OT? ISO9000 -- The Big Picture

Hi all.

I am a bit curious about the ISO9000 system. Having
been involved with various companies and organizations
inside and outside the ISO9000 system over the past 20
years, I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:

- To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
  are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
  them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary
- To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
  full picture of what goes on in their company
- To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
  do their job.

Now, those are my very personal views. I would like to
see some book "ISO9000 for engineers" or something like
that, to give the broader picture of exactly what ISO9000
is all about.

Rune

"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:1188707793.231347.18970@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all.
>
> I am a bit curious about the ISO9000 system. Having
> been involved with various companies and organizations
> inside and outside the ISO9000 system over the past 20
> years, I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
> correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:

"If used and utilized correctly" is the keyword. Unfortunately, quite often
the ISO9000 degenerates to a double book keeping (one set of docs is for
real, the other set is for ISO inspector) or to a tremendous bureaucracy.

> - To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
>   are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
>   them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary

A client does not want to do any extra work. Especially upfront the actual
project.

> - To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
>   full picture of what goes on in their company

Do they care?

> - To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
>   do their job.

This is not their business.

> Now, those are my very personal views. I would like to
> see some book "ISO9000 for engineers" or something like
> that, to give the broader picture of exactly what ISO9000
> is all about.

Practically, this is just another meaningless tag (fairly expensive) which
is supposed to make your product more sellable.

VLV

On 2 Sep, 06:59, "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>
> news:1188707793.231347.18970@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi all.
>
> > I am a bit curious about the ISO9000 system. Having
> > been involved with various companies and organizations
> > inside and outside the ISO9000 system over the past 20
> > years, I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
> > correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:
>
> "If used and utilized correctly" is the keyword. Unfortunately, quite often
> the ISO9000 degenerates to a double book keeping (one set of docs is for
> real, the other set is for ISO inspector) or to a tremendous bureaucracy.

That's how it goes the first few years. Once people
understand the purpose of ISO 9000, that changes.

> > - To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
> >   are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
> >   them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary
>
> A client does not want to do any extra work. Especially upfront the actual
> project.

No, but he wants it as a very efficient lever against the
contractor *during* the project, when he realizes why the
cheapest contractor underbid everybody else.

> > - To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
> >   full picture of what goes on in their company
>
> Do they care?

If the client throws the (ISO) book at them,
they have to.

> > - To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
> >   do their job.
>
> This is not their business.

Again, it's a lever to be used if handled with care.
I've done that a couple of times; once the term
"according to ISO 9000" appears, other people
than usual pay attention and other responses
are recieved. Not necessarily "more useful"
responses, but "other" responses nevertheless...

> > Now, those are my very personal views. I would like to
> > see some book "ISO9000 for engineers" or something like
> > that, to give the broader picture of exactly what ISO9000
> > is all about.
>
> Practically, this is just another meaningless tag (fairly expensive) which
> is supposed to make your product more sellable.

Maybe "expensive". Maybe "a selling point". By no
means "meaningless". It's like that last pawn left on
the chessboard. Inocuous, by the looks of it, but
potentially a Decider of the Game if handled with care.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 2 Sep, 06:59, "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188707793.231347.18970@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Hi all.
>>> I am a bit curious about the ISO9000 system. Having
>>> been involved with various companies and organizations
>>> inside and outside the ISO9000 system over the past 20
>>> years, I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
>>> correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:
>> "If used and utilized correctly" is the keyword. Unfortunately, quite often
>> the ISO9000 degenerates to a double book keeping (one set of docs is for
>> real, the other set is for ISO inspector) or to a tremendous bureaucracy.
> 
> That's how it goes the first few years. Once people
> understand the purpose of ISO 9000, that changes.
> 
>>> - To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
>>>   are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
>>>   them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary
>> A client does not want to do any extra work. Especially upfront the actual
>> project.
> 
> No, but he wants it as a very efficient lever against the
> contractor *during* the project, when he realizes why the
> cheapest contractor underbid everybody else.
> 
>>> - To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
>>>   full picture of what goes on in their company
>> Do they care?
> 
> If the client throws the (ISO) book at them,
> they have to.
> 
>>> - To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
>>>   do their job.
>> This is not their business.
> 
> Again, it's a lever to be used if handled with care.
> I've done that a couple of times; once the term
> "according to ISO 9000" appears, other people
> than usual pay attention and other responses
> are recieved. Not necessarily "more useful"
> responses, but "other" responses nevertheless...
> 
>>> Now, those are my very personal views. I would like to
>>> see some book "ISO9000 for engineers" or something like
>>> that, to give the broader picture of exactly what ISO9000
>>> is all about.
>> Practically, this is just another meaningless tag (fairly expensive) which
>> is supposed to make your product more sellable.
> 
> Maybe "expensive". Maybe "a selling point". By no
> means "meaningless". It's like that last pawn left on
> the chessboard. Inocuous, by the looks of it, but
> potentially a Decider of the Game if handled with care.
> 
> Rune

