Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Standards can be a very good thing. If, they are enforced equally across the board. They can save enormous amounts of time and money when creating new projects or adjusting old ones. Standards can be very costly, if everyone is not using them or worse yet using various versions of the standards.
Standards, if enforced and reasonable, can help you control complex projects that would otherwise fail.
Unfortunately, some organizations only have informal standards that aren't comprehensive or enforced. These organizations look at results first and documentation later if at all. The resulting simplification makes things more complex in the long run.
Unfortunately, some organizations only have informal standards that aren't comprehensive or enforced. These organizations look at results first and documentation later if at all. The resulting simplification makes things more complex in the long run.
I agree, standards can be a very good thing if used and applied intelligently to projects. My concern lies in the conflict between creating standards and guidelines vs the fact that most people who have significant experience in a field don't necessarily adhere to structure. One cannot "deconstruct" experience into a system; much of what leads people to make the decisions they do can have more to do with intuitive thought processes than with structured ones. Yet by the same token, a complete lack of structure when planning can result in chaos and unexpected (and expensive) consequences.
Perhaps one method would be to apply generalized standards at the outset, and distilling them into more specific categories as the project matures. Thiswould allowing enough creative freedom for those capable of using it intelligently, while generating documentation that can be followed by the less experienced, and also used as a reference to procedures when dealing with auditors and the like.
Perhaps one method would be to apply generalized standards at the outset, and distilling them into more specific categories as the project matures. Thiswould allowing enough creative freedom for those capable of using it intelligently, while generating documentation that can be followed by the less experienced, and also used as a reference to procedures when dealing with auditors and the like.
AS a qualified assesor/verifier for City & Guilds I cannot fail to agree with the necessity for standards.
Any standard, however, that can be bought is automatically devalued in my eyes. Fair enough certain criteria has to be met but any industry standard presumably is designed to protect the public from unscrupulous suppliers, of which there are many within the IT industry. If this is a genuine desire to protect the public why is it not imposed and why is it not free?
Lesley Gilbert L.C.G.I.,F.M.G.A.V.
Any standard, however, that can be bought is automatically devalued in my eyes. Fair enough certain criteria has to be met but any industry standard presumably is designed to protect the public from unscrupulous suppliers, of which there are many within the IT industry. If this is a genuine desire to protect the public why is it not imposed and why is it not free?
Lesley Gilbert L.C.G.I.,F.M.G.A.V.
Good document management is the keystone of a successful compliance effort. Our company, Quality Systems International, offers software that helps companies implement their quality standard in a consistent and straightforward way. We are one of the few providers of such technology that is, itself, certified ISO 9000. Have a look at http://www.qualitysys.com for more info.
Standards are a very BAD thing if enforced equally across the board. To do a good job usually requires the ability to go beyond the standard. And that will be the problem with these standards: they'll work fine for awhile until they become entrenched. Then they'll become a straighjacket. Eventually, IT departments will be about as efficient and friendly as any governmental bureaucracy. Little beetle-like auditors will begin to appear at your door -- just like the government today. Take a que from the fact that ISO 9000 is popular in Europe: a Europe that is trying to add a new transs-European bureaucracy (in Brussels) to it's already Kafakaesque national bureaucracies. Am I surprised they go for it? Nah, business as usual over there. But here, we should resist it.
I work for a company that not only got ISO9000 certification but also BABT certification which is the other European quality system you face if you want the CE certification so you can sell hardware in Europe. There is two things to remember about ISO9000. The first is if you don't want straight-jacket procedures then don't write them that way to start with. Second if you find that a procedure has become a straight-jacket then rewrite the procedure. You will find that most of your procedures will get rewritten over the years. Hopefully this is the case because we should find better ways to do things over time.
The reason your vendors want you to get ISO9000 is the same reason you will want your suppliers to become certified too. It makes the vendor approvial procedure a lot easier. The big thing is ISO9000 does not make quality but consistency which then be improved if you don't like the result. You will need some manpower to manage all of the quality documents and procedures and changes to them. You will have forms that you have to fill out and sign but that is not a big deal. You will also have to have internal auditors to keep an eye on things between visits of the registrar. Look at it this way. One day all companies willbe ISO9000 certified so you are just getting a head start on them.
The reason your vendors want you to get ISO9000 is the same reason you will want your suppliers to become certified too. It makes the vendor approvial procedure a lot easier. The big thing is ISO9000 does not make quality but consistency which then be improved if you don't like the result. You will need some manpower to manage all of the quality documents and procedures and changes to them. You will have forms that you have to fill out and sign but that is not a big deal. You will also have to have internal auditors to keep an eye on things between visits of the registrar. Look at it this way. One day all companies willbe ISO9000 certified so you are just getting a head start on them.
Everyone's doing it so you should do it, right? Or a lot of people think it's good, so you should do it to be more impressive.
This thread is going pretty much as I thought it would.
There are a lot of people agin' it.
There are a few people fer' it.
Some people are trying to be moderate.
But nobody is presenting any evidence for whether it really achieves an improvement in real companies on the real planet. A lot of "could" and "would" and "can," but very little "does."
Except for the people who have pointed out that it costs money and slows things down. That's not necessarily bad. So do computers in general. They cost money and, at least at first, slow things down. So does Valium, but at least there is some evidence that Valium does something useful.
Maybe ISO 9000 is a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. Maybe it's a neutral thing. But it would be nice to see something more than opinions, arguments, and rationalizations. I.e., some evidence.
Arguing is fun, but don't you think that there should be something to show for it?
This thread is going pretty much as I thought it would.
There are a lot of people agin' it.
There are a few people fer' it.
Some people are trying to be moderate.
But nobody is presenting any evidence for whether it really achieves an improvement in real companies on the real planet. A lot of "could" and "would" and "can," but very little "does."
Except for the people who have pointed out that it costs money and slows things down. That's not necessarily bad. So do computers in general. They cost money and, at least at first, slow things down. So does Valium, but at least there is some evidence that Valium does something useful.
Maybe ISO 9000 is a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. Maybe it's a neutral thing. But it would be nice to see something more than opinions, arguments, and rationalizations. I.e., some evidence.
Arguing is fun, but don't you think that there should be something to show for it?
If there are that many companies having to do ISO 9000 work, is there a vague chance that some of the work has been duplicated more than once, with minor title/sequence changes?
If such a chance exists, then TechRepublic might be able to help outa lot of people by serving as a library for boilerplate ISO 9000 templates. Heck, it could even consider having 'open source' boilerplate that is always growing.
When the 'open source' ISO 9000 library is big enough, an enterprising group could create an interface that would allow people to select the items they want, make 'term substitutions' and automatically generate the standards.
Of course, all of that might require some cooperation and a decent knowledge of both sentence structure and programming. But I think it would be fun to do. Practical too, especially for small companies who can easily change their procedures to match 'canned' ISO 9000 standards.
If such a chance exists, then TechRepublic might be able to help outa lot of people by serving as a library for boilerplate ISO 9000 templates. Heck, it could even consider having 'open source' boilerplate that is always growing.
When the 'open source' ISO 9000 library is big enough, an enterprising group could create an interface that would allow people to select the items they want, make 'term substitutions' and automatically generate the standards.
Of course, all of that might require some cooperation and a decent knowledge of both sentence structure and programming. But I think it would be fun to do. Practical too, especially for small companies who can easily change their procedures to match 'canned' ISO 9000 standards.
Of course, to make it a real comparison, we have to have NON-ISO 9000 templates (or non-templates) as well.
The only trick is getting people to volunteer information. So, how about it, gals and guys?
The only trick is getting people to volunteer information. So, how about it, gals and guys?
Standard boilerplates for standard companies employing standard people. I once worked for a company that dealt with hundreds of letters every day all of which had to be individually dictated, and the typed up. When they investigated the "standard paragraphs" and "standard format" letter system they found it unworkable because of a fatal flaw. The company employed individuals and dealt with individuals not "standard units".
What was the fatal flaw?
Was it something inherent in the English language? Was it a procedural problem?
I'd have to know what the problem was before rejecting the boilerplate solution based on your experience.
Besides, boilerplate doesn'talways have to use the same solutions for the same problems. You could break down a process into ten or twenty steps, each with fifty or sixty variations, and generate millions of sets of standards. A relatively simple program would allow you to pick and choose the parts you need that are unique to your company. The results would be a rough draft of your future ISO-9000 standards.
Then a technical writer could go through and make sure that all the parts have the proper syntax and use company specific phrasing.
Think Lego brand building blocks. They have lots of different standards yet they can be used to build lots of individual things.
Was it something inherent in the English language? Was it a procedural problem?
I'd have to know what the problem was before rejecting the boilerplate solution based on your experience.
Besides, boilerplate doesn'talways have to use the same solutions for the same problems. You could break down a process into ten or twenty steps, each with fifty or sixty variations, and generate millions of sets of standards. A relatively simple program would allow you to pick and choose the parts you need that are unique to your company. The results would be a rough draft of your future ISO-9000 standards.
Then a technical writer could go through and make sure that all the parts have the proper syntax and use company specific phrasing.
Think Lego brand building blocks. They have lots of different standards yet they can be used to build lots of individual things.
Don't think of ISO9000 as a standard way to do things that you must follow to do your job. "Your ISO standards" are "yours" because they document what "you do and how you do it" What it is trying to do is say if you do it "this way" today then do itthat way tomorrow and ... This is why there is not a "boilerplate standard" ISO9000 is trying to get you to do a procedure the same way every time. When you release a system to production most places of any size require you to fill out some form or forms to document that you did this. In the ISO9000 world there would be a copy of that form in the standard and an instruction on how to fill it out and that is all. When you hire a new employee you can say read these procedures and you will know how we release software to production and also what types of reviews and testing are required before that point. You should always start writing your "standard" from where you are "today" and then modify it in the future to imporve your processes. It does not try to turn software development into a rigid production line process.
