Quality Progress - American Society for Quality

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eputable Registrars, in addition to doing some consulting in the area of quality management systems, I have visited numerous companies both before and after the issuance of ISO 9001:2000. In doing so I have yet to see where the USER has enjoyed a NET benefit resulting from the 2000 version. Yes, there are several improvements in the 2000 version, but I submit that they are outweighed by the unnecessary time and cost incurred by users to make the transition. As I understand it, the major force for change were the complaints that the 1994 version required too much documentation (paperwork), and it didn?t lend itself to easy use by companies that did not make widgets. To address these issues, the standard supposedly cut the documentation requirements by reducing the number of mandatory procedures to six, and it promoted the use of the process approach - the latter being touted as just about the greatest thing since sliced bread. The price paid for these "improvements" was a complete restructuring of the standard. Now let?s examine the practical results of these "improvements." First of all, every company I have audited has rewritten, at least, their top tier quality manual, an effort that is not insignificant in terms of time and money. Many companies have engaged consultants to help them, myself included. Secondly, I have yet to see one company that has reduced its documentation. In fact, most have added to it at the procedure level in order to address the added requirements. So much for the reduction in documentation! I will agree that the use of a process approach is a better way for a nonwidget manufacturer to approach the standard, however, the 1994 version did not preclude that. And a process approach could have been encouraged by simply adding that wording to the 1994 version in an introduction just like what?s in the 2000 version. So, users have so far spent a great deal of money in rewriting and adding documentation, hiring consultants and having to undergo more extensive reregistration audits. Let?s also look at the key changes in the 2000 version and how they might have been incorporated into the 1994 structure thereby eliminating the need (or perceived need) for a rewrite of the quality manual. Promotion of the process approach, requirement to describe the organization?s processes and interaction of them: Most organizations are doing this with a flow chart. The same requirement could easily have been worked into 4.1 or 4.2 of the 1994 structure. Reduction from three standards to one, with certain exclusions allowed, if justified: Element 4.2 in the 1994 structure could easily have included this. Strengthening the Management Review by requiring action items and follow-up to be included: This language could have easily been added to 4.1.3 of the 1994 structure. Added customer focus ? customer communication, understanding customer?s perception of quality performance: This could either have been added to 4.2, or an added element, 4.21 could have been incorporated. Requirement to evaluate training effectiveness: A minimal wording addition to 4.18 would have accomplished the same thing. And let?s look too at how the auditing is performed to the 2000 version. With all the emphasis on the process approach, there is little process auditing being done. A few companies I?ve visited have gone to a true process audit approach. However, how are the registrars auditing? Well, of course, they are auditing to the standard and therefore still auditing to each and every clause of the standard. Just look at the matrices that many registrars include in their audit documentation. In order to certify compliance to each requirement of the standard, how can they do otherwise? So a true process approach for registrar?s auditors is a figment of somebody?s imagination. When one cuts through all the hype about how great the 2000 version is, and understands that a significant amount of the changes were in wording only
