mike. Good emoticon!

So in answer to Wallace's question. I would say auditing can be a very valuable improvement tool, yielded by the right hands.

Cheers,
Simon

[Puzzle]

I have to say, I had problems with the 'old' style. It was easy but seemed to miss many of the minor items. Those that breed into very big problems.

As many in the 'Systems' profession, I was originally taught by a 'Mentor'. In my case a very experienced and worldly wise chap, who spent many a day popping ISO90?? into businesses in the states. This was after his retirement!!!!!!!!!

I now feel we are getting better value for the auditing time. They do take a while longer, but you also get the opportunity to explore a lot further if you get a sniff of a problem. Eg 'Customer property' can end up at 'product realisation' if so desired, because the tooling is not correctly identified (many of our customers provide id tags to be attached to the tools)

Things seem a bit more logical now, but it has taken over a year to get out of the old habits.

I am now doing little micro-audits, and find the little problems much quicker.

I almost enjoy audits now

[Simon]

Here's a useful article for those of you who are interested:

Auditing is not solely about compliance

Regards,
Simon

[Wallace Tait]

Thanks Simon,
The PDF attachment is excellent.
It very concise and to the point.
Wallace.

[Simon]

Wallace has asked me to attached the five visual maps below. The maps are taken from the main Task Elements map.

 The_process_approach.jpg   406.8KB   181 downloads
 Service.jpg   497.82KB   151 downloads
 Person.jpg   541.49KB   128 downloads
 Item.jpg   470.63KB   158 downloads
 Information.jpg   453.86KB   148 downloads
 Equipment.jpg   551.07KB   154 downloads

[Jim Wade]

Internal [quality] auditing is an invention that stems from ISO 9000, not from good practice.

In many [most] cases it supports poor management.

It has no place in a well-managed organisation.

The fact that ISO 9001 certification demands it is deplorable. It does more harm than good.

Discuss.

[Wallace Tait]

Internal [quality] auditing is an invention that stems from ISO 9000, not from good practice.In many [most] cases it supports poor management.
It has no place in a well-managed organization.
The fact that ISO 9001 certification demands it is deplorable. It does more harm than good.

Sir,
I have learned much from you at SDF and a north American forum of note. Many of your posts at the C**E, were excellent and FWIW, I firmly believe your learned views were, misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Whilst I agree with the body of your post, I am compelled (By logic) to support Allan J Sayle's process approach to management auditing. Allan's approach had its genesis way before 5750 or 9001. Internal auditing is IMO, the most effective measurement tool for business CI strategies. No sir I don't wish to debate this issue.
The maps that Simon kindly attached are verbatim from Allan J Sayle's excellent publication Management audits ISBN: 0 9511739-0-1
Wallace.

[Jim Wade]

Sir,
I have learned much from you at SDF and a north American forum of note. Many of your posts at the C**E, were excellent and FWIW, I firmly believe your learned views were, misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Whilst I agree with the body of your post, I am compelled (By logic) to support Allan J Sayle's process approach to management auditing. Allan's approach had its genesis way before 5750 or 9001. Internal auditing is IMO, the most effective measurement tool for business CI  strategies. No sir I don't wish to debate this issue.
The maps that Simon kindly attached are verbatim from Allan J Sayle's excellent publication Management audits ISBN: 0 9511739-0-1
Wallace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the kind words, Wallace. I have Allan's book and have read it in parts. I called him and asked if he could introduce me to any senior managers who could explain to me the benefits to their business of 'quality' audits.

He could not. Speaks volumes, huh?

Here's a little more on my views on the matter ... http://www.irca.org/...ssue3/JWade.htm

Best regards - give my love to Marc

Jim

[Simon]

I do not have the space here to argue for or against the value of checking, often months after the event, what was done or not done.

These checks are fundamental to the business, but is it not the job of management to carry out those checks as an integral part of the normal business cycle, not months later when an audit is scheduled?

You can't argue with that; I pulled the quotes from the IRCA article.

So isn't there any value to internal audits? Maybe keeping people on their toes (we're all human)? Getting more employees involved in cross process activities in a structured way? Another means of identifying improvements? Ensuring documents in use are the correct revision?

You don't need me to tell you I'm playing devils advocate.

