Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Do Standards Improve Business ?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Franco

Franco

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 752 posts
  • 11 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Italy
    Italy

Posted 19 August 2004 - 06:59 AM

Financial impact of ISO 9000
  • 0
An ancient Chinese proverb teaches that the person who waits for a roast duck to fly into their mouth must wait a very long time.

#2 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 19 August 2004 - 11:31 AM

Thanks Franco a good read - even better when I found out the bibliography took up so many pages. I wonder who sponsored the article? Certification Body?

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#3 Franco

Franco

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 752 posts
  • 11 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Italy
    Italy

Posted 19 August 2004 - 01:24 PM

I wonder who sponsored the article?  Certification Body?


Dunno, yet it was my very first thought :yeahrite:
  • 0
An ancient Chinese proverb teaches that the person who waits for a roast duck to fly into their mouth must wait a very long time.

#4 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 19 August 2004 - 02:27 PM

There's a lot of "IF'S" when speaking of the value added aspect of ISO standards.
My opinion FWIW, it may be irrelevant.
It really depends on the organizational culture and adoption (Adaptation) of the ISO standard of use.
I have worked with some clients (Privately) in the past who have, decided (for many valid reasons) to reject the certification and registration processes associated with using a registrar based approach to ISO standard implementation.
The reasons, I won't discuss in this thread yet, they were so valid to the financial commitments of my clients. Since helping clients to implement an internal Business operating system, it has been so clear that using the letter of the ISO standard would have been very restrictive indeed.
Business operating systems that are used out with the constraints of ISO, are IMO becoming more popular.
the flip side to this approach is very detrimental to the infusion of the ISO standards in general. There is an almost lack of professionalism associated with the current registrar approach and, I have personally witnessed many organizations rejecting the registrar approach altogether.
Maybe this subject would be best discussed in a fresh thread?
Wallace.


Edited by Wallace Tait, 19 August 2004 - 02:29 PM.

  • 0

#5 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 19 August 2004 - 03:26 PM

I agree to a certain extent Wallace, but you and I both know it's not always that easy in practice. The decision to certificate or not to certificate is most often out of the businesses hands and is usually a requirement of the industry, large bullying customer(s) or both.

I think we would agree that most management system standards contain some good practice and if implemented for the right reasons it can lead to business benefits (to varying degrees). I think it's important for us to draw a clear distinction between whether standards are good and whether certificates are good.

Let's indulge ourselves for a minute and assume there is no pressure to work to standards or to achieve certificates.

In this position:

Is it beneficial to work to standards?

IMO YES

Is it beneficial to maintain a certificate?

IMO NO

It would be interesting if the survey were carried out again on businesses that work to ISO 9001:2000 but don't have the badge. Do you think they would derive more, less or the same benefits as certificated businesses?

I wonder if BSI would pay to commission that survey? :oops:

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#6 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 19 August 2004 - 10:00 PM

I guess there's a challenge in this thread, to those who have caused the quality profession to be brought into disrepute: "Get your act together or get out".

It's just a shame when you see well meaning quality folk trying to get through a day's productive work, without getting stress from the ISO standard or alternative standard of compliance.
The ISO 9004 standard was meant to be the formation or Genesis of systems thinking within organizations that chose to be forward thinking and, the ISO 9001 standards was meant to be the foundation of a Business Management System (BMS).
Simon made a really effective and profound comment regarding systems some time ago in another SDF thread. Simon used the term "Defrag": I have used that phrase many times since Simon first coined that phrase regarding system efficacy.
IMO, FWIW, much of the business systems that we come across are severely fragmented and, this fragmentation is due to the unprofessional aplication of BMS principles and, a complete disrgeard for standardized systems in general.
I guess many of us just don't walk the talk, when it comes to the ISO standards.
Gee, I am glad I got that off my shoulders.
Wallace.


Edited by Wallace Tait, 19 August 2004 - 10:02 PM.

  • 0

#7 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 20 August 2004 - 08:13 AM

Wallace.

You know what the problem is with ISO 9001:2000? It's bloody boring! It looks boring and it doesn't disappoint - the content is extremely boring! It's on my desk now and I can barely bring myself to look at it never mind open it.

When the standard was first published consultants and quality professionals had to read it over and over and over again to get a handle on it. Web sites and discussion forums were developed to clarify and interpret what this or that clause meant and sometimes even what this or that word meant (and they are still doing it).

Come on! Is this what process improvement is meant to be all about?

Wasting months and sometimes years reading, understanding and implementing the requirements of a standard - to get a badge - because you have to.

Paradoxically process improvement the thing that ISO 9001 is actually supposed to deliver is very exciting and stimulating.