The drive for ISO 9000 compliance begins and ends as follows:

     +-----------+
     |        /  |
     |       /   |
     |      /    |
     |  \  /     |
     |   \/      |
     +-----------+

Steve

Rune Allnor wrote:
> I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
> correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:
>
> - To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
>   are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
>   them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary
> - To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
>   full picture of what goes on in their company
> - To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
>   do their job.


I worked in a ISO9000-certified company for many years and have very 
mixed feelings about the true usefullness of ISO9000 from a client's 
perspective.

ISO900 forces you to think about your production proces(ses) and 
specify how you make your product(s), in a nutshell: Say what you'll 
do, and then do exactly what you've said. This is obviously a Good 
Thing.

In a real life situation however, a company has *total* freedom as to 
what items/proces flows/procedures/etc... it will (or will NOT) put 
into its ISO9000 specification files.

Consider two ISO9000-companies producing olive oil.

-Company A claims it will guarantee the delivered volume of oil to be 
within 0.25% of the volume stated on the bottle.

-Company B claims the delivered oil will have an acid content lower 
then 0.1 %.

This is an oversimplified example of course, but the point is: there is 
no such thing as a ISO9000 master document specifying how olive oil 
should be produced.

As others said: implementing ISO9000 is vastly expensive, and it 
creates an immense burocratic flow of 
documents/specifications/revisions/revision histories/you name it.

Finally: after *everybody* has implemented it, ISO9000 becomes rather 
worthless.

My 0.02$...

On 2 Sep, 10:53, DSP-Newbie <N...@way.invalid> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
> > correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:
>
> > - To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
> >   are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
> >   them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary
> > - To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
> >   full picture of what goes on in their company
> > - To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
> >   do their job.
>
> I worked in a ISO9000-certified company for many years and have very
> mixed feelings about the true usefullness of ISO9000 from a client's
> perspective.
>
> ISO900 forces you to think about your production proces(ses) and
> specify how you make your product(s), in a nutshell: Say what you'll
> do, and then do exactly what you've said. This is obviously a Good
> Thing.
>
> In a real life situation however, a company has *total* freedom as to
> what items/proces flows/procedures/etc... it will (or will NOT) put
> into its ISO9000 specification files.

Well, that's what the certification agencies are
all about; to ensure that whatever is essential
to the core business is covered by the certificate.

> Consider two ISO9000-companies producing olive oil.
>
> -Company A claims it will guarantee the delivered volume of oil to be
> within 0.25% of the volume stated on the bottle.
>
> -Company B claims the delivered oil will have an acid content lower
> then 0.1 %.
>
> This is an oversimplified example of course, but the point is: there is
> no such thing as a ISO9000 master document specifying how olive oil
> should be produced.

No, but the client can, given the different specs,
choose what company to by from. A client who wants
the volume to match buys from A, another client who
focuses on acid contents buys from B. Both clients
have a vastly pwoerful tool to their disposal if
the deliveries don't match the specs.

> As others said: implementing ISO9000 is vastly expensive, and it
> creates an immense burocratic flow of
> documents/specifications/revisions/revision histories/you name it.
>
> Finally: after *everybody* has implemented it, ISO9000 becomes rather
> worthless.

Why?