When you hire a new employee you can say read these procedures and you will know how we release software to production and also what types of reviews and testing are required before that point. You should always start writing your "standard" from where you are "today" and then modify it in the future to imporve your processes. It does not try to turn software development into a rigid production line process.
I work for a company that not only got ISO9000 certification but also BABT certification which is the other European quality system you face if you want the CE certification so you can sell hardware in Europe. There is two things to remember about ISO9000. The first is if you don't want straight-jacket procedures then don't write them that way to start with. Second if you find that a procedure has become a straight-jacket then rewrite the procedure. You will find that most of your procedures will get rewritten over the years. Hopefully this is the case because we should find better ways to do things over time.
The reason your vendors want you to get ISO9000 is the same reason you will want your suppliers to become certified too. It makes the vendor approvial procedure a lot easier. The big thing is ISO9000 does not make quality but consistency which then be improved if you don't like the result. You will need some manpower to manage all of the quality documents and procedures and changes to them. You will have forms that you have to fill out and sign but that is not a big deal. You will also have to have internal auditors to keep an eye on things between visits of the registrar. Look at it this way. One day all companies willbe ISO9000 certified so you are just getting a head start on them.
The reason your vendors want you to get ISO9000 is the same reason you will want your suppliers to become certified too. It makes the vendor approvial procedure a lot easier. The big thing is ISO9000 does not make quality but consistency which then be improved if you don't like the result. You will need some manpower to manage all of the quality documents and procedures and changes to them. You will have forms that you have to fill out and sign but that is not a big deal. You will also have to have internal auditors to keep an eye on things between visits of the registrar. Look at it this way. One day all companies willbe ISO9000 certified so you are just getting a head start on them.
I work for a company that not only got ISO9000 certification but also BABT certification which is the other European quality system you face if you want the CE certification so you can sell hardware in Europe. There is two things to remember about ISO9000. The first is if you don't want straight-jacket procedures then don't write them that way to start with. Second if you find that a procedure has become a straight-jacket then rewrite the procedure. You will find that most of your procedures will get rewritten over the years. Hopefully this is the case because we should find better ways to do things over time.
The reason your vendors want you to get ISO9000 is the same reason you will want your suppliers to become certified too. It makes the vendor approvial procedure a lot easier. The big thing is ISO9000 does not make quality but consistency which then be improved if you don't like the result. You will need some manpower to manage all of the quality documents and procedures and changes to them. You will have forms that you have to fill out and sign but that is not a big deal. You will also have to have internal auditors to keep an eye on things between visits of the registrar. Look at it this way. One day all companies willbe ISO9000 certified so you are just getting a head start on them.
The reason your vendors want you to get ISO9000 is the same reason you will want your suppliers to become certified too. It makes the vendor approvial procedure a lot easier. The big thing is ISO9000 does not make quality but consistency which then be improved if you don't like the result. You will need some manpower to manage all of the quality documents and procedures and changes to them. You will have forms that you have to fill out and sign but that is not a big deal. You will also have to have internal auditors to keep an eye on things between visits of the registrar. Look at it this way. One day all companies willbe ISO9000 certified so you are just getting a head start on them.
There is a cultural division between Europe and the US in terms of ISO 9000 implementation and total quality management (TQM). It may be thought that they go hand in hand but this has not been the case. Some papers point out that "Individualism is stiffled" due to the team-centred operations of TQM. This may be why ISO 9000 is being now widely implemented in the US as it has strict guidelines and procedures which can be measured/audited. It is still the view in Europe that without a change in culture, towards a team oriented stance invoked by senior management, ISO 9000 will be a hollow gesture.
Some multi-nationals are now suffering the consequences of non-compliance as the different interpretations of standards are causing confusion of procedures. Take a look at the company's quality manual for the last time it was updated and find out who is the responsible officer for managing quality. I would be suprised if there would still be anyone controling or keeping records updated. There has been lip-service paid to quality by some senior management and they have all been sent out on the weekend courses. It is the people on the shop floor who need to be taught about quality and it is usually these people who are kept in the dark and therefore the ISO 9000 compliance will ultimately fail or be meaningless for those businesses.
Some multi-nationals are now suffering the consequences of non-compliance as the different interpretations of standards are causing confusion of procedures. Take a look at the company's quality manual for the last time it was updated and find out who is the responsible officer for managing quality. I would be suprised if there would still be anyone controling or keeping records updated. There has been lip-service paid to quality by some senior management and they have all been sent out on the weekend courses. It is the people on the shop floor who need to be taught about quality and it is usually these people who are kept in the dark and therefore the ISO 9000 compliance will ultimately fail or be meaningless for those businesses.
The people at all levels of the comapny have to be trained in the beginning and then retrained once a year there after. If a procdure has changed then the people that operate under that procedure have to be retrained on the new procedure. We starteddown this path 8 1/2 years ago and it was a big job but a huge amount of good has come out of it. One big thing is when you hire someone they take the training and they know how we operate right away in place of the long procedure of OJT. ISO9000 only added two people to our 160 person engineering and manufacturing operation and they provide help in a lot of situations. What I am trying to say is it is natural to expect the worse out of someting like this but it is not a huge burdon on anyone except documantation control/ change managment and they have a real job on their hands because they are the gate keepers of the system.
My experiences as a marketing consultant has afforded me the opportunity to witness numerous companies attempts to implement quality standards.
Pros: These programs help implement efficient operation and production procedures for struggling companies.
Cons: These procedures and even the consideration of implementing these procedures send shivers down the backs of mid management. The results can be devastating to corporate morale.
Fact: Most mid sized companies that rush into a serious quality control program with gusto, who spends thousands if not millions on implementation later limp away to lick their wounds.
fact: Most mid sized companies abandond these programs or compromise to a facade of a program.
Conclusion:
For those with the fortitude and right employee base, good luck on your efforts to implement. The rewards are there if you can do it right.
Good luck
Pros: These programs help implement efficient operation and production procedures for struggling companies.
Cons: These procedures and even the consideration of implementing these procedures send shivers down the backs of mid management. The results can be devastating to corporate morale.
Fact: Most mid sized companies that rush into a serious quality control program with gusto, who spends thousands if not millions on implementation later limp away to lick their wounds.
fact: Most mid sized companies abandond these programs or compromise to a facade of a program.
Conclusion:
For those with the fortitude and right employee base, good luck on your efforts to implement. The rewards are there if you can do it right.
Good luck
After reading thru this string, I see a lot of misinformation about ISO 9000. It's a quality measurement standard, that's all. It's not Lucifer. I would think that D_Dubya who claims to be a scientist would embrace it. If you do an experiment it has to be documented in such a manner that the results can be repeated....reliably. I realize a lot of new developments are mistakes at first, but they have to be reliably reconstructed before any mass production can take place.
ISO compliance does not have to be a nightmare if it is done properly. We have an electronic forms repository and locally available hardcopies. It is how YOUR COMPANY documents it's quality system.
ISO 9000 boils down to being real simple:
document what you do (and leave it high level enough for some creativity) and then do what you document.
It's a pain sometimes but when I started in this business we had to log every job that ran on the mainframe, start, stop times, good, abend etc..... I hated it! GuaranteedISO 9000 isn't near that bad!
ISO compliance does not have to be a nightmare if it is done properly. We have an electronic forms repository and locally available hardcopies. It is how YOUR COMPANY documents it's quality system.
ISO 9000 boils down to being real simple:
document what you do (and leave it high level enough for some creativity) and then do what you document.
It's a pain sometimes but when I started in this business we had to log every job that ran on the mainframe, start, stop times, good, abend etc..... I hated it! GuaranteedISO 9000 isn't near that bad!
Or at least I used to be until a couple of years ago.
Personally, I have no feelings pro or con with respect to ISO 9000.
But, if ISO 9000 is just as you say, I join him in the challenge. If the documentation process ISO 9000 uses is so great, show us the documentation that measures how well it works.
If it's so great, there must be OODLES of it lying around in lots of organizations.
In this thread, nobody who supports ISO 9000 has yet come up with a single web address or referenceto a report. I can come up with a hypothesis to explain this: maybe it isn't so great.
Do you, or anybody else in favor of ISO 9000 have anything which can falsify that hypothesis? If so, let's see it. If not, don't tell scientists what they should embrace.
Personally, I have no feelings pro or con with respect to ISO 9000.
But, if ISO 9000 is just as you say, I join him in the challenge. If the documentation process ISO 9000 uses is so great, show us the documentation that measures how well it works.
If it's so great, there must be OODLES of it lying around in lots of organizations.
In this thread, nobody who supports ISO 9000 has yet come up with a single web address or referenceto a report. I can come up with a hypothesis to explain this: maybe it isn't so great.
Do you, or anybody else in favor of ISO 9000 have anything which can falsify that hypothesis? If so, let's see it. If not, don't tell scientists what they should embrace.
I assume because you are not paid for it?
You seem like a true scientist to me, and I always enjoy your insights. I know this is way off topic, but somehow, the "I used to be" a scientist part just stuck in my craw. In my view, when you use the scientific method you are a scientist, but then I believe a log can also be a chair.
I am curious where you stand on this though.
You seem like a true scientist to me, and I always enjoy your insights. I know this is way off topic, but somehow, the "I used to be" a scientist part just stuck in my craw. In my view, when you use the scientific method you are a scientist, but then I believe a log can also be a chair.
I am curious where you stand on this though.
Well, yes, because I stopped being paid for it. Which really isn't true, because I'm paid for using the scientific method most days, but it isn't in my job title, and most of the people I work with think that science is a bunch of facts.
