|
The CQI reserves the right to reproduce material from this forum in other published material  | 
Steve Coles
*********
      
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 405
| Posted 20/06/2007 12:32 (GMT +1) |   | Paul, I'd really like to take issue with your article and defend the certification industry - but I agree with what you've said. My current contract has moved me away from auditing but, until last September, most of my work since the mid-90's was focused on auditing. Not for 9001 certification, mind you - audits with a focus on client (customer) requirements; these were either laid down by the customer or drawn up by me in consultation with them.
Most companies I audited were 9001 certified but there have been few, when looking at how their management system delivers products or services to their clients, who I would say met the full gamut of 9001 requirements. Most of the companies I visited were well established in their market and respected - whist not meeting 9001, their systems were capable of delivering quality. To me, this illustrates the point that 9001 is not the only way to succeed - it is, after all, a compromise standard. My beef is that, irrespective of how good the system is, it should only be certified to 9001 if it fully meets it. There have been other companies whose systems were not delivering quality yet were certified, too.
When BS5750 was first published it included a statement to the effect that it was a standard for customers to audit their suppliers - the benefit of adoption was going to be the elimination of individual and often conflicting client system standards. Only later was it hijacked by the embryonic certification industry bandwagon. I've long wished that access to 9001 was restricted to certified auditors and system developers/managers were forced to use 9004 - entirely impossible to achieve, but I can still wish it!
Yes, Paul, I've seen companies who have two "quality manuals" - one that tells staff how to manage their work and another rolled out just for auditors; I recall one company where the latter was kept in a locked cupboard to make sure it was never used by mistake. I've seen little change with the switch to 9001:2000 - I've seen manuals which have retained the original 20 sections (aligned with the previous 20 clauses) and have had a few extra sections added to cover additional requirements (customer satisfaction, etc). This isn't a surprise as one only has to look at ISO29001, the specific version for suppliers to the worldwide oil and gas industry, and see that it's added the old clauses back in!
In most cases I've seen, certification is market driven - it's needed to get onto the starting line - companies then succeed in spite of it rather than because of it.
Steve
<>< | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul Simpson
Forum Moderator
 
Date Joined Jun 2005
Total Posts : 318
| Posted 21/06/2007 17:43 (GMT +1) | | Thanks for your reply, Steve. I’m not sure if your post really addresses the points in the original article where I challenge the attitude (on both sides) to assessment but believe your contribution adds to the thread:
Steve Coles said...
Paul, I'd really like to take issue with your article and defend the certification industry - but I agree with what you've said.
As an individual (consultant / auditor / certification manager) I and others I know are trying to do the right thing within the system, not trying to break the system down.
As I’m sure many CQI members are
Steve Coles said...
Most companies I audited were 9001 certified but there have been few, when looking at how their management system delivers products or services to their clients, who I would say met the full gamut of 9001 requirements.
Steve Coles said...
Most of the companies I visited were well established in their market and respected - whist not meeting 9001, their systems were capable of delivering quality.
Steve Coles said...
To me, this illustrates the point that 9001 is not the only way to succeed - it is, after all, a compromise standard.
Steve Coles said...
My beef is that, irrespective of how good the system is, it should only be certified to 9001 if it fully meets it. There have been other companies whose systems were not delivering quality yet were certified, too.
It is true that organizations that continually fail to meet customer requirements should not be certified.
Steve Coles said...
When BS5750 was first published it included a statement to the effect that it was a standard for customers to audit their suppliers - the benefit of adoption was going to be the elimination of individual and often conflicting client system standards.
Steve Coles said...
Only later was it hijacked by the embryonic certification industry bandwagon. 
My memory was that private industry asked for a means of demonstrating quality conformance in the same way that MOD assessments to AQAP worked for military suppliers.
Steve Coles said...
I've long wished that access to 9001 was restricted to certified auditors and system developers/managers were forced to use 9004 - entirely impossible to achieve, but I can still wish it!
Steve Coles said...
Yes, Paul, I've seen companies who have two "quality manuals" - one that tells staff how to manage their work and another rolled out just for auditors; I recall one company where the latter was kept in a locked cupboard to make sure it was never used by mistake.