BTW good evening Jim.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

So isn't there any value to internal audits?  Maybe keeping people on their toes (we're all human)?  Getting more employees involved in cross process activities in a structured way?  Another means of identifying improvements?  Ensuring documents in use are the correct revision?

All that stuff is best carried out as part of normal daily operations as part of management's job.

The more heavily an organisation depends on internal quality auditing (as currently practiced) the lower it is down the quality pile. ISO 9001 certification, by encouraging that current practice) holds a company back rather than helping it forward.

Allan's approach had its genesis way before 5750 or 9001

I wonder. BSI published the first edition of BS 5750 in 1979. Allan's book first apeared in 1981. I think there may just be a cause and effect there!

There's obviously an interest  in Allan's work.

I bet there is!

Can you imagine the number of people who would be out of work if we did away with ISO 9001-driven internal auditing?

Finally, consider this: how come an organisation can reach recognised high levels of excellence by adopting the principles and practices laid out in the Euro Excellence Model or in Baldrige, without being required to perform internal quality audits?

rgds Jim

[Wallace Tait]

Jim,
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Am I right in thinking, you correlate The Task Element Approach with ISO 9001?

I certainly don't yet, I do understand, the Task Element Approach can and, is easily aligned to system measurement and improvement requirements of ISO 9001. I believe it's an excellent benchmark.

As a systems thinker and Demingite, I understand and view the ISO 9001 standard and 9004 benchmark, to be of no use in many organizations that are system oriented.
I have personally noted, organizations reject ISO 9001 as, this standard has a tendency to offer very little to an existing system that is considered a CI system. Many organizations tend to, start with the ISO 9001 standard, rather than integrating ISO 9001 into an existing business system.

I certainly have a love hate relationship with ISO.
Auditing: well system assessment has existed way before 5750 and ISO. Auditing has evolved into a tool for CI and, regardless of one's view or beliefs regarding assessment, it's clear system assessment within or out with the constraints of any business model, remains to be an ideal tool for system assessment.
The Toyota Production System and, the similar Ford Production System make the most of system assessment as a measurement tool for CI purposes.

I shall however read your views with interest and, I am always willing to learn from the masters of quality.
Wallace.

[Simon]

Finally, consider this: how come an organisation can reach recognised high levels of excellence by adopting the principles and practices laid out in the Euro Excellence Model or in Baldrige, without being required to perform internal quality audits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They may not be required to do them but that's not to say they don't have some sort of internal audit programme in operation - by choice! I believe a fresh pair of eyes looking at a process can be a good thing, in my experience often not a good thing, but definitely can be. Managers do need probing, prodding and prompting - however, the personality and competence of the person doing the P'ing certainly will make or break the value of the exercise.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

Am I right in thinking, you correlate The Task Element Approach with ISO 9001?

Sorry, Wallace I don't know what the Task Element Approach is - and Google didn't help.

.... I am always willing to learn from the masters of quality.

As my response above indicates, I am hardly a master of quality - just a bemused, inquisitive and opinionated manager.

[Wallace Tait]

Sorry, Wallace I don't know what the Task Element Approach is - and Google didn't help.
As my response above indicates, I am hardly a master of quality - just a bemused, inquisitive and opinionated manager. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come now Jim,
Don't negate the fact that, you are indeed a very notable quality smith.
I miss your presence at the C**E and, FWIW you were misunderstood to the nth degree by some. A hatchet job was the order of the day for your outspoken opinions. I for one, thoroughly enjoyed your posts. Lets help make the SDF forum kick **s and we won't need to debate trivial matters at all.
I believe the Task Element approach original visual and the latest visuals are available at SDF for your viewing. View and learn from The Task Element Approach aka "Process Approach". Allan has I believe, incorporated and enabled systems thinking into and throughout the Process approach.
It shall develop (Evolve (I hate this word)) for sure.
Wallace

[Wallace Tait]

Attached for the groups viewing:
A PDF file describing the upcoming 14th annual ASQ Quality Audit Conference at ST LOUIS MO, during March 10 - 11 2005.
Wallace

Attached Files

•  2005_qad_conf_brochure.pdf   936.73KB   79 downloads

[allanj]

Thanks for the kind words, Wallace. I have Allan's book and have read it in parts. I called him and asked if he could introduce me to any senior managers who could explain to me the benefits to their business of 'quality' audits.