However, I'm out of the loop of publish-or-perish, demo-or-die, wear-comfortable-clothes, engage-in-professional-pissing-contests, and live-a-life-of-genteel-poverty.
I agree with you about the philosophy, but I wanted to forestall the possibility of ticking off anybody who still had a faculty job. Also, there are certain things about the culture and anthropology of science that have receded from relevance to my life. One is the fact that scientists really like it when you point out flaws and errors, and business folks seem to hate it.
However, I'm out of the loop of publish-or-perish, demo-or-die, wear-comfortable-clothes, engage-in-professional-pissing-contests, and live-a-life-of-genteel-poverty.
I agree with you about the philosophy, but I wanted to forestall the possibility of ticking off anybody who still had a faculty job. Also, there are certain things about the culture and anthropology of science that have receded from relevance to my life. One is the fact that scientists really like it when you point out flaws and errors, and business folks seem to hate it.
A lot of the messages in this thread speak from personal experience with ISO 9000 and the experiences are bad. I've had my own. This kind of approach is stifling. Don't be fooled by the fact that it appears to work in your company, in its relatively early stages. (There's a message in this thread by a government employee who says his agency adopted ISO 9000, but now wants to dump it after encoutering high dollar and manpower costs.)
Doing a good job, which involves a lot of intangibles like creativity, a sense of accomplishment, being in control, is not about "experiments." That modern corporations are so hung up on such things is part of the reason why I, and I'm sure many others, got out of the corporate world. By the way, your own language is equivocal in this regard when you say "leave it high enough for some creativity." Think about that word "some." Why would any entity only want some creativity? Wouldn't they want as much as they can get?
You also use the magic qualifier "if done proplerly." Well, if you don't do it "properly," then I suppose you can spend huge resources hiring consultants to get it right? Capital may be freely available for your corporation, but for most it's darned hard to get and we want to spend it on our products, not on regs. Moreover, why is ISO 9000 so essential at this point in history? If you look at the economic history of the United States, you'll find that some of its biggest growth periods were during free-wheeling times with little regulation and little measuring and experiments. The most exciting and fecund time in computer history has been during the early days when things were wide open. Working in IT was pretty heady and you felt like you really contributed. Now, it's boring stuff with lots of routine paper work (e.g. helpdesk and maintenance tickets). Adding ISO 9000 to this burden is not going to make it more exciting.
Doing a good job, which involves a lot of intangibles like creativity, a sense of accomplishment, being in control, is not about "experiments." That modern corporations are so hung up on such things is part of the reason why I, and I'm sure many others, got out of the corporate world. By the way, your own language is equivocal in this regard when you say "leave it high enough for some creativity." Think about that word "some." Why would any entity only want some creativity? Wouldn't they want as much as they can get?
You also use the magic qualifier "if done proplerly." Well, if you don't do it "properly," then I suppose you can spend huge resources hiring consultants to get it right? Capital may be freely available for your corporation, but for most it's darned hard to get and we want to spend it on our products, not on regs. Moreover, why is ISO 9000 so essential at this point in history? If you look at the economic history of the United States, you'll find that some of its biggest growth periods were during free-wheeling times with little regulation and little measuring and experiments. The most exciting and fecund time in computer history has been during the early days when things were wide open. Working in IT was pretty heady and you felt like you really contributed. Now, it's boring stuff with lots of routine paper work (e.g. helpdesk and maintenance tickets). Adding ISO 9000 to this burden is not going to make it more exciting.
A lot of the messages in this thread speak from personal experience with ISO 9000 and the experiences are bad. I've had my own. This kind of approach is stifling. Don't be fooled by the fact that it appears to work in your company, in its relativelyearly stages. (There's a message in this thread by a government employee who says his agency adopted ISO 9000, but now wants to dump it after encoutering high dollar and manpower costs.)
Doing a good job, which involves a lot of intangibles likecreativity, a sense of accomplishment, being in control, is not about "experiments." That modern corporations are so hung up on such things is part of the reason why I, and I'm sure many others, got out of the corporate world. By the way, your own language is equivocal in this regard when you say "leave it high enough for some creativity." Think about that word "some." Why would any entity only want some creativity? Wouldn't they want as much as they can get?
You also use the magic qualifier "if done proplerly." Well, if you don't do it "properly," then I suppose you can spend huge resources hiring consultants to get it right? Capital may be freely available for your corporation, but for most it's darned hard to get and we want to spend it on our products, not on regs. Moreover, why is ISO 9000 so essential at this point in history? If you look at the economic history of the United States, you'll find that some of its biggest growth periods were during free-wheeling times with little regulation and little measuring and experiments. The most exciting and fecund time in computer history has been during the early days when things were wide open. Working in IT was pretty heady and you felt like you really contributed. Now, it's boring stuff with lots of routine paper work (e.g. helpdesk and maintenance tickets). Adding ISO 9000 to this burden is not going to make it more exciting.
Doing a good job, which involves a lot of intangibles likecreativity, a sense of accomplishment, being in control, is not about "experiments." That modern corporations are so hung up on such things is part of the reason why I, and I'm sure many others, got out of the corporate world. By the way, your own language is equivocal in this regard when you say "leave it high enough for some creativity." Think about that word "some." Why would any entity only want some creativity? Wouldn't they want as much as they can get?
You also use the magic qualifier "if done proplerly." Well, if you don't do it "properly," then I suppose you can spend huge resources hiring consultants to get it right? Capital may be freely available for your corporation, but for most it's darned hard to get and we want to spend it on our products, not on regs. Moreover, why is ISO 9000 so essential at this point in history? If you look at the economic history of the United States, you'll find that some of its biggest growth periods were during free-wheeling times with little regulation and little measuring and experiments. The most exciting and fecund time in computer history has been during the early days when things were wide open. Working in IT was pretty heady and you felt like you really contributed. Now, it's boring stuff with lots of routine paper work (e.g. helpdesk and maintenance tickets). Adding ISO 9000 to this burden is not going to make it more exciting.
Creative experimentation, whether it's in assembly lines or in software, is not precluded by any standard *in a development context*.
However, an intelligent manager does not place anything *into production* without careful consideration of its overall effects, which involves planning and documentation.
To do otherwise is little more than anarchy, which will quickly become unmanageable, unmaintainable, and eventually inconsistent and unprofitable.
The key is to know when/where "creative experimentation" applies vs when/where carefully considered/documented implementation should take place.
However, an intelligent manager does not place anything *into production* without careful consideration of its overall effects, which involves planning and documentation.
To do otherwise is little more than anarchy, which will quickly become unmanageable, unmaintainable, and eventually inconsistent and unprofitable.
The key is to know when/where "creative experimentation" applies vs when/where carefully considered/documented implementation should take place.
than chose anarchy. Get the FAQ here:
http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html
Anarchy, does not necessarily lead to "unmanageable, unmaintainable, and eventually inconsistent and unprofitable" situations. In fact, historically, it has been quite lucrative for some. As for "unmanageable, unmaintainable, and inconsistant", I guess you prefer eating the same thing over and over again too? Even in business, not changing will destroy you.
The trick in business, in my book, is to push the limits and stay in the barely manageable. A guy at Hallmark once called it: "Orbiting the Giant Hairball". At any rate, Anarchy isn't this thing which you describe.
http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html
Anarchy, does not necessarily lead to "unmanageable, unmaintainable, and eventually inconsistent and unprofitable" situations. In fact, historically, it has been quite lucrative for some. As for "unmanageable, unmaintainable, and inconsistant", I guess you prefer eating the same thing over and over again too? Even in business, not changing will destroy you.
The trick in business, in my book, is to push the limits and stay in the barely manageable. A guy at Hallmark once called it: "Orbiting the Giant Hairball". At any rate, Anarchy isn't this thing which you describe.
Somehow ISO9000 has been transmorgified into the only alternative to anarchy? Whew!, we live in heady times!
Standards are like vitamins: sure you need some, but too much can cause harm or, if not, be a waste of money. Nobody who is skeptical of ISO is saying that no standards should exist, rather that there is no clear need to implement one as comprehensive as ISO.
Prosperity, the ability to make money in the market place, are due to individual creativity, effort, etc. This is so evenin a corporate environment, though an understanding of this may be lost in today's corporate culture. The prosperity of any company depends more on the quality of people than on laying down regs or codifying procedure. That this approach has failed repeatedly when applied to running governments seems lost to most of ISO's advocates. But I understand that it's due to looking at issues narrowly instead of broadly. As someone who once worked in government and saw this coming down the pike I won't say it will never work. Rather, what you'll see is some initial success here and there -- like those who make the first dollar in a Ponzi scheme -- then as it becomes universal, collapse occurs because of ossification.
Standards are like vitamins: sure you need some, but too much can cause harm or, if not, be a waste of money. Nobody who is skeptical of ISO is saying that no standards should exist, rather that there is no clear need to implement one as comprehensive as ISO.
Prosperity, the ability to make money in the market place, are due to individual creativity, effort, etc. This is so evenin a corporate environment, though an understanding of this may be lost in today's corporate culture. The prosperity of any company depends more on the quality of people than on laying down regs or codifying procedure. That this approach has failed repeatedly when applied to running governments seems lost to most of ISO's advocates. But I understand that it's due to looking at issues narrowly instead of broadly. As someone who once worked in government and saw this coming down the pike I won't say it will never work. Rather, what you'll see is some initial success here and there -- like those who make the first dollar in a Ponzi scheme -- then as it becomes universal, collapse occurs because of ossification.
?Concepts, like individuals, have their histories and are just as incapable of withstanding the ravages of times as are individuals. But in and through all this they retain a kind of homesickness for the scenes of their childhood.?
-Kierkegaard from The Concept of Irony
Yep. We are still the clowns and the town is still burning. Gotta figure this "possible anarchy" mess out before we can see the fire....
