22 replies to this topic

[Ilias]

If anyone is interested in the future of ISO 9000 then there is a gathering in Aberdeen on the 23rd of March. The topic is
ISO 9000 - Benefit or Burden - Do Quality models and standards lead to improvement?

Chairing will be Frank Steer Director General of IQA.
Lord Lindsay, Director General of ACAS
Peter Gamble of QMS
John Seddon of Vanguard.

With John Seddon there it should be a lively debate and I wonder if anyone here will be attending? I will try and get a copy of the presentations.

Much was made about ISO 9000 in the early days in the Uk, and now it seems to be relegated to a standard as opposed to a management model. I come across more and more people who reject ISO as a credible model, and the only people talking about it are quality professionals and not business managers.

For those who are interested, John Seddon publishes a guide to ISO 9000 but beware it is different from the majority of approaches. If you want an alternative and interesting approach I would suggest looking at his web site for the guide.
http://www.lean-service.com/3-1.asp

Ilias

[Simon]

Hi Ilias and welcome to the forum.

You are on a mission today [on both sides of the pond] - are you on commission? Only joking…of course we are very interested in the future of ISO9000 and especially how it can become a more valuable business management system. Some of the members of the forums were at the recent Open Space gathering debating this very subject and work continues on this. The gathering in Aberdeen sounds very interesting with some excellent speakers in the line up. Unfortunately I won't be able to make it myself but it would be great if you could provide us with an overview of the day for further discussion.

All for now.

Regards,
Simon

[gary]

I wish I had opened this up a while ago.
During the summer last year I submitted to our business that the worth of iso certification was subject to debate.
As part of a multi national packaging company where all businesses within the group have ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 accreditation, the total cost must be substantial.
When going for the original accreditation in '92, the main reason was to take the business onto a different level quality wise which we have no doubt succeeded in doing. One of the other pluses was that having the 'badge' would reduce the number of customers audits, which are very time consuming for many within the plant. While earlier that may have been the case, it is now no longer so. We have more customers auditing us now than ever and their audits are by far more beneficial to our business than the ISO audit. We also audit more of our suppliers regardless of the certification status.
We would not run our business any other way than we do now, certification or not. We definitely needed it to get to a level but once there you can, i think , keep the business on a continuous improvement road without it - and save the cost.
As yet our company still wants to be accredited but with this forum being the first place I have seen the debate, it may not be too long before we change our stance.

[Simon]

The North of Scotland Branch of the Institute of Quality Assurance held the seminar "ISO9001 - Benefit or Burden - Do Quality Models and Standards Lead to Improvement?" on Tuesday 23rd March 2004. The seminar discussed the pros and cons of quality standards and certification in the wider context of quality improvement.

Read the speakers slides & notes from the seminar.

John Seddon's speakers notes are attached - if nothing else read them!

Were you there? Whether you attended or not we'd like to hear your opinion on this hot topic.

BTW Gary.

Regards,
Simon

Attached Files

•  9k1_bob_seddon.pdf   63.18KB   94 downloads

Edited by Simon Timperley, 26 March 2004 - 12:49 PM.

[rheath]

I read through John Seddons script with interest - I did feel however that he was a little ambiguous with his position on ISO 9000 & accreditation.

[Simon]

Hir Richard,

You are telling me - I get the feeling that Mr Seddon's not keen on ISO 9000.

Is he right though? I suppose you can't argue against the figures and it's all been said about the 'certification industry.' It can be improved (a lot) but I'm sure many companies are realising benefits from ISO 9000 Certification. It's never simply black or white.

Regards,
Simon

[Ilias]

Just an update on what I have found out about the talk in Aberdeen, and also I may be able to shed some light on some the questions posted, as I have had a chat with someone in the Vanguard office where John works.

I did not attend the session, but I understand that John was very well received. As you can read in the transcript John is supporting the claim that certification is on a downward trend in developed countries. This proves that ISO 9000 has not become the management model of choice, as this still represents a fraction of total number of organisations.

To countract ISOs claim of success of ISO 9000, John states that the countries increasing certification are not because they wish for an advanced management approach, but because of marketplace or government coercion. This means that companies wishing to export are being told to implement ISO as a requirement. They then go off and simply 'get' the certificate without the real benefits.

The response from Frank Steer was the traditional QA approach, and there was no clear direction. Lord Lindsay was apparently impressed with John's bit. Lord Lindsay thinks in terms of standards and has little idea as to its relationship with effective management.