Rune

On 2 Sep, 09:30, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 2 Sep, 06:59, "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1188707793.231347.18970@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Hi all.
> >>> I am a bit curious about the ISO9000 system. Having
> >>> been involved with various companies and organizations
> >>> inside and outside the ISO9000 system over the past 20
> >>> years, I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
> >>> correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:
> >> "If used and utilized correctly" is the keyword. Unfortunately, quite often
> >> the ISO9000 degenerates to a double book keeping (one set of docs is for
> >> real, the other set is for ISO inspector) or to a tremendous bureaucracy.
>
> > That's how it goes the first few years. Once people
> > understand the purpose of ISO 9000, that changes.
>
> >>> - To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
> >>>   are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
> >>>   them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary
> >> A client does not want to do any extra work. Especially upfront the actual
> >> project.
>
> > No, but he wants it as a very efficient lever against the
> > contractor *during* the project, when he realizes why the
> > cheapest contractor underbid everybody else.
>
> >>> - To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
> >>>   full picture of what goes on in their company
> >> Do they care?
>
> > If the client throws the (ISO) book at them,
> > they have to.
>
> >>> - To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
> >>>   do their job.
> >> This is not their business.
>
> > Again, it's a lever to be used if handled with care.
> > I've done that a couple of times; once the term
> > "according to ISO 9000" appears, other people
> > than usual pay attention and other responses
> > are recieved. Not necessarily "more useful"
> > responses, but "other" responses nevertheless...
>
> >>> Now, those are my very personal views. I would like to
> >>> see some book "ISO9000 for engineers" or something like
> >>> that, to give the broader picture of exactly what ISO9000
> >>> is all about.
> >> Practically, this is just another meaningless tag (fairly expensive) which
> >> is supposed to make your product more sellable.
>
> > Maybe "expensive". Maybe "a selling point". By no
> > means "meaningless". It's like that last pawn left on
> > the chessboard. Inocuous, by the looks of it, but
> > potentially a Decider of the Game if handled with care.
>
> > Rune
>
> The drive for ISO 9000 compliance begins and ends as follows:
>
>      +-----------+
>      |        /  |
>      |       /   |
>      |      /    |
>      |  \  /     |
>      |   \/      |
>      +-----------+
>
> Steve- Skjul sitert tekst -
>
> - Vis sitert tekst -

Eh... is that a graph or a checked box?

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 2 Sep, 09:30, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Rune Allnor wrote:
>>> On 2 Sep, 06:59, "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Rune Allnor" <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>>>> news:1188707793.231347.18970@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Hi all.
>>>>> I am a bit curious about the ISO9000 system. Having
>>>>> been involved with various companies and organizations
>>>>> inside and outside the ISO9000 system over the past 20
>>>>> years, I find that the ISO9000 system -- if used and utilized
>>>>> correctly -- is a huge asset to everybody:
>>>> "If used and utilized correctly" is the keyword. Unfortunately, quite often
>>>> the ISO9000 degenerates to a double book keeping (one set of docs is for
>>>> real, the other set is for ISO inspector) or to a tremendous bureaucracy.
>>> That's how it goes the first few years. Once people
>>> understand the purpose of ISO 9000, that changes.
>>>>> - To the client, since he has a tool to demand that procedures
>>>>>   are established prior to a job, and thus can demand
>>>>>   them to be reviewed and revised if and when necessary
>>>> A client does not want to do any extra work. Especially upfront the actual
>>>> project.
>>> No, but he wants it as a very efficient lever against the
>>> contractor *during* the project, when he realizes why the
>>> cheapest contractor underbid everybody else.
>>>>> - To managment, since they have a tool to give them the
>>>>>   full picture of what goes on in their company
>>>> Do they care?
>>> If the client throws the (ISO) book at them,
>>> they have to.
>>>>> - To the staff, since they have a tool to see if management
>>>>>   do their job.
>>>> This is not their business.
>>> Again, it's a lever to be used if handled with care.
>>> I've done that a couple of times; once the term
>>> "according to ISO 9000" appears, other people
>>> than usual pay attention and other responses
>>> are recieved. Not necessarily "more useful"
>>> responses, but "other" responses nevertheless...
>>>>> Now, those are my very personal views. I would like to
>>>>> see some book "ISO9000 for engineers" or something like
>>>>> that, to give the broader picture of exactly what ISO9000
>>>>> is all about.
>>>> Practically, this is just another meaningless tag (fairly expensive) which
>>>> is supposed to make your product more sellable.
>>> Maybe "expensive". Maybe "a selling point". By no
>>> means "meaningless". It's like that last pawn left on
>>> the chessboard. Inocuous, by the looks of it, but
>>> potentially a Decider of the Game if handled with care.
>>> Rune
>> The drive for ISO 9000 compliance begins and ends as follows:
>>
>>      +-----------+
>>      |        /  |
>>      |       /   |
>>      |      /    |
>>      |  \  /     |
>>      |   \/      |
>>      +-----------+
>>
>> Steve- Skjul sitert tekst -
>>
>> - Vis sitert tekst -
> 
> Eh... is that a graph or a checked box?
> 
> Rune
> 
I have yet to see anywhere go for ISO 9000 because it might make them 
better - more efficient, better products, or whatever. It is *always* a 
matter of checking off a customer's tick box list for suppliers they 
will do business with. This is kinda weird, because those customers will 
probably also be going for ISO 9000, and know themselves how totally 
bogus it is.