You are right though. The standards themselves aren't magic, but they are used, usually mostly at their inception, by people who make them seem so.
Honk Honk, check out my clown shoes ;>
-Kierkegaard from The Concept of Irony
Yep. We are still the clowns and the town is still burning. Gotta figure this "possible anarchy" mess out before we can see the fire....
You are right though. The standards themselves aren't magic, but they are used, usually mostly at their inception, by people who make them seem so.
Honk Honk, check out my clown shoes ;>
When browsing over the article I got the feeling that the discussion is about the ISO 9000 as it was before ISO 9001:2000 came along.
Many of the discussed items do not conform with ISO 9001:2000.
Please remember that the use of standardization isnot to produce tons of unread paper rather than documenting the business processes in a way to avoid somebody new joining the company to srap averything and rebuild it as he or she can't figure out how it really works.
Many of the discussed items do not conform with ISO 9001:2000.
Please remember that the use of standardization isnot to produce tons of unread paper rather than documenting the business processes in a way to avoid somebody new joining the company to srap averything and rebuild it as he or she can't figure out how it really works.
The key to making standardization work is knowing what (and who) to standardize. Standards and procedures apply best to manual, hourly-wage workers. With professionals, who are paid to use professional discretion, you have to (1) be selective about what needs to be and can be standardized and (2) make sure you have buy-in. That's why one school of QA works from the ground up, facilitating the professionals' development of standards. This is the "classical psychoanalysis" of QA, and management isn't patient enough to wait till doomsday. It's easier and faster to tailor boilerplate standards in consultation with the professionals, so you aren't trying to control the wrong things. The key is to help the professionals understand that standardscan take care of the trivial decisions, leaving them free to make the important ones.
All ISO and QA programs are a crock. In the company where I work, the standards are only followed when there is an on site audit. Other than that, people do what they have to do to get the job done.
ISO-9000 is nothing more than well-organized method of gaining and keeping business processes under control. If a business has already achieved that end, ISO-9000 becomes only a validation that the process control exists. The bottom-line is that most (not all) businesses "DO NOT" have it under control and other businesses do not want to get burned by non-compliant companies inefficiencies. Yes, there are other methods of gaining that control. All are painful and take time and effort! But they are worth it! ISO-9000 is just the most touted method used now. It might not the best match for your particular company. But it is 1000% better than a company without process control. Most of the time a company that has it's sh_ _ together can get it?s certification and learn a great deal about itself, it's venders and their customers. Then they can improve where they need to (Not where they don't!) and pass those improvements on to their customers.
ISO 9001 has nothing to do with "Standards" which defined as a noun establishes a benchmark for comparison. Quality is measured by comparison to ?standards? and again, ISO 9000 has nothing to do with quality.
The simple explanation of ISO 9001 is?Say what you do?, and ?Do what you say?! ISO 9001 has everything to do with the process of accomplishment, whether manufacturing or adding a user to the network. The verbs ?Standardizing? and ?Standarization? have more to do with uniformity and THAT is core of ISO 9001.
For twenty years before I ever heard of ISO 9001, I worked and dealt with organizations that had Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). For those that think that this is a ?Communist? or ?Marxist? incursion in to capitalist industry, think again. This is simply another name for a common-sense practice that excellent managers have been using for years.
The simple explanation of ISO 9001 is?Say what you do?, and ?Do what you say?! ISO 9001 has everything to do with the process of accomplishment, whether manufacturing or adding a user to the network. The verbs ?Standardizing? and ?Standarization? have more to do with uniformity and THAT is core of ISO 9001.
For twenty years before I ever heard of ISO 9001, I worked and dealt with organizations that had Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). For those that think that this is a ?Communist? or ?Marxist? incursion in to capitalist industry, think again. This is simply another name for a common-sense practice that excellent managers have been using for years.
A previous company I worked for implemented Icehole 9000. This company was originally worried about shipping product out first, quality second. It's European and large Amarican customers (like AT&T) wanted ISO certification. The company spent a bunch of money and 6 month's time on precertification, then several more months on certification. This is what finally came about.
1) The company still made junk, but every process was documented.
2) Originally, job knowledge was just fine, even encouraged as an answer to auditors' questions about processes. Then, people became lawyers and used the procedures like evidence in court..."That's not in the procedure" became an excuse for bad work.
3) The company had a nice, new selling point; and a shiny sticker to go on products.
4) The company wasted lots of money.
5) Every two years they get inspected for ISO quality, and they pay for it.
ISO says that if you improve your process, the product (no matter what it is) will improve. Ha! The only process it improved was making documentation.
I think ISO is Europe's way of getting even with ugly Americans.
1) The company still made junk, but every process was documented.
2) Originally, job knowledge was just fine, even encouraged as an answer to auditors' questions about processes. Then, people became lawyers and used the procedures like evidence in court..."That's not in the procedure" became an excuse for bad work.
3) The company had a nice, new selling point; and a shiny sticker to go on products.
4) The company wasted lots of money.
5) Every two years they get inspected for ISO quality, and they pay for it.
ISO says that if you improve your process, the product (no matter what it is) will improve. Ha! The only process it improved was making documentation.
I think ISO is Europe's way of getting even with ugly Americans.
Standards need more thought than some companies give them. For example, my employer created a standard for usernames. The standard specified that the employee's first and last initals would be followed by his employee number and a letter, usually "A". This is a great system for creating a unique identifier for a computer to use. It's an extremely poor choice for identifiers to be used by people!
Our applications print the username of the person who took an order on the work order. The business uses those usernames for tracking quality control issues. When the first order came out of the printer with RG10090A instead of "GILBERTR" people screamed. It's not too tough to find Gilbert, R. in the phonebook but there's no way to find out who RG10090A is!!
We went back to the user's last name and first initial or initials to construct our usernames. The corporate standard was unworkable!
If the person who created that standard had done some analysis first he might have created a workable standard.
Our applications print the username of the person who took an order on the work order. The business uses those usernames for tracking quality control issues. When the first order came out of the printer with RG10090A instead of "GILBERTR" people screamed. It's not too tough to find Gilbert, R. in the phonebook but there's no way to find out who RG10090A is!!
We went back to the user's last name and first initial or initials to construct our usernames. The corporate standard was unworkable!
If the person who created that standard had done some analysis first he might have created a workable standard.
One problem with standards is that you have to apply them to nonstandard situations. In several of my positions I have had to deal with complaints, and problems. Many of these where the same and according to standards such as ISO9000 should be handled in the same way. Unfortunately, for the implementation of a "standard", I was dealing with people, who are not "standard".
Another problem that can arise is where you are operating to a higher "standard" than is required and in order to achievecertification you have to lower your operating standards. This has happened to me on at least two occasions.
Another problem that can arise is where you are operating to a higher "standard" than is required and in order to achievecertification you have to lower your operating standards. This has happened to me on at least two occasions.
Standardizing inefficiency does not make it efficient! I work for an non-profit hospital and we have to conform to JCAHO standards, which are a lot like ISO9000. What I have found is that people (who by their nature don't like change) cling to outdated and inefficient standards "because that's what the JCAHO manual says", rather than thinking of creative, more efficient ways of performing the same task. The only time anuthing gets reviewed and processes hurriedly changed is immediately prior toan on-site accreditation review. Is this any way to effectively run a business?
ISO is about being able to reliably repeat a process day in and day out. Even if it is being done in an inefficient way, it is consitantly repeatable.
As the article states though, by documenting you can attempt to see where your problems are and update your processes and proceedures to fix them. Just because you document it one way does not mean it cannot change.
ISO can be a good thing if handled properly. The problem is, in most places it is not handled or implemented properly.
As the article states though, by documenting you can attempt to see where your problems are and update your processes and proceedures to fix them. Just because you document it one way does not mean it cannot change.
ISO can be a good thing if handled properly. The problem is, in most places it is not handled or implemented properly.
It's not about job quality per se: the devil is in that per se. I can well imagine a time when IT people react much like Charlie Chaplin in the movie Modern Times, reliably repeating a process day in and day out. Documenting is not what it's cracked up to be and standards won't make it any better. You need good people with brains and imagination (imagine that!). They can beat the pants off any bureaucratic standard, any day, any time. Bring 'em on! But, maybe we're reaching an era when such qualities are a threat? Perhaps as the government gets more entrenched in business, business looks more like government. Hence ISO 9000, which are just a set of government style SOPs.
The main reason that people are not allowed to find other methods of doing things, even if they are more efficient is that to do so will probably lead to loss of certification and in many cases loss of Government grants.
more red tape, european style constipation, more eurpoean sytle bureaucracy...as if there isn't enough of this stuff floating around already costing millions by trying to adhere to usless paperwork regulations...
ISO9000 (1,2) was big here in Australia when it was first promoted. Small to Mid sized companies soon discovered that the time wasted implementing and maintaining the 'Standard' was far to excessive. A lot of businesses now stated 'Conforming to ISO900? standards' this appears to acceptable to most clients.
ISO 9000 is a European framework for companies to outline their standards and strategies but it is based on the Japanese culture of team involvement. This was first though up in the USA in the 1950's and implemented in Japan by Deming (he of the Deming prize) amongst other American academics and industrialists. So it is a bit of a pointless gesture blaming Europe for more red tape legislation based on the American quality measuring system of the 1950's.
ISO 9000 may have been based on American ideas but if you read the article, it's getting its biggest push from Europe and for good reason: Europeans, through their passion for central planning, love bureaucracy. The fact that it may have been thought of here doesn't matter. For that matter, the fact that Deming and Japan went ga-ga over such approaches doesn't impress me at all. I once worked for Tokai Bank and you can keep "the Japanese culture of team involvement."
There is a very old saying, something like: "Those who fail to know history... are bound to repeat its mistakes..."