As I said before defragmenting, integrating, streamlining and improving processes to the benefit of all is a fun and relatively easy thing to do. And the good thing is everyone in the business can be involved.

I believe ISO 9001 makes 'Quality' over complicated and dull! And as long as ISO 9001 continues to fester quality will continue to be this mystical art that's best left to the dull Quality Manager!

Let's not waste our time making sure we comply with this or that in ISO 9001. All we want is a simple and effective business management system based on our needs - and you don't need a standard for common sense.

Let's put down our standards and get stuck into some real process improvement.

I come to work for a good time! :D

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#8 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 20 August 2004 - 03:19 PM

Simon / Guys,

This is one area of professional services that I do not want to indulge in. I feel sorry for a big number of organizations who seemingly "feel good" on their own beliefs that they have a great management system in place.

Don't get me wrong, however, dull this ISO 9K is as Simon put it, I think if properly implemented for the right reasons and operated with firm conviction, it can be a very good management system except if it is used in a manner that fits into your corporate culture and not the other way round. This is where the problem is - most reverse their organization's needs / policies to fit to the standards even they cannot be achieved.....never mind that, get the Certificaiton in first.

I remembered a member of this forum made a comment some time back that he was frustrated when one of their business associates got their ISO 9K when he knew very well that they were really not up to it.

"Big Boys bully Small Boys" - Sure, we implement a "shadow" ISO 9K and has been third party audited to compliant ONCE except getting certification from registrar.....some thing we do not want. There is an in-house ISO Team that looks after the "shadow system" to keep it current and valid. Any company who wishes to verify our ISO system may refer to the last audit report or send in an auditor for a compliance audit.............done! No Hassle!

Any issues with this approach, Guys?

Charles Chew


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#9 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 20 August 2004 - 04:56 PM

Another significant aspect of Quality management (A vague term to say the least these days):
The quality managers have unwittingly set themselves up for elimination from the quality CI processes. QM's have made their function almost unnecessary to Quality management in general as, we are moving to (In this century) a team type of Kaizen CI environment, it's clear that the QM function has been taken away from the QM and passed on to the process owners. I cite Ford as an example: the Ford Production System (FPS) has successfully moved the general responsibilities for managing process quality away from a quality department and delivered these tasks to the process owners.
The big picture her is: Quality managers tasks and elements are actually better used and utilized in the hands of the process owners.
The main focus of this thread being, the ISO 9004/1 standards have successfully made this possible because of the standards lack of CI system thinking processes.
Wallace.


  • 0

#10 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 20 August 2004 - 08:24 PM

"Big Boys bully Small Boys" - Sure, we implement a "shadow" ISO 9K and has been third party audited to compliant ONCE except getting certification from registrar.....some thing we do not want. There is an in-house ISO Team that looks after the "shadow system" to keep it current and valid. Any company who wishes to verify our ISO system may refer to the last audit report or send in an auditor for a compliance audit.............done! No Hassle!

Any issues with this approach, Guys?

Sounds OK to me if you can get away with it.

The quality managers have unwittingly set  themselves up for elimination from the quality CI processes. QM's have made their function almost unnecessary to Quality management in general as, we are moving to (In this century) a team type of Kaizen CI environment, it's clear that the QM function has been taken away from the QM and passed on to the process owners.

And that's exactly how it should be. :clap:

In the case you cite Wallace quality and improvement are built into each process, it's the organisation of the future - and I like it! But let's not make the poor old Quality Manager redundant just yet; instead let's use this opportunity to redefine the QM's role.

This raises an interesting question:

In the organisation of the future which jobs will Quality Managers retain and what new responsibilities will they take on?

Come on let's use this opportunity to make Quality Manager's sexy. :whistle:

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#11 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 21 August 2004 - 12:36 AM

This raises an interesting question:
In the organization of the future which jobs will Quality Managers retain and what new responsibilities will they take on?
Come on let's use this opportunity to make Quality Manager's sexy.



This is something I have raised at the C*#! Yesterday Simon.
It's very clear that the Quality profession of this century, "must needs" re-define itself as an integral part of process management as a whole.

The quality person of today and tomorrow, shall be defined as a person who recognizes the value of continuous knowledge gain in relation to, Education and further skill sets that are integral to personal and corporate growth.
The Quality professional must be seen as a pro-active and productive part of any business machine. "Multi skilled" comes to mind yet, I am wary of this definition as, I originally come from a trades background and, I always came across the very skilled person who was, "Jack of all trades yet, master of none".
Wallace.