He could not. Speaks volumes, huh?

Here's a little more on my views on the matter ... http://www.irca.org/...ssue3/JWade.htm

Best regards - give my love to Marc 

Jim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read this post with interest. I have no recollection of any discussion with Mr Wade but if he would be more explicit and remind me of the actual occasion and medium through which this alleged discussion occurred I would be most pleased.

[allanj]

I wonder. BSI published the first edition of BS 5750 in 1979. Allan's book first apeared in 1981. I think there may just be a cause and effect there!
I bet there is!


rgds Jim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will be only too happy to accept that bet. You would most certainly lose.

The first edition of "Management Audits" ws written in 1978 and duly lodged then as copyright. The first publisher (McGraw-Hill) finally succeeded in getting that book into print in 1981. Various people had already seen that text and reviewed the book. Among them Mr Ian Lundie, of Weir Pumps, Dr Graham Saunders of Foster Wheeler. BS 5750 did not then exist and I was most certainly not involved in its preparation - I am pleased to say. BS 5750 appeared in 1979 - after my book was written and long after I developed my my task elements and the "Process Aproach" as it is now commonly called.

As many people who worked with me in the 1970s know, I originated my Task Element approach way back then and it was at the behest of various of my work colleagues, around 1976, first urging me to write up my approach that I considered so doing. (Especially Mr Al Arretz of GE.) But I had already developed various training materials I used in house. My methods were noted by a number of firms I audited: they asked if they could send observers on my audits to learn my techniques. Among those firms were Messrs Brown Boveri of Baden and Messrs Sulzer of Winterthur, KSB Pumps, Frankenthal, Motor Columbus AG, Babcock and a host of others: alll back in the mid 1970s.

I delivered my first ever public training course in Glasgow in January 1979 - prior to the actual publication date of BS 5750, as I recall. It was attended by a variety of well known firms including IBM and Philips. The attendees were all pleased and impressed with my approach. One person in particular do I remember: Mr Pat McGlynn of IBM who, as I recall, became the product manager for the manufacture of the IBM PC at IBM's Greenock factory.

When released, BS 5750 did not contain anything like my "Process Approach" (i.e. the "Task Element" approach). Indeed, when ISO 9000 first appeared in 1987, it was an incarnation of BS 5750, as is well known.

The "criteria" approach of ISO 9000 continued into the 1994 version. I had written my book "Meeting ISO 9000 in a TQM World" in response to the 1987 release of ISO 9K and pointed out its many pitfalls, ambiguities and problems. I included my "Task Elements" etc in the first edition of that book. It showed in a number of diagrams the Process Approach. When the 1994 edition of ISO 9K emerged, I wrote the second edition of "Meeting ISO 9000..." and was even more explicit by creating a new chapter entitled "The Process Model" as well as the "Task Elements". As is well known, neither the 1987 nor the 1994 editions of ISO 9000 deployed the Process Approach. It was given much fanfare etc when the 2000 edition was released. Why? By that time I had trained several thousand people around the world and sold thousands of copies of my books. Those people used my approach, got superior resul;ts from their audits and poured disdain on the "criteria" approach of the old BS 5750/ ISO 9000. I have in my possession plenty of written testimonials to that fact.

All rather amusing. Because, I had registered my Audit Training Course with the IQA some years earlier when their registration scheme first appeared. My course was one of the first batch of four so registered. The others included Batalas and ByWater. In due course (no pun intended) the registration scheme sent someone to appraise my course. I was criticised for not following the BS 5750/ ISO 9000 approach and threatened with deregistration. (There is still much correspondence on this subject in my possession.) Beacuse I fundamentally disagreed with the required approach of adopting ISO 9000 criteria as the basis for auditing, I withdrew from that registration scheme. My view then, as now, being I believe an audit course should train people how to audit: not how to read a particular standard. And if someone needs to understand ISO 9000 or whatever, he/ she should attend a course on that standard.

Having noted, Mr Wade. that you claim an "inquisitive" nature, I hope this little history lesson will be appropriately edifying..