I've seen various flavors of TQM with various name changes and in each case the effort has fallen apart in small and mid-size companies. In each case the "culture change" just couldn't be adopted at either the top or bottom of the organization structure.
Now the company I've recently joined is heading down the ISO road. Creativity, responsiveness, efficiency,empowerment...? Buzz words just don't cut it when you face real competition. It was an inability to sense and respond to customer desires that put the last company I worked for out of business. If you can't compete and you waste money besides, you're not going to be around very long, maybe that's why there aren't any responses to the $$ savings challenge elsewhere in this discussion.
I've seen various flavors of TQM with various name changes and in each case the effort has fallen apart in small and mid-size companies. In each case the "culture change" just couldn't be adopted at either the top or bottom of the organization structure.
Now the company I've recently joined is heading down the ISO road. Creativity, responsiveness, efficiency,empowerment...? Buzz words just don't cut it when you face real competition. It was an inability to sense and respond to customer desires that put the last company I worked for out of business. If you can't compete and you waste money besides, you're not going to be around very long, maybe that's why there aren't any responses to the $$ savings challenge elsewhere in this discussion.
Having recently changed careers to an IT field I see the lack of standards and lack of train in the computer field appalling. There needs to be more training and standards in the computer industry. That is the reason for the MCSE certificate program. Computer personal are infamous for lack of training others they just point to the problem and say figure it out. The cause is that most are over worked and because the technology is changing so rapidly. The problem is that many IT people keep valued information to them selves, this feeds their ego and makes them feel irreplaceable. However, this does not benefit the person or the company. They feel they can?t take time off or go on vacation, ?the company would not survive without them?? If youhave ever worked on a problem for hour then later come to a co-worker and explain the situation and they reply ?O that is because ?..was done here. Here is what you need to do.? You know what I am talking about, obviously not every thing can be standardized but there needs to be SOP Standard Operating Procedures in place.
Socialist crap, maybe, maybe not. The worst thing about all these standards comes after you realize that companies everywhere are cutting back on manpower and along come these people selling their expensive ideas. Who has to do all the work to put the standards in place? The same people who have 1 1/2 jobs or more to do now that their companies have cut the work force. Many things that were already a procedure in the past have been dropped due to the lack of manpower. So who is suppose to be responsible for doing all the extra work? Standards are great, if you have the manpower needed for all the paperwork that was done away with to alleviate the company from having all the employees they need to begin with.
I ask the same question about ISO 9000 that I ask about UML or anything else.
Is there any evidence that it works?
I see a lot of faith and nice arguments, but I don't see a lot of evidence that the stuff coming out of ISO 9000 organizations is better or even more reliable than the stuff that came out of organizations before ISO 9000.
Is there any evidence that it works?
I see a lot of faith and nice arguments, but I don't see a lot of evidence that the stuff coming out of ISO 9000 organizations is better or even more reliable than the stuff that came out of organizations before ISO 9000.
Wonder if any study has done, my experience tells me that it can be a rubber-stamp...
I believe no one will deny that ISO9000 can do good. Hard to find is the balance between too procedural to stifle the creativity or too loose that may sacrificeefficiency or lose clue on what has gone wrong.
I believe no one will deny that ISO9000 can do good. Hard to find is the balance between too procedural to stifle the creativity or too loose that may sacrificeefficiency or lose clue on what has gone wrong.
"No one will deny" is a faith-based phrase.
Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. History is chock full of things that nobody would deny that turned out later to be false. For example, during the Black Death nobody would deny that catscaused it. They rounded up as many cats as they could and burned them alive. However appealing this might be to a certain mindset, of course, the plague was spread by fleas on rats, and cat-burning contributed to its spread, because the cats couldhave controlled the rats.
That was a mythological belief. So are many of the beliefs of management, including the belief that control is good. I was trained, not as a manager, but as a scientist. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on ISO 9000. If I were part of that loop, and especially if I believed that control was good, I would want to do a study. Fifty measly grand for a graduate student would be a drop in the bucket.
Actually, it would be very easy to do a pilot study on the cheap. All we need is a list of ISO 9000 organizations, a list of non-ISO 9000 organizations, and samples of their products, ROI, customer satisfaction, or whatever metric is available.
I know people collect data like this. The question is, where is it?
Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. History is chock full of things that nobody would deny that turned out later to be false. For example, during the Black Death nobody would deny that catscaused it. They rounded up as many cats as they could and burned them alive. However appealing this might be to a certain mindset, of course, the plague was spread by fleas on rats, and cat-burning contributed to its spread, because the cats couldhave controlled the rats.
That was a mythological belief. So are many of the beliefs of management, including the belief that control is good. I was trained, not as a manager, but as a scientist. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on ISO 9000. If I were part of that loop, and especially if I believed that control was good, I would want to do a study. Fifty measly grand for a graduate student would be a drop in the bucket.
Actually, it would be very easy to do a pilot study on the cheap. All we need is a list of ISO 9000 organizations, a list of non-ISO 9000 organizations, and samples of their products, ROI, customer satisfaction, or whatever metric is available.
I know people collect data like this. The question is, where is it?
I couldn't agree with you more. If one were interested in doing studies then another good one would be, "The Big Rationale: The Great Mistakes of Companies and Government and the Wonderful Ideas that Led to Them." The title's a bit awkward but notso far from what I've seen on real studies.
Unfortunately, there is something out there called Management Science or Business Science or whatever. It is a product of universities and it justifies itself by a patina of science. As a real scientist, I know it's a lot of hogwash, but it has just enough jargon and bogus statistics to fool CEOs and CIOs, who themselves were tutored in universities and, if you will, innoculated to make them susceptible.
Your idea for a study measuring how well companies do under ISO 9000 is an interesting one but I doubt such a study could be meaninfully done. Yes, one could devise "metrics" but the measurer(s) probably would be highly biased in favor of ISO 9000, so they would find every thing absolutely rosey!
Unfortunately, there is something out there called Management Science or Business Science or whatever. It is a product of universities and it justifies itself by a patina of science. As a real scientist, I know it's a lot of hogwash, but it has just enough jargon and bogus statistics to fool CEOs and CIOs, who themselves were tutored in universities and, if you will, innoculated to make them susceptible.
Your idea for a study measuring how well companies do under ISO 9000 is an interesting one but I doubt such a study could be meaninfully done. Yes, one could devise "metrics" but the measurer(s) probably would be highly biased in favor of ISO 9000, so they would find every thing absolutely rosey!
If a study could not be meaningfully done, well, then that would tell us a lot, wouldn't it?
I'm not so pessimistic, though. The metrics would have to be based on what is delivered. Nothing that could be directly traced to the state of arousal of the manager.
But if you're right, then the apparent absence of such studies is even more interesting. A meta-study would be particularly safe. As you know, meta-studies produce one of two results: "I can see it with my eyes closed" and "I can't see it with my eyes closed." So, you can always make a nonthreatening (and therefore, of course, not really scientific but persuasive to some) meta-study out of anything.
As for "management science," well, you know the old saying that anythingwith the word "science" in the name isn't. This whole management culture, though, was started by a book called "Principles of Scientific Management" which was published in 1931 (unless it was 1913). So I expect the name to have stuck.
I'm not so pessimistic, though. The metrics would have to be based on what is delivered. Nothing that could be directly traced to the state of arousal of the manager.
But if you're right, then the apparent absence of such studies is even more interesting. A meta-study would be particularly safe. As you know, meta-studies produce one of two results: "I can see it with my eyes closed" and "I can't see it with my eyes closed." So, you can always make a nonthreatening (and therefore, of course, not really scientific but persuasive to some) meta-study out of anything.
As for "management science," well, you know the old saying that anythingwith the word "science" in the name isn't. This whole management culture, though, was started by a book called "Principles of Scientific Management" which was published in 1931 (unless it was 1913). So I expect the name to have stuck.
Ever sit in a meeting? "Well, our documentation shows this and this and this happened, and here's a pie chart showing the demographic...." and, well, at the end you usually have a lot of data and no position being taken and supported. The middle manager wants someone else to somehow make a magical "right" decision for them based on their work at collecting a bunch of data they chose by plagiarizing some magazine article. ISO 9000 appears to be a wonderful way to keep middle managers employed.
I believe I can see how ISO 9000 could be used to gather evidence that may support it, but, call me cynical, but I doubt it really will be used this way.
A good manager or employee can usually see what to do a lot cheaper and faster anyway and, without the expense of middle management documentation, can afford to make a few mistakes even.
Having stated this opinion, however, the best evidence I have seen for ISO 9000 working boils down to "you can't get a needed contract without it" which isa good utilitarian arguement for it's usage, whether or not there is any evidence that the program works.
I believe I can see how ISO 9000 could be used to gather evidence that may support it, but, call me cynical, but I doubt it really will be used this way.
A good manager or employee can usually see what to do a lot cheaper and faster anyway and, without the expense of middle management documentation, can afford to make a few mistakes even.
Having stated this opinion, however, the best evidence I have seen for ISO 9000 working boils down to "you can't get a needed contract without it" which isa good utilitarian arguement for it's usage, whether or not there is any evidence that the program works.
Yes, that's it. "A good manager or employee can usually see what to do a lot cheaper and faster..." I know what I have been saying in this thread is pretty abstract for some participants, but it really does boil down to that: local control versus some kind of centralized planning. Local proves itself better in almost every situation.
I wish I had the space in this thread to describe my experience with the Joint Uniform Lessons Learned System (JULLS), employed by the military. It was a great idea but it just doesn't work. The lessons were often written in the language that was used at the moment so that review became almost impossible. Solution? Standardize language, make everyone fill words from a standardized list in boilerplatewith appropriate blanks. That doesn't work because no one can come up with enough boilerplate and a sufficiently comprehensive list of words. In the end, a lot slips through the cracks and time is wasted. Besides, we tend to forget that human beings are doing all this wonderful documentation. What are their motives? Mostly to avoid looking bad. As someone else in this thread wisely pointed out, a lot of the time mistakes happen even from good people. They are honest, mostly random, mistakes why write them down in the annals of history?