  • 0

#12 Sameer

Sameer

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 10 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Location:Delhi, India
  • Interests:Management Standards , Food Safety , Sustainability , Harmonization of International Standards, Networking , Codex , Food Laws , WTO ,SPS ,TBT , HACCP , BRC , ISO 22000 , GFSI , IFS , SQF

Posted 22 August 2004 - 06:15 AM

Simon/Guys,
My company Paradigm is itself ISO 9001:2000 and i would say that we have come a long way because we implemented it.
i guess its @ how you look at it! But having done it oursleves i find that we are far more professional than before and spen less time in finding things, we even manage to do boring things like directors meetings :rolleyes: !! on time.
Sameer


  • 0

#13 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,646 posts
  • 3321 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 22 August 2004 - 11:40 AM

Dear Simon,

After reading the thread starting document and collapsing at Tobin's Q, I am unsure at your classifying the ISO 9000 epic as tough going. Sorry Franco, mind you, I found the introduction and the conclusion very interesting and readable (I'm sure a lot of companies would financially cheer at ‘detecting abnormal performance'). Does a similar treatise on BRC exist ? Somehow I doubt it.

I applaud the visions of this column but I fear they are strictly misguided delusions. QM's are locked in as a species which must, as a minimum, be downtrodden, dispensable, underpayable, have the shouting range of an opera star and possess fully developed parasitic properties.

Wallace is right-on but the implementation - how many of you QM's feel you have a 'symbiotic' relationship with the Production Manager ? - I believe just maintaining quality equilibrium is a major achievement in many companies (maybe even some of the big boys if truth be told) and should be recognized / rewarded (= my improvement ).

I reluctantly extend the stated ISO criticisms to BRC (Food) Standard since they surely don't have to follow the ISO path so closely but seems they have taken the easy way out. Otherwise I think the BRC document is not too bad. Just my opinion.

Regards
Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#14 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 22 August 2004 - 04:15 PM

Wallace is right-on but the implementation - how many of you QM's feel you have a 'symbiotic' relationship with the Production Manager ? - I believe just maintaining quality equilibrium is a major achievement in many companies (maybe even some of the big boys if truth be told) and should be recognized / rewarded (= my improvement


Interesting take Charles.
There are of course many angles to Quality management but, merely maintaining the Quality equilibrium, is not what CI processes are all about.
I empathize with many managers who are entrenched in a "status quo" business environment yet, a management audit based on the Task elements (Developed by Allan J Sayle) would IMO be the staring point of breaking out of the status quo trap.
I agree though with your sentiments regarding, many managers who should be given an award for merely maintaining a system in all it's complexity.
Standardized systems have just become way too complex for the manager to get a real handle on. ISO 9004/1 IMO, FWIW, have not been successful in perpetuating or even infusing a Quality oriented culture through, the use of these standards and benchmark guidelines.
I believe the ISO standard should be minimized as much as possible and, an allowance for users to fully and freely customize their systems to accommodate their needs rather than, the reverse which is more often the case.
Wallace.
  • 0

#15 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 22 August 2004 - 09:34 PM

It's interesting to see how this thread has meandered interestingly into so many interesting sub-topics. I've split Sameer's post about the state of ‘play' in the Indian Certification industry here:

http://www.saferpak....p?showtopic=648

"Multi skilled" comes to mind yet, I am wary of this definition as, I originally come from a trades background and, I always came across the very skilled person who was, "Jack of all trades yet, master of none".

In football (soccer) they call them 'utility'players and it usually means they're crap!

My company Paradigm is itself ISO 9001:2000 and I would say that we have come a long way because we implemented it.  I guess its how you look at it! But having done it oursleves I find that we are far more professional than before and spend less time in finding things, we even manage to do boring things like directors meetings :rolleyes: !! on time.

As Charles Chew intimated earlier if done for the right reasons ISO 9001:2000 is a perfectly good 'basic' guide for a management system. Your organisation is obvioulsy evidence of this. :thumbup:

QM's are locked in as a species which must, as a minimum, be downtrodden, dispensable, underpayable, have the shouting range of an opera star and possess fully developed parasitic properties.

If this is true how can we change the status quo?

Wallace is right-on but the implementation - how many of you QM's feel you have a 'symbiotic' relationship with the Production Manager?

Why not have the Production Manager as the Quality Manager or at least let them be part of the same department / team?

I've split this topic and moved the question regarding the role of the quality manager. Those who want to discuss this issue visit the following link:

http://www.saferpak....p?showtopic=649

Remember we started off this thread with the Financial impact of ISO 9000 report, which concluded that ‘Certification' to ISO 9001:2000 has proved to be financially beneficial. Please let's try and keep this thread 'on-topic'. :D

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#16 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 23 August 2004 - 12:47 AM

I just love this type of developing thread at the SDF.
Lots to discuss and lots to learn.
Wallace.