[Jim Wade]

I read this post with interest. I have no recollection of any discussion with Mr Wade but if he would be more explicit and remind me of the actual occasion and medium through which this alleged discussion occurred I would be most pleased.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Allan

I called you (the date escapes me but it would have been about two or three years ago) to ask if you know of any senior managers (NOT quality managers and the like and preferably in the UK) who would be willing to talk to other managers about the business benefit that had accrued to their businesses because of the application of internal quality auditing. You told me you were unable to help.

I asked then - and I ask again now - because the reactions of all the many senior managers I have interviewed on the subject of internal quality auditing vary from boredom through resignation to simmering anger. It seems it's only the 'quality experts' who think that such techniques are helpful.

Some companies in the UK (Yell is a prime example) have negotiated with their ISO 9001 certification bodies to remove internal auditing as a requirement because it had no business advantage.

I figured if you of all people don't know of any success stories, perhaps there are none! Give me a call. perhaps?

rgds Jim

+44 118 987 5120
+44 77 88 6666 08
Skype: jim.wade

PS - thanks for the history lesson - I stand corrected.

Edited by Jim Wade, 01 April 2005 - 02:42 PM.

[allanj]

Hello Allan

....the reactions of all the many senior managers I have interviewed on the subject of internal quality auditing vary from boredom through resignation to simmering anger. It seems it's only the 'quality experts' who think that such techniques are helpful.

Some companies in the UK (Yell is a prime example) have negotiated with their ISO 9001 certification bodies to remove internal auditing as a requirement because it had no business advantage.

I figured if you of all people don't know of any success stories, perhaps there are none! Give me a call. perhaps?

rgds Jim

+44 118 987 5120
+44 77 88 6666 08
Skype: jim.wade

PS - thanks for the history lesson - I stand corrected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would seem to me if any registrar is now to give dispensation to ANY firm that it need not perform internal audits simply because of some sophisticated argument put forth by the auditee that it "has no business advantage" other firms may as well do the same and cite precedent. Of course, neither I nor any other quality professional would accept such an argument but it would seem certain registrars do not aspire to the same professional standards (no pun intended) in their pursuit of profit.

When a registrar does not properly do the the job with which they are entrusted, the certificate issued bears false witness about compliance with the associated standard. When the registrar concerned is not brought to task by UKAS/ RABQSA or whoever has accredited that registrar, the entire credibility of all registrars of RABQSA/UKAS et al and the ISO 9K certification business vanishes: no certificate is then worth anything as the innocent reader cannot be ASSURED the registrant actually complies with the standard and that some essential part of the standard has not been waived (arbitrarily) by the registrar.

It is not within the gift of registrars to eliminate the requirement for compliance with any part of the standard. Their ISO 9K certificates are supposed to be warrants of compliance.

One of the original justifications for ISO 9K registration was supposed to be that it would eliminate the need for multiple assessment of firms by their customers. The registrars effectively said "You can trust us to act in your interest."

As we all know from the various horror stories that have plagued the quality profession concerning the conduct of registrars from the inception of their "mandate", such trust has been abused. It is small wonder, then, that certain major corporations are returning to undertaking their own supplier audits. (I am informed Ford is one such, but that has not beeen confirmed to me.) But, if Mr Wade's report concerning Yell is correct even only in this single instance, registrar conduct and that of the accrediting bodies goes beyond toleration.

This is not a question about whether one agress or not with the idea of ISO 9K: it permeates many facets of quality and safety itself.

I worked in hazardous industries (nuclear and offshore oil) and consulted in others (food, pharmaceuticals etc) where safety was THE prime concern. Product and process standards are written in those sectors to safeguard the health and safety of the consumer, the user, the employees and bystanders. I cannot conceive of any auditor I ever worked with in any of those fields even contemplating waiving a requirement for compliance with a standard affecting product or personal safety. And, every one of them knew well the embracing quality standard, be it ANSI N 45.2, 10CFR AppB, API, ASME III, ASME VIII, (whatever) existed to ensure there was a QMS that would ensure such standards were complied with.

A central underpinning was always the need for internal audits to act as management early warning system to detect a breakdown in the QMS that might lead to non-compliance with such standards and a risk to health and safety.

In doing their jobs and also rooting out avoidale costs the auditors of years ago built the reputation of auditing as a valuable and beneficial management tool. Though that tool did not originally appear in Joseph Juran's QC Handbooks ( a point I personally brought to his attention in certain correspondence we exchanged, still in my possession) it did appear in his 4th edition.