I wish I had the space in this thread to describe my experience with the Joint Uniform Lessons Learned System (JULLS), employed by the military. It was a great idea but it just doesn't work. The lessons were often written in the language that was used at the moment so that review became almost impossible. Solution? Standardize language, make everyone fill words from a standardized list in boilerplatewith appropriate blanks. That doesn't work because no one can come up with enough boilerplate and a sufficiently comprehensive list of words. In the end, a lot slips through the cracks and time is wasted. Besides, we tend to forget that human beings are doing all this wonderful documentation. What are their motives? Mostly to avoid looking bad. As someone else in this thread wisely pointed out, a lot of the time mistakes happen even from good people. They are honest, mostly random, mistakes why write them down in the annals of history?
with 5 - 30 dedicated people and I'll whomp the performance of all competitors. The problem is that it always turns way bigger after initial success and then the challenge becomes how to keep it functioning well in it's new form.
It's interesting that you brought up language. My observation has been that in the process of developing a uniform language (in government, corporations, military -whatever) you see a distinct rise in power as this process starts. However, at some point you begin to experience collapse as people with more diversity or different languages produce ideas outside of the ability of the uniform language. My hypothesis is that in the early development of the uniform language, there is a lot of power drawn from the initial diversity that preceded it. This is lost over time, and the stagnation of the language directly correlates to inevitable collapse.
It's interesting that you brought up language. My observation has been that in the process of developing a uniform language (in government, corporations, military -whatever) you see a distinct rise in power as this process starts. However, at some point you begin to experience collapse as people with more diversity or different languages produce ideas outside of the ability of the uniform language. My hypothesis is that in the early development of the uniform language, there is a lot of power drawn from the initial diversity that preceded it. This is lost over time, and the stagnation of the language directly correlates to inevitable collapse.
Paper work - OK so I can't do my job of helping a user without following paper - fill in this - mail it to them - they take a copy and forward it to those folks - they take a copy and forward back to me - I make change - send paper - to them - they check and take a copy and forward to those folks -
Two months later the work that would of taken 2 hours is completed.... Euro-crap - BULL **** - Standards are alright but ISO 9000 is like the BS zero tolerance that is going on in the school systems. Common sense being removed and they must follow a paper outline - student does x - gone for y. (even the kid that pointed his finger at someone and said bang.. they said zero tolerance..DA)
When you remove the ablity for a single person to be impowered to act independly to complete or take action - then you slow everything down.
Let see who has the best econ - US - UK - USSR - China - Japan - Aust (they are close to US) - Hum - If I would do a little research - I would have to say the US - independent thinking and action, which doesn't follow ISO-900X-@*(& standards -
They can keep that ISO 9000-BS in Euro where it belongs ... Hey you want to sell me product - guess what pal - you meet my demands - not the other way around.
If a company has intelligent management they would relize that the ISO 9000-BS could cost millions a year in implementation effort and maintenance, not to say that the company will slow down to a crawl, have to hire more workforce cost of doingbusiness now goes up - and what will they gain by partnering with Euro-Company X...
May be someone like the Gartners and the Meta's of the world should do a research project on how effective - an - ISO 9000 implementation is. I think the resultswould suprise those Faithful of ISO 9000 - just like socialist, communist - it just doesn't work...
Two months later the work that would of taken 2 hours is completed.... Euro-crap - BULL **** - Standards are alright but ISO 9000 is like the BS zero tolerance that is going on in the school systems. Common sense being removed and they must follow a paper outline - student does x - gone for y. (even the kid that pointed his finger at someone and said bang.. they said zero tolerance..DA)
When you remove the ablity for a single person to be impowered to act independly to complete or take action - then you slow everything down.
Let see who has the best econ - US - UK - USSR - China - Japan - Aust (they are close to US) - Hum - If I would do a little research - I would have to say the US - independent thinking and action, which doesn't follow ISO-900X-@*(& standards -
They can keep that ISO 9000-BS in Euro where it belongs ... Hey you want to sell me product - guess what pal - you meet my demands - not the other way around.
If a company has intelligent management they would relize that the ISO 9000-BS could cost millions a year in implementation effort and maintenance, not to say that the company will slow down to a crawl, have to hire more workforce cost of doingbusiness now goes up - and what will they gain by partnering with Euro-Company X...
May be someone like the Gartners and the Meta's of the world should do a research project on how effective - an - ISO 9000 implementation is. I think the resultswould suprise those Faithful of ISO 9000 - just like socialist, communist - it just doesn't work...
Any system is as easy or as hard to administer as you make it.
There's no need for tons of paper! Thats what computers are for, honest it's easy there's no need to get tied down.
The point of using any standard is to improve the control of your systems thereby improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of your whole organisation. It works if you think of it as an opportunity and not as a chore.
There's no need for tons of paper! Thats what computers are for, honest it's easy there's no need to get tied down.
The point of using any standard is to improve the control of your systems thereby improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of your whole organisation. It works if you think of it as an opportunity and not as a chore.
Most, if not all, auditors I know require all details to be on paper. I recently found out that several companies i have worked for discovered that in order to complete an audit all the computer records where transferred to paper as the Auditor was apparently incapable of following the trail useing computer records.
A friend of mine who is still involved with youth and community work uses his computer to record activities and reports. The grant giving bodies insist on these being transferredto paper before submiting to them for audit.
I have yet to come across any organisation that relies exclusively on computer records.
A friend of mine who is still involved with youth and community work uses his computer to record activities and reports. The grant giving bodies insist on these being transferredto paper before submiting to them for audit.
I have yet to come across any organisation that relies exclusively on computer records.
Your description is right on. I have actually been through the very mindless grind you described when I worked for the government. It not only slows things down but it's great cover for outright idiots: it allows them to keep working when they ought to be fired. Incompetent people love to hide behind procedure. For that matter, so do absolutely wicked people.
One problem that those of us who believe as we do will have is the fact that many IT departments are staffed by the young and inexperienced. They are easily seduced by Great Lies.
One problem that those of us who believe as we do will have is the fact that many IT departments are staffed by the young and inexperienced. They are easily seduced by Great Lies.
Hey my name is tony.
I got say iso9000 has made it alot easier for me to talk with the family about events in my area.
I fill out 10 sheets of paper and and get someone capped. it preety cool.
Then when the fed's come we take all the paper and burn, just like the standard. that way the feds only have to worry about restoring against our standard burnen.
preety cool. 10 sheets for one guy
tony S.
I got say iso9000 has made it alot easier for me to talk with the family about events in my area.
I fill out 10 sheets of paper and and get someone capped. it preety cool.
Then when the fed's come we take all the paper and burn, just like the standard. that way the feds only have to worry about restoring against our standard burnen.
preety cool. 10 sheets for one guy
tony S.
The last company I worked for was trying to become ISO9000 certified The problem was the enormous amount of paperwork. Maybe it was the companies fault there was so much paper .I do not know. I know that at first everything was really easy, really great then problems with materials started happening. First the wrong parts came in under a number for something else. And the proceedure did not let an intelligent person check the parts instead it owuld get out to the line and then the line would ask engineering to revise something that should have been fixed three revisions ago. So people started having to sign in on what material they got, what engineering change orders they got, and that slowed it down alot. Then we started to notice we werelosing 36000 a month to paperwork on non quality parts and instead of letting people fix it on the spot we started to have enginners inspect each machine and quality inspect each machine as it went out the door. New holes were identified but not fast enough for a company that is 500 employees strong. In the end over 6 rounds of layoffs reduced the company to around 120 employees. They are still losing money to paper work, but they do it alot quicker. Thanks ISO900X!!!!
You've hit the nail on the head. People forget that bad ideas which sound great often actually are in the beginning. It takes time for the badness to gestate, so to speak. HMOs for example were great and hailed as the solution to health care costs. Fifteen years ago they were but that was because they were new and in competition for customers. Now they've become entrenched and look at all the gripes about them. The same holds with almost any government program you can think of.
My organization, a government contractor, got our ISO 9001 certification last summer. Our contracting organization was certified the previous year so we had some idea of what to expect. Still there were some items we learned.
1) ISO 9000 was developed by auditors. There fore, no one fails. You only "pass" or "pass conditionally." Auditors won't withdraw your certificate if they can help it or you won't invite them back.
2) Our process documents are on the local network and can changewithout notice. So we never keep written copies. This is great at audit time, but not much help during the rest of the year.
3) Loosely define creative processes. The auditor knows nothing about your business. If you can point to an item in your process and say, "I'm here," he's not going to question it.
4) Keep a checklist in front of your project file. It will make you look organized. Auditors love them.
5) Process documents are not standards. If your industry has standards and you reference them, make sure you keep an updated copy somewhere.
6) ISO 9000 certification requires internal self-audits and document reviews along with formal audits.
This costs. Now that we have gotten our certification, the government is considering dropping the requirement because of the costs.
1) ISO 9000 was developed by auditors. There fore, no one fails. You only "pass" or "pass conditionally." Auditors won't withdraw your certificate if they can help it or you won't invite them back.
2) Our process documents are on the local network and can changewithout notice. So we never keep written copies. This is great at audit time, but not much help during the rest of the year.
3) Loosely define creative processes. The auditor knows nothing about your business. If you can point to an item in your process and say, "I'm here," he's not going to question it.
4) Keep a checklist in front of your project file. It will make you look organized. Auditors love them.
5) Process documents are not standards. If your industry has standards and you reference them, make sure you keep an updated copy somewhere.