John Seddon is very much against ISO 9000, not because its principles and intent are wrong, but that its implementation in the real world throw up a range of problems. His claim is that if there was no ISO 9000 managers would have used other approaches - more in line with what the Japanese did, and be ultimately more effective a decade or two later. Also his beef if not just with ISO but with management 'models' in general and fads. Seeing benefits with ISO are a fraction of those that could have been achieved using other methods.

I have just finished reading John's book; Freedom from Command & Control. I found it most interesting and now I am much clearer why John feels the way he does. it is not just a dissatisfaction with ISO. His principles go far deeper than that, and have made me realise that many of the frustrations I deal with implementing change, ISO, EFQM, etc. May have some roots in what John is saying.

Does anyone have any other information on the growth of ISO certifications in China, Japan, Roumania, Spain and Italy? Or is John right?

Ilias

[Simon]

All I seem to hear these days are negative…

So what do we do? Scrap ISO 9000 - it's not possible! It's OK hypothesizing about what could or might have been but let's talk about what is for a minute. ISO 9000 has proliferated around the 'real world' and it is a requirement of supply in many industries and more so by individual customers. It's not going anywhere at least for the next century or so.

The ISO 9000 suite of standards are by no means perfect and the certification process possibly even less so. However, in the right hands the standards provide a useful generic business management model that can be used as a platform for and in conjunction with and complimentary to other business improvement tools and techniques such as lean, six sigma, teamworking, Kaizen, SMED etc.

So in answer to the question:

ISO 9000 benefit or burden?

I say a bit of both - and as ISO 9000 is here to stay why don't we concentrate on trying to increase the benefits? If you are using ISO 9000 what's good about it? Tell us how ISO 9000 improves and adds value to your organisation?

Just for a change let's all celebrate ISO 9000!

Regards,
Simon

[Simon]

Anybody got anything good to say about ISO 9000?

[Puzzle]

Simon,

It keeps me in a job

[Simon]

Anything else? Anyone?

[Puzzle]

Oh dear

[Ilias]

Well, I did not expect that question to stop the discussion dead in its tracks! I must remember not to say that when I am having a conversation at a bar.

Especially for Gary and Simon, I would like to answer with an oblique answer. I cannot say a great deal about what is positive about ISO 9000, but I do like the Vanguard standard. This 'standard' is a guide on how to implement ISO 9000 into an organisation where the implementation needs to be certificated, but attempts to avoid the problems that most have been discussing.

Has anyone had any experience of using this guide? I am not sure but I think it is still available from www.lean-service.com The reason I am discussing this is that the use of the this guide may help put a positive light on ISO 9000 implementation and use.

The question remains, what do we have as an alternative? Another management model is just another model - managers just say 'here we go again.' I fear Six Sigma is just another.

Ilias

[Jim Wade]

Ilias

Copy of the Vanguard Standards attached...

rgds Jim

Attached Files

•  The_Vanguard_Standards.doc   177.5KB   76 downloads

[Wallace Tait]

Excellent read Jim.
Haven't seen you at the C*#! for a while now. What's going on?
Wallace Tait.

[Jim Wade]

Ah, Wallace, it's a sad thing. I was thrown out of the C*#! and now I can only lurk there and bite my tongue.

But Simon here was very kind and took me in.

Talking of the C*#!, do you have any idea what happened to Bill Fennelly (aka 'energy')? He seems to have disappeared.

One thing that's happening at the moment is a very active discussion by a group pf people - including two from BSI - about ways of meeting the requirements of ISO 9001/8.2.2 without doing conventional internal audits. There's a major event (hosted by BSI) in London on June 9, after which we should be publishing something.

This is the sort of topic that was - and probably still is - considered heresy at the C*#!.

rgds Jim

[Simon]

Copy of the Vanguard Standards attached...

I'm up to page 29 of 46. Jim have you any experience of, or thoughts on, the Vanguard standard?

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

Jim have you any experience of, or thoughts on, the Vanguard standard?

Yes. Simon. It's good stuff.

I like the way it spells out specific alternative ways of looking at things. For example "ISO 9004 presents quality management as one of a number of management disciplines. The Vanguard Standard does not make this distinction - quality management, if based on a systems perspective, represents the whole of management's work in managing and improving performance"

So true. The concept of 'quality' separate from 'the business' is one the 'quality' professions greatest flaws.