If a company takes production quality seriously, and will have more 
efficient systems than ISO9000 in place. After all these years, far too 
many people still think ISO9000 is about improvement. With so little 
understanding of what the goals of ISO9000 really are, I guess its not 
too surprising that it gets applied in such a screwed up way.

Steve


Steve

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 2 Sep, 10:53, DSP-Newbie <N...@way.invalid> wrote:

> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> Well, that's what the certification agencies are
> all about; to ensure that whatever is essential
> to the core business is covered by the certificate.
>

No, that's exactly my point: the _producing_ company decides about what 
is essential to the core business, not the certifying agency.


>> Consider two ISO9000-companies producing olive oil.
>> 
>> -Company A claims it will guarantee the delivered volume of oil to be
>> within 0.25% of the volume stated on the bottle.
>> 
>> -Company B claims the delivered oil will have an acid content lower
>> then 0.1 %.
>> 
>> This is an oversimplified example of course, but the point is: there is
>> no such thing as a ISO9000 master document specifying how olive oil
>> should be produced.
>
> No, but the client can, given the different specs,
> choose what company to by from. A client who wants
> the volume to match buys from A, another client who
> focuses on acid contents buys from B. Both clients
> have a vastly pwoerful tool to their disposal if
> the deliveries don't match the specs.

For the simplified olive oil example: yes,  but for products with many 
dozens of core properties/qualities/specs etc..., it becomes a daunting 
task to decide on which is "best".


>> Finally: after *everybody* has implemented it, ISO9000 becomes rather
>> worthless.
>
> Why?
>

The main reason for companies to implement ISO9000 was/is to be ahead 
of the competition: "We are ISO9000-certified, thus we make a better 
product". Untrue of course, but its a strong marketing argument...

On 2 Sep, 12:01, DSP-Newbie <N...@way.invalid> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 2 Sep, 10:53, DSP-Newbie <N...@way.invalid> wrote:

> >> Finally: after *everybody* has implemented it, ISO9000 becomes rather
> >> worthless.
>
> > Why?
>
> The main reason for companies to implement ISO9000 was/is to be ahead
> of the competition: "We are ISO9000-certified, thus we make a better
> product". Untrue of course, but its a strong marketing argument...-

I heard that said about quality: "We are better than
the competition because we focus on quality."

At some point quality *was* a marketing issue and a
competitive point. Not so anymore, because companies
in a true competition who do *not* make quality
products will die. These days, if you want to play,
you have to make a quality product. Or somebody
else will, and take your customers away from you.

Same thing with ISO9000. If you don't use it for
what it is intended for, your company will die.
ISO9000 was intended as a tool to ensure that
managment has a clue what is going on in the
company. Once the clients realize that -- and
use it as a leverage -- they may actually force
a contractor into submission. Losing an ISO
certification -- whatever one might think of the
certificate as such -- is not a very tempting
proposition.

Rune