6) ISO 9000 certification requires internal self-audits and document reviews along with formal audits.
This costs. Now that we have gotten our certification, the government is considering dropping the requirement because of the costs.
ISO has less to do with quality and
everything to do with auditors collecting
huge fees.
Your company's handbook is written by
your company and does not require
anything to change, only to be
documented.
Purchasing people think ISO guarantees
quality and that by using suppliers that
are ISO, they are guaranteed to be
heroes.
The fact is, it only adds to the cost of
whatever it is you are buying. That extra
$10k-$20k or more every year gets
passed on as a cost of doingbusiness.
All ISO guarantees is more gigo with
paperwork to back it up.
everything to do with auditors collecting
huge fees.
Your company's handbook is written by
your company and does not require
anything to change, only to be
documented.
Purchasing people think ISO guarantees
quality and that by using suppliers that
are ISO, they are guaranteed to be
heroes.
The fact is, it only adds to the cost of
whatever it is you are buying. That extra
$10k-$20k or more every year gets
passed on as a cost of doingbusiness.
All ISO guarantees is more gigo with
paperwork to back it up.
I am a network admin for a small business (25 employees) that was working toward ISO certification before I came on-board and is still working toward it 10 months later. I have been dubious about this cert. all along. After reading this discussionI am even more sure that it is a waste of time. Our developers and tech support spend inordinate amounts of time trading pieces of paper back and forth trying to nail down procedures that should be just good work habits. The only area where this has affected me is in the handling of confidential customer info on the network. My response to the internal audit on my procedure for this was:
1. Identify the customer data.
2. Delete the data or move it to secure folders.
QED. But to lockdown this obviously byzantine process I have to trade picayune pieces of paper with the auditor-- and God forbid I should forget to pass it back in a timely fashion!!
I'm waiting for someone to ask me to document the procedure to follow for a badNIC. I'll tell them to--
1. Identify the bad NIC
2. Replace the bad NIC
Imposing a bureaucratic structure on top of this is more than a waste of time-- it allows people with little other justification for their exalted positions in an organization to feel useful.
Codifying procedures cannot take the place of good work habits, creative problem-solving and experience.
1. Identify the customer data.
2. Delete the data or move it to secure folders.
QED. But to lockdown this obviously byzantine process I have to trade picayune pieces of paper with the auditor-- and God forbid I should forget to pass it back in a timely fashion!!
I'm waiting for someone to ask me to document the procedure to follow for a badNIC. I'll tell them to--
1. Identify the bad NIC
2. Replace the bad NIC
Imposing a bureaucratic structure on top of this is more than a waste of time-- it allows people with little other justification for their exalted positions in an organization to feel useful.
Codifying procedures cannot take the place of good work habits, creative problem-solving and experience.
I for one - don't belive that ISO-900X-BS would do anything for my company except slow down the productivity of my employees. (As I said in the other post - but I was thinking)
I challenge - The Faithful followers and ISO-Preachers to "POST someevidence" -
The challenge - Show that my investment of (Lets say for around) $250,000 US investment, gets a return in 3 to 5 years (remember to include in 1 to 5 years maintenance costs).
Show some Numbers - Show me proof - If you can prove it - I will follow..
SHOW ME THE MEAT - YOU SAY ITS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED WHITE BREAD - SO IF THATS TRUE - WHERE'S YOUR PROOF - THERE HAS TO BE NUMBERS - IF ITS THAT GREAT - THERE HAS TO BE EVIDENCE - THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING..
OR IS IT VAPORWARE - HYPE - AUDITOR JARGON -
I challenge - The Faithful followers and ISO-Preachers to "POST someevidence" -
The challenge - Show that my investment of (Lets say for around) $250,000 US investment, gets a return in 3 to 5 years (remember to include in 1 to 5 years maintenance costs).
Show some Numbers - Show me proof - If you can prove it - I will follow..
SHOW ME THE MEAT - YOU SAY ITS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED WHITE BREAD - SO IF THATS TRUE - WHERE'S YOUR PROOF - THERE HAS TO BE NUMBERS - IF ITS THAT GREAT - THERE HAS TO BE EVIDENCE - THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING..
OR IS IT VAPORWARE - HYPE - AUDITOR JARGON -
I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes wonder about auditors. When they require things like page totals on three inch thick printouts you get more than a little frustrated.
There are times when I think that auditors have an annual meeting to decide what type of trivia to pursue each year. This trivia becomes the 'point of concern' in the event that the auditors don't find anything wrong in the normal accounting side of things.
Does anybody else feel the same way?
There are times when I think that auditors have an annual meeting to decide what type of trivia to pursue each year. This trivia becomes the 'point of concern' in the event that the auditors don't find anything wrong in the normal accounting side of things.
Does anybody else feel the same way?
Auditors are paid by your company to find discrepancies. When they visit, they have two concerns: pass your company and show they are earning their fee. They generally have little experience with your technology and not much time. You should be polite and answer each question promptly, before they can think up a better one.
Auditors - "Those that come in and shoot the wounded after the battle!" -
I haven't met an auditor worth their weight in sand - The look around a project they have no clue what it is doing - and make comments about everything. Of course management thinks they are gods and nails you to the cross.
Dam if they are that good - why don't they join at the beginning of a project? I've asked and they decline everytime..
Auditors - "Those that come in after the battle and shoot the wounded!"
PS - HEY AUDITORS - I SEE NONE OF YOU HAVE PICKED UP ON THE CHALLENGE! - WHATS WRONG NO EVIDENCE - ISO-9000 IS LOOKING LIKE JUST AUDITOR JARGON and BS HYPE TO ME....NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE THE CHALLENGE - I GUESS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OUT THERE THAT IT WORKS
I haven't met an auditor worth their weight in sand - The look around a project they have no clue what it is doing - and make comments about everything. Of course management thinks they are gods and nails you to the cross.
Dam if they are that good - why don't they join at the beginning of a project? I've asked and they decline everytime..
Auditors - "Those that come in after the battle and shoot the wounded!"
PS - HEY AUDITORS - I SEE NONE OF YOU HAVE PICKED UP ON THE CHALLENGE! - WHATS WRONG NO EVIDENCE - ISO-9000 IS LOOKING LIKE JUST AUDITOR JARGON and BS HYPE TO ME....NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE THE CHALLENGE - I GUESS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OUT THERE THAT IT WORKS
I do my best to be polite to everybody I deal with so auditors get what they need as promptly and nicely as possible. And I also appreciate their value as far as finding discrepancies.
I would request two things of auditors though. The first isthat they provide a little bit of praise for what we're doing right. The second is that they warn us of what their standards are several months before they arrive. It is aggravating being blindsided by the 'latest-and-greatest' auditorial requirement.
I would request two things of auditors though. The first isthat they provide a little bit of praise for what we're doing right. The second is that they warn us of what their standards are several months before they arrive. It is aggravating being blindsided by the 'latest-and-greatest' auditorial requirement.
ISO publishes the standards and you should have a copy well before the official audit. In fact, my organization did a self-audit early on, and our auditor did an informal site visit a month before he did it for real.
The original ISO 9001 standard had some twenty elements and your ISO coordinator should know which documents satisfy each element. If you didn't have a particular function, you didn't have to satisfy the elements associated with that function. If the auditor asked for something that's not required by your operation, you need only reply, "We do not perform that function here."
Last year ISO came out with an expanded, and more expensive, standard. For example, the new standard requires your organization to have a training program. That was not required in the old.
The original ISO 9001 standard had some twenty elements and your ISO coordinator should know which documents satisfy each element. If you didn't have a particular function, you didn't have to satisfy the elements associated with that function. If the auditor asked for something that's not required by your operation, you need only reply, "We do not perform that function here."
Last year ISO came out with an expanded, and more expensive, standard. For example, the new standard requires your organization to have a training program. That was not required in the old.
Thanks for the information about auditors. I'll be considering what you said about them in years to come.
Judging by your e-mail address, I'm assuming that you work for NASA. In your environment auditors and proper standards play an extremely important role.
I've worked the private sector side of things in areas that don't require the same high standards. I also tended to be buffered from the auditors so I just had to deal with lower level questions and specific demands. (Though some of those demands made me want to have the auditors audited for competence.)
It is possible that the auditors sent standards to the organization before the audit. But said standards never made it to my area in advance.
Of course there is a question about how long the standards have been around. ISO 9000 and variations haven't been around forever.
Judging by your e-mail address, I'm assuming that you work for NASA. In your environment auditors and proper standards play an extremely important role.
I've worked the private sector side of things in areas that don't require the same high standards. I also tended to be buffered from the auditors so I just had to deal with lower level questions and specific demands. (Though some of those demands made me want to have the auditors audited for competence.)
It is possible that the auditors sent standards to the organization before the audit. But said standards never made it to my area in advance.
Of course there is a question about how long the standards have been around. ISO 9000 and variations haven't been around forever.
Joel, The mis-information and un-truths (read 'lies') that you and those other nay-sayers perpetuate is exactly the problem. ISO does not require reams of paperwork. It does not require a 'training program'. It does not require that every bit of informatioin be documented and that it be in paper form. If that is your experience, I feel sorry for you - I'm sure your company couldn't manage its way through an economic slump, either. Your ignorance (and others) clearly indicate that you haven't even read 'the Standard'. What astounds me is the willingness of you people to go on and on and on... re-enforcing your ignorance in the minds of others. It's become obvious you people just like to bitch. I am exiting this string, never to return. Good riddance!
I don't know about you but what I read on the ISO-9000-BS sites - it is a mountain of paper work. Now you may think that 3 levels of documentation per procedure is lite weight - but in my eyes - (http://www.isogroup.simplenet.com/) -
Level 1 - then you do a level II - then you do a level III document. To do this correctly you need to have in place a DMS to control all those docuements - or one hell of a staff.