  • 0

#17 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 23 August 2004 - 01:13 PM

So can anyone say (with hand on wallet) that their business has benefited financially from ISO 9001:2000 Certification?

Do you measure it?
Can you measure it?

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#18 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 25 August 2004 - 10:16 PM

So can anyone say (with hand on wallet) that their business has benefited financially from ISO 9001:2000 Certification?

Do you measure it?
Can you measure it?

Regards,
Simon



The answer to your questions depends on the intended and actual usage of the standard.
If indeed an organization has adopted and adapted the intentions and benchmarks of the standard: then I would say that organizational usage would reap organizational and financial benefits.
Wallace.
  • 0

#19 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 26 August 2004 - 12:46 PM

The answer to your questions depends on the intended and actual usage of the standard.
If indeed an organization has adopted and adapted the intentions and benchmarks of the standard: then I would say that organizational usage would reap organizational and financial benefits.
Wallace.

I was really looking for more of your personal experiences Wallace. ROI or financial payback is THE most important criteria in most (if not all) financial investment decisions that are made in a business. So why not management systems?

Is it possible to justify financially the considerable investment of resources required to implement and maintain a management system certificate such as ISO 9001:2000? Whether we say ISO 9001:2000 certification does or does not add value - surely we need to know by how much?

Has anyone sat down and tried to measure this financially in their business or is it too difficult?

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#20 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 26 August 2004 - 08:39 PM

Simon,
I have never been involved in measuring the financial cost and ROI regarding adopting, adapting and implementing the ISO9001 standard.
The ROI must IMO be measured by organizational efficacy, after system implementation.
In an OEM organization such as Ford, I would say the ROI is extremely difficult to define, measure and analyze, due to the natural fragmentation of internal systems regarding multiple departments and various other supporting systems of interrelation.
Wallace.


  • 0

#21 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,420 posts
  • 1040 thanks
227
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 26 August 2004 - 09:17 PM

I understand Wallace and I agree with you. The system is the sum of its parts and although we can measure individual process performance there are far too many other variables and unquantifiable elements to collate these into an overall macro measure of the management system.

Probably enough to know that we are hitting the targets and improving in the things we decide to measure at the micro level. If we are measuring and improving the right things this should in turn have a positive impact on the financial well being of the business and that's what matters at the end of the day. The management system must help with this.

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#22 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 27 August 2004 - 12:01 AM

I would say that, statistical measurements indeed (Relating to standard capability and ROI analysis), do allow management to view the proverbial business snapshot.
Six sigma as a quality tool box, has confirmed that management in this century, just must have a working knowledge of viewing a system within a statistical model.
Wallace.


  • 0

#23 kapil sharma

kapil sharma

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 28 August 2004 - 06:42 AM

Attached File  Benefits_of_ISO_1_.ppt   138.5KB   103 downloadsHi Simon,
After going thru' series of discussion held btween members in the forum, i wu like to give the readers & memebers the benefits of having ISO 9000"

Please find the file attached ..as presentation.

regards,
kapil.
  • 0

#24 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 48 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 28 August 2004 - 02:38 PM

Kapil,

In your attachment, D & Bradstreet was instructed to do a survey on the benefits ONLY. While there is a flip side on this issue, obviously, there are "negative impacts" as well.

Opinions can be challenged and should be. Dunn and Bradstreet merely took an instruction to do a "lop-sided" (positive aspects) survey and their results are therefore skewed and hence, means nothing, at least to me.

ISO 9K is a great QMS if done with conviction for the right reason and company has the human and financial resource to manage such a program. Otherwise, it is purely a showcase. Sadly, many companies embraces ISO 9K becos their business associates do and it is a trend.

I know many in this forum will confirm that there are many companies that they know do not deserve to be ISO 9K certified whilst others who are not certified to ISO 9K manage their business better than those who are. Again, the situation differ from case to case.

Feedbacks from those who are certified to ISO 9k (last 3 years or so) that I know seem to indicate some degree of regrets. You cannot simply plonk a generic system into a company, put on some make-up and presto!.......

It has got to be tailored and custom fit.......don't u thk so.

Charles Chew


  • 0
Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

#25 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 28 August 2004 - 08:38 PM

Kapil,
Thanks for your sincere input.
Take into consideration Charles' comments and, understand that we're all different when reading reports and / or presentations that are particularly praising of the ISO9001 standard.
The PP presentation that you posted is OK yet, I (As Charles) have a mental block when it comes to appreciating information that, doesn't seem to present a broad view or, a true statistical measure of a defined population.
It's so true that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to ISO and systems.
Wallace.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users