and not substantive as regards the real requirements, one conclusion becomes apparent: the USERS have been hoodwinked into expending a disproportionate amount of time and money to make the transition to the new version with very, very little benefit. Several articles have been written that indicate a fair number of companies will not, or cannot, make the transition. This has generally been rationalized by the consulting community as being just the companies with weak quality systems or lack of management commitment, and certainly there are some of those. However, has it ever occurred to those critics that some company managers may have also seen that the Emperor?s clothes are not new, but that in fact, he?s not wearing any? Herb Courtney Oak View, CA courtneya@vcss.k12.ca.us 16875 Re: Re: Re: Letter: CMMI Is an Alternative to ISO 9000 Stephen Rooney Sep-02-03 I recently finished an ISO 9001:2000 implementation project at the Transportation Security Lab in Atlantic City, NJ. They had already begun iCMM implementation when I started the ISO registration project. My understanding is that iCMM was developed specifically for software development within government organizations, namely, the FAA. It is also my understanding that the "i" designates this capability maturity model as specific to the FAA & software development. Also, I believe being registered to ISO 9001:2000 is the equivalent to level III of iCMM. During the project I worked on, we absorbed the relevant processes already developed under the iCMM project into the ISO QMS. Funny thing... since they became ISO registered, the organization has dropped iCMM. I don't think it is because one is "better" than the other, I think it is because iCMM was developed for software & ISO, being more generic, is more broad based in what it can be applied to. just my 2 cents! Stephen Rooney JIL Information Systems 16872 Letter: Five Biggest Process Improvement Problems ASQ Staff Sep-02-03 This is in reference to the article ?Best Practices in Process Improvement? by Tom Dolan (August 2003, p. 23). What caught my eye immediately was the statement in the second paragraph, ?The focus of this article is the human side of managing and implementing an improvement project." I continued reading, turned the page and examined Figure 2; a bar graph of the ?Biggest Process Improvement Problems? based on 300 responders most frequent answers to a question asking them to identify their biggest problems when implementing process improvement projects. The responders answers are as follows:
Page 1 and 2:
Quality Progress Discussion Board A
Page 3 and 4:
Panalpina World Transport (Thailand
Page 5 and 6:
Section 801 17382 Re: Re: SAAS in y
Page 7 and 8:
complex ones to boot are going to e
Page 9 and 10:
17361 Letter: Table Useful for Airl
Page 11 and 12:
Progress and copy the graphic and p
Page 13 and 14:
occurrence of the Problem. It is im
Page 15 and 16:
17325 Top 10 Tips for audit readyne
Page 17 and 18: practitioners, the language of qual
Page 19 and 20: ?quality?at this level, which cost
Page 21 and 22: of why you would want to (or need t
Page 23 and 24: 17249 Letter: Globalization Is a Mi
Page 25 and 26: possibly be greed or perhaps selfis
Page 27 and 28: auditing firm is an employee of the
Page 29 and 30: Wells' Dairy, Inc. Le Mars, IA saki
Page 31 and 32: 17181 Letter: Three Drawbacks to Ta
Page 33 and 34: Quality Management International In
Page 35 and 36: on the whole, optimistic about heal
Page 37 and 38: services, I am sure the cost of you
Page 39 and 40: ecalled on his death 6 Mar 84 So, m
Page 41 and 42: cause [of most software defects] is
Page 43 and 44: ASQ Staff Sep-22-03 I was intereste
Page 45 and 46: Super-Q. The extent of how much or
Page 47 and 48: PS Those who die with the most lett
Page 49 and 50: psbosneanu@msn.com 17021 Letter: So
Page 51 and 52: 17016 Re: Re: Letter: Thoughts on L
Page 53 and 54: 17008 Re: Letter: Thoughts on Lack
Page 55 and 56: we requested a meeting to get some
Page 57 and 58: ASQ Certified Quality Manager 16990
Page 59 and 60: this second wave is clearly underwa
Page 61 and 62: feel comfortable that they can expr
Page 63 and 64: using plain text. When you preview
Page 65 and 66: to a preference of ISO over CMMI, b
Page 67: I just finished ready Trudy Howles'
Page 71 and 72: ISO9000 will not improve quality."
Page 73 and 74: Lands' End. Alyssa Yogerst Communic
Page 75 and 76: Award model, Ford has its Q1 model,
Page 77 and 78: heard or have even used the followi
Page 79 and 80: 16763 Re: Letter: CMMI Is an Altern
Page 81 and 82: I absolutely agree - any customer i
Page 83 and 84: "Multiple Choice" in the July 2003
Page 85 and 86: airline and hotel at issue. As Qual
Page 87 and 88: territory, the more important it is
Page 89 and 90: I would be interested in hearing ot
Page 91 and 92: eyes, Keller’s comment stood out
Page 93 and 94: seen numerous “management philoso
Page 95 and 96: have the basics down. Did you ever
Page 97 and 98: organization as a whole. The same p
show all

Quality Progress - American Society for Quality

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?