I may be a NA-Sayer - but - from what I read I don't see any benefits to it... Zip - Zero - A waste of effort - Money and Corporate Resources... NAAAAA - SAAAAYYYYY to ISO-Euro-9000-BS
Level 1 - then you do a level II - then you do a level III document. To do this correctly you need to have in place a DMS to control all those docuements - or one hell of a staff.
I may be a NA-Sayer - but - from what I read I don't see any benefits to it... Zip - Zero - A waste of effort - Money and Corporate Resources... NAAAAA - SAAAAYYYYY to ISO-Euro-9000-BS
There must be with each of our spheres of acquaintance those who have undergone an IRS audit. Ask them about their experience with third-party auditors and the frustration of trying to make them understand a situation in which most of the variables, the important factors, cannot be presented. The problem with auditing in general is that it's basically second-guessing or arm-chair quarterbacking. True, some kinds of auditing are necessary but the proliferation of auditors examining all kinds of human activity would quickly make life unbearable.
There have been several interesting books on Bureaucracy which is closly related to auditing since an important feature of bureaucracies is accountability which leads to auditing. One book is James Q. Wilson's "Bureaucracy" and another is by Ludwig von Mises, also entitled "Bureaucracy." For a fictional account, read any of Kafka's principal works. Seriously, these are a must-read for anyone who really wants to understand the source of the problem with standards like ISO 9000.
The problem with this approach is that it believes that the issue of efficiency and creativity depends, not on human personalities and talents (i.e. individuals), but on systemic structures. In other words, it is a collectivist approach as opposed to an individualist approach. That explains why some in this thread dismiss it as socialist dung. (They're right of course!)
There have been several interesting books on Bureaucracy which is closly related to auditing since an important feature of bureaucracies is accountability which leads to auditing. One book is James Q. Wilson's "Bureaucracy" and another is by Ludwig von Mises, also entitled "Bureaucracy." For a fictional account, read any of Kafka's principal works. Seriously, these are a must-read for anyone who really wants to understand the source of the problem with standards like ISO 9000.
The problem with this approach is that it believes that the issue of efficiency and creativity depends, not on human personalities and talents (i.e. individuals), but on systemic structures. In other words, it is a collectivist approach as opposed to an individualist approach. That explains why some in this thread dismiss it as socialist dung. (They're right of course!)
On the first ISO-9000 CIO article I placed a challegen to anyone to prove that a simple investment of $250,000 would buy value and saving to my corporation. A simple ROI - no answers.
I still see no value to it... I believe that buy empowering my staff to act independly with individual approval levels, problems can be handled quickly, and corrective actions don't take months.
So I lay that Challegen out again - So Me -
The ROI - on 5 years - investment of $250,000 with a maintenance cost of $75,000 (1 employee)... What is my return.. what is my Value Matrix - I want something for my money.. Hot Wind just isn't enough..
If you can provide it I will give you 3,000 of my points...
I still see no value to it... I believe that buy empowering my staff to act independly with individual approval levels, problems can be handled quickly, and corrective actions don't take months.
So I lay that Challegen out again - So Me -
The ROI - on 5 years - investment of $250,000 with a maintenance cost of $75,000 (1 employee)... What is my return.. what is my Value Matrix - I want something for my money.. Hot Wind just isn't enough..
If you can provide it I will give you 3,000 of my points...
But here is the only answer to your challenge I know of...
ROI needs one more factor added, IMO, to demonstrate. This is simply the net profit of the contract that you win from a party requiring ISO 9000.
If the profit meets your criteria after figuring ISO 9000 into the expense, and ISO 9000 is definately required in the contract, then ISO 9000 is a worthwhile investment and should figure into your value matrix positively. You want something for your money? How about additional money inthis case, always a good ROI.
An additional benefit may be that you can feel good about giving some middle manager types a job.
ROI needs one more factor added, IMO, to demonstrate. This is simply the net profit of the contract that you win from a party requiring ISO 9000.
If the profit meets your criteria after figuring ISO 9000 into the expense, and ISO 9000 is definately required in the contract, then ISO 9000 is a worthwhile investment and should figure into your value matrix positively. You want something for your money? How about additional money inthis case, always a good ROI.
An additional benefit may be that you can feel good about giving some middle manager types a job.
Corrective Action is such a silly phrase. I have seen time and again where a company demands Corrective Action and the answer is given, in writing, within the allowed time, but the real answer is not anywhere near the answer that was written. Why, because the answer was really something due to "human error", not malicious or thoughtless. In all likelyhood the person that made the error did 99.9% of their job just fine on the same day that error was made. People remain human everywhere and nothing beats good old experience as far as fixing "human error". All the corrective actions in the world cannot substitute. This is just another of many things put into the jobs of people already taxed for time.
Corrective action without preventing the same thing from occuring again is not an answer at all - just something to placate the customer (internal or external).
Corrective action is exactly that - "a silly phrase", unless you go one step further.How about putting some real thought into it, and coming up with a way to keep human error from causing the problem?
The only other answer I can see is to hand every new employee 10 years of experience as they walk in the door . . .
Corrective action is exactly that - "a silly phrase", unless you go one step further.How about putting some real thought into it, and coming up with a way to keep human error from causing the problem?
The only other answer I can see is to hand every new employee 10 years of experience as they walk in the door . . .
but I have to say that ISO 9000 has provided a great benefit, monetary and otherwise, to the company I work for.
My answer to the challenge: Our company (a manufacturing company that has one programmer on staff - me, who is also ISO Champion, and IS team leader) has been registered to ISO 9002 for three+ years. We did it for less than $250K, and sorry to say, I don't make $75K a year for my salary - I only wish I did.
The way to measure results is by looking at the bottom line: returns from our customers are down by nearly half, and our ability to respond to customers that do have problems with our product is improved. We are doing business with customers who wouldn't even consider us as a supplier five years ago. We have recently been throught the worst downturn in the history of the company, and we're still making a profit, albeit a small one. Is that worth our original investment? According to our president, it is, and more. And those are just the "bottom line" benfits.
The concept of hiring one person come in to attain and maitain ISO is a sure ticket to disaster, and perhaps that concept is the one that generates all this negative energy I saw as I read through the discussions (sorry, I didn't read all of them - Ido have three jobs to do). One person, or a consultant, can get the ISO registration for you, but they won't get you the benfits. It has to be a company-wide endeavor, and it is about changing attitudes and thought processes, not about generating paperwork.
ISO 9000 is a model for a quality system. The only way I know to attain quality is through consistent, good work. If you're doing something right, take a few minutes to write it down, so the next person can do it right, as well. Select a registrar that's interested in helping you get results, choose someone in your company that's interested in improving quality to lead the effort, and the benefits are there.
My answer to the challenge: Our company (a manufacturing company that has one programmer on staff - me, who is also ISO Champion, and IS team leader) has been registered to ISO 9002 for three+ years. We did it for less than $250K, and sorry to say, I don't make $75K a year for my salary - I only wish I did.
The way to measure results is by looking at the bottom line: returns from our customers are down by nearly half, and our ability to respond to customers that do have problems with our product is improved. We are doing business with customers who wouldn't even consider us as a supplier five years ago. We have recently been throught the worst downturn in the history of the company, and we're still making a profit, albeit a small one. Is that worth our original investment? According to our president, it is, and more. And those are just the "bottom line" benfits.
The concept of hiring one person come in to attain and maitain ISO is a sure ticket to disaster, and perhaps that concept is the one that generates all this negative energy I saw as I read through the discussions (sorry, I didn't read all of them - Ido have three jobs to do). One person, or a consultant, can get the ISO registration for you, but they won't get you the benfits. It has to be a company-wide endeavor, and it is about changing attitudes and thought processes, not about generating paperwork.
ISO 9000 is a model for a quality system. The only way I know to attain quality is through consistent, good work. If you're doing something right, take a few minutes to write it down, so the next person can do it right, as well. Select a registrar that's interested in helping you get results, choose someone in your company that's interested in improving quality to lead the effort, and the benefits are there.
OK, there's a number: support calls down by half. It's still an anecdote and there's no control, but at least it's better than anything that has been presented so far.
Now, can anyone do better?
Now, can anyone do better?
If it was ISO 9000 itself or the "changing attitudes and thought processes" that brought these results. Sounds good though, whatever you are doing -keep it up
Deming taught us that systems determine the success of our processes.
By system we are talking about culture and everything else that determines outcomes. ISO 9001 provides criteria for developing a process-based management system that is right for your company to satisfy its customers and fulfill its objectives.
By saying process, we are also saying resources and controls designed to enable your work to add value to inputs. Resources are: facilities, equipment, talents, skills, knowledge. Controls are: methods, procedurs, care and coordination. Inputs are: materials and information.
As CIO, you should be at the center of this system.
Beware of documenting another system to get certified; that is a waste. Instead, capture the system that runs your company and ensure that it meets the requirements of the company and of the standard.
Nothing in the standard is a waste if you do it for the right reasons.
Good luck,
John Broomfield
www.aworldofquality.com/diy
By system we are talking about culture and everything else that determines outcomes. ISO 9001 provides criteria for developing a process-based management system that is right for your company to satisfy its customers and fulfill its objectives.
By saying process, we are also saying resources and controls designed to enable your work to add value to inputs. Resources are: facilities, equipment, talents, skills, knowledge. Controls are: methods, procedurs, care and coordination. Inputs are: materials and information.
As CIO, you should be at the center of this system.
Beware of documenting another system to get certified; that is a waste. Instead, capture the system that runs your company and ensure that it meets the requirements of the company and of the standard.
Nothing in the standard is a waste if you do it for the right reasons.
Good luck,
John Broomfield
www.aworldofquality.com/diy
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