IMO

rgds Jim

Edited by Jim Wade, 13 April 2004 - 07:59 PM.

[Simon]

Hey Jim,

As I said I've not read it all yet - what I have read so far is good stuff. You are spot on about separating quality from the way the business is run.

Vanguard on Continual Improvement:

Note: That ISO 9001 has a separate clause on improvement is to misunderstand quality. If improvement is not an automatic outcome, the system has not been designed correctly. Improvement is a consequence not a feature.

Great.
Simon

[Wallace Tait]

Ah, Wallace, it's a sad thing. I was thrown out of the C*#! and now I can only lurk there and bite my tongue.

But Simon here was very kind and took me in.

Talking of the C*#!, do you have any idea what happened to Bill Fennelly (aka 'energy')? He seems to have disappeared.

One thing that's happening at the moment is a very active discussion by a group pf people - including two from BSI - about ways of meeting the requirements of ISO 9001/8.2.2 without doing conventional internal audits. There's a major event (hosted by BSI) in London on June 9, after which we should be publishing something.

This is the sort of topic that was - and probably still is - considered heresy at the C*#!.

rgds  Jim

You were thrown out of the C*#!?
That's the first time I've been made aware of that. Sorry to hear your not in the mainstream at the C*#!, I certainly miss your expertise and sound feedback. I still support and encourage though, current members and lurkers to pop in and get the North American perspective on Q, it's quite unique isn't it?.
I found the Saferpak forum through Simons' participation at the C*#! and, I have to say that, I have found the SDF to be a breath of fresh air.

AH, Energy. Bill has indeed been one of the major and most influential contributors at the C*#!. We recently locked horns (Respectfully) regarding Deming's SoPK. I started the system of profound knowledge thread at the C*#! and, it has certainly caused much controvercy. When I started to discuss systems thinking in General, well I have to say that, it caused many to show their true colours regarding management methods and understanding quality.
Energy, who is a systems thinker and just hasn't come out of the closet yet and, yes he's still lurking around at the C*#!.

Regarding conventional audits, I'm certainly not in favour of the current practices within the ISO arena. I ahve for some years now, advocated, practiced and encouraged the Mnagement audit methods developed by Allan J Sayle. I have used the Task element approach with great success to date. At the C*#! I have noted, there have been high downloads of my Task element aproach map and its partner. I believe there is great consternation with the current ausiting practices regarding using Lean methods and tools to allow the audit to be value added.
Well, I won't go on about that unless there's some dialog feedback.
There are a few at the C*#! though, who are ready for the task elemet approach.
Wallace.

[Puzzle]

the North American perspective on Q, it's quite unique isn't it?.

Wallace,

As I try to make things simple, the appear to want to make them more complicated!!

When I was integrating the requirements of 14001 to the business, if I had followed the 'teaching' on many of the clauses I would still be doing it now.

I have to say the talk of 'Integrtaed Management Systems' is really an excuse for the registration industry to fleecs more money from you. The thing is a 'Business Management System' and that encompasses everything the business needs.

I have probably stated before, but our Quality, Environmental, Health and Safety etc are all embedded in the fabric of the company. This has been the most difficult aspect when demonstrating compliance to the appropriate authorities as they expect to see seperate systems. Probably makes it easier for them.

I need to stop now as the soapbox is approaching.

Just my little bit of opinion

[stjohn]

hi everyone,
i found the forum via internet search as i am somehow intrigued with this (and other) ISO 'standards' (as what the people here on my side of the pond refers to them). such meeting would be useful here if anyone would do it but i haven't heard of one yet, thus, my search for more enlightenment.

as a risk manager, i would always encounter clients who 'brag' about their being ISO-certified as if that was some sort of an assurance that they are "better" than the others - most of the time, my field experiences proved otherwise.

i've also encountered clients who swear this is nothing but a conspiracy.

gentlemen (and ladies), i'm a newbie on this 'management system' and this forum seems to be a 'right' place to be.

kindest regards
.e.

[Simon]

Gentlemen (and ladies), i'm a newbie on this 'management system' and this forum seems to be a 'right' place to be.

Hi Edgar,

I hope so, please feel free to join in any of the discussions or start a new one. By the way what does a 'Risk Manager' do? Apart from manage risk that is.

Regards,
Simon