Those auditors of past days built the credibility of internal auditing (I am proud to say I was one). And we did it long before ISO 9K existed or was even a gleam in Derek Spickernel's eye. Long before BSI, LROS and many other registrars were ever engaged in auditing. Long before the idea of an RABQSA/UKAS was even mooted.

If these reports are true that registrars are signing certificates attesting to compliance with ISO 9K knowing they are waiving a major part of the basis for ASSURANCE they are destroying the hard work of those early auditors; they are destroying an essential foundation of effective QMS and, according to the actual product or service involved, they may well be putting at risk the health and safety of people.

I have no way of knowing how far this rot has gone. But it has gone too far.

Do I expect the accrediting bodies to act? I do not know. But, let us remember the recent Ford Explorer rollover tragedies in which no registrar was punished. Let us also consider the recent problems of the pharmaceutical industry. Something is very wrong with auditing (users of the Saferpack forum may have read my article posted by Simon, in which I argue for a change to the business model of "assessments" etc).

It is not sufficient to train registrar auditors in the words of ISO 9K. They need also to understand WHY quality standards are constructed as they are and what are the underpinnings of the standards for providing ASSURANCE.

If a registrar auditor can be persuaded to waive the requirement for internal auditing, that auditor is incompetent. The registrar that engages his/ her services has a set of controls that are fundamentally flawed. That registrar is in breach of trust in issuing the ISO 9K certificate. Every one deserves to be summarily deregistered/ de-accredited - THROWN OUT of the quality profession.

I want to know who the registrar is. And, I want to see the accrediting body IMMEDIATELY revoking EVERY certificate that registrar has issued and require the miscreant registrar to pay for the costs of re-auditing EVERY ONE of the affected firms - by a different registrar. I want the accrediting body to require every one of the registrars auditors to be retrained and for their on-the-job conduct and competence to be assessed such that they might then be employable once more. Naturally the registrar concerned must pay for that entire effort. And on behalf of the quality profession I offer my services to perform that on-the-job assessment of the individual registrars: if they could reach the standards of conduct I set and expect of auditors I will be pleased.

Over the years various registrars and parties interested in promoting ISO 9K have deployed crafty CYA's. The most incredible assertion (that has thankfully not been so apparent in recent years) was that possession of a certificate did not guarantee product quality. When that outrageous stuff appeared I asked if the assessed QMS does not safeguard the product, what purpose has it at all? NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE PRODUCT is one of my more noted sayings. But, it seemed registrars were losing sight of what it was all about. And, if these reports are true, of waiving essential parts of an effective QMS (viz internal auditing) the registrars have lost sight of everything. If RABQSA/ UKAS etc fail to act on the report I cited, it is time the whole thing is either fixed or closed.

There are probably certain contributors to this Forum who do work for registrars: I would hope they would not want to be associated with registrars who conduct themselves in the manner described. I would also hope the responsible elements within the registration circus will demand the kind of sanctions I have described. If not, guilty by association. Or, as President Regan quoted, "For evil to succeed, it remains that good men do nothing".

But, then, as an old auditor I challenge them with the Missouri wisdom: SHOW ME.

Edited by allanj, 05 April 2005 - 07:48 AM.

[Jim Wade]

It is not within the gift of registrars to eliminate the requirement for compliance with any part of the standard.

First of all, Allan, observation tells me that your statement is only theoretically true, judging by the QMSs I have seen over the years with no objectives, with so-called 'process descriptions' that are simply flowcharted procedures and so on.

With regard to the auditing requirement: in the instances I know of, it is less a case of eliminating a requirement and more of taking a fresh look at the requirements and coming up with creative interpretations that:

[primarily] make good sound business sense in the light if accepted good management practice, and..

[secondarily] meet the requirements of the 'standard'.

So for example, if a management team takes the process approach seriously, involves internal and external customers and suppliers in process reviews, and so on, one can demonstrate compliance to clause 8.2.2 with no need for auditors or auditing AND can put in place practice that is more beneficial than the sort of apology for auditing that is typically tolerated by the certification bodies.

To paraphrase the Salvation Army's William Booth "why should the devil have all the best interpretations of ISO 9001?"

Edited by Jim Wade, 05 April 2005 - 12:55 PM.