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!
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
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