Steve Coles said...
I've seen little change with the switch to 9001:2000 - I've seen manuals which have retained the original 20 sections (aligned with the previous 20 clauses) and have had a few extra sections added to cover additional requirements (customer satisfaction, etc). This isn't a surprise as one only has to look at ISO29001, the specific version for suppliers to the worldwide oil and gas industry, and see that it's added the old clauses back in!
Aping the clause structure of any standard in “your” system always raises concerns with me, though. It implies to me a lack of thought as to how you want your system to meet your needs. Nobody thinks in ISO clauses (except us saddos  )
Steve Coles said...
In most cases I've seen, certification is market driven - it's needed to get onto the starting line - companies then succeed in spite of it rather than because of it.
Regards, Paul Simpson
Looking for solutions
www.xbs.org.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom Pleasant
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2007
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 22/06/2007 12:04 (GMT +1) | | | | |
|
Tom Pleasant
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2007
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 25/06/2007 12:38 (GMT +1) | | It was certainly meant partly tongue in cheek but your sentiment is correct: members must have a way to be able to tell exactly what they have experienced so that others can learn from it. Maybe it would even lead to large-scale changes in laws/standards/best practice. etc.
However, finding a way to do this without suffering the risk of libel is problematic. Suggestions are most welcome
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom Pleasant
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2007
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 25/06/2007 15:57 (GMT +1) | | It certainly a good idea however any reproduction of audit reports will definitely run the risk of infringing intellectual property rights or, considering the subject matter, rile up the organisations concerned (I'm aware that there would be no mention of the org's name but it's amazing how these things slip out or an org decides it's them being discussed when it isn't).
I'll be forwarding these thoughts onto those with more legal knowledge but further discussion and suggestions are still welcome. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Steve Coles
*********
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 405
| Posted 25/06/2007 20:04 (GMT +1) | | If answers are rewritten by the poster and no names are mentioned, this might be feasible, but your initial inclusion of "scanned, electronic, pdf" could easily lead to copyright issues; remember, under strict copyright law, you couldn't include the audit report form (especially if it included their logo) - text only, retypred by the posting member would be safest.
However, for the majority of submissions, I suspect the cases will be on "unjust nonconformances" and we'll likely have only one side of the case (the auditee's) - we won't know what was actually presented during the audit. I can't believe that many people will write in to say they should not have been awarded their certificate. Allowing comments on suppliers will be very difficult to cover as the necessary evidence is unlikely to be available. We will probably end up with open ended discussions. Have a look at the IRCA forum as they look for these sort of discussions.
On the basis of the above, there's nothing to stop anyone starting threads on the General forum here. (As far as member-only access is concerned, that will need to wait until we have a system that allows such restriction - we could set something up on this forum but the administrative burden of managing access to the numbers of members to make it worthwhile is probably beyond current resources.)
It's a good idea but one that will need a lot of consideration if we want to do something that has impact. Tom has said he'll pass this back for full consideration - any decision will probably end up with the PPB (either the full board or its editorial committee), so I'll probably see it on its travels...
Steve
<>< | | Back to Top | | |
|
David Hoyle
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 480
| Posted 02/07/2007 12:09 (GMT +1) | | Interesting thread. It reminds me of the BNFL scandal over the falsification of Quality Control records. If I remember correctly, the third party auditors at the time were LRQA and they wrote in Quality World something to the effect that checking for fraudulent QC Records was outside the scope of certification. This shows how misguided the certification industry is but they got away with it. To my knowledge they were not challenged by UKAS probably because there is no requirement in ISO 9001 addressing culture directly. However, an effective auditor would use the requirement for managing the work environment to test for evidence of a culture that supported or was in conflict with the implementation of the stated quality policy.
The BNFL case was widely resported in the press and it is not beyond our capability to highlight these sort of cases and link them with failures of the management system and certification. I admit we would not be dealing with the cases that don't reach the media but those that do are fair game. Trading Standards web site have lots of cases which with a bit of research could reveal that many of these are ISO 9000 registered companies.
I think we would be breaching confidentiality to make public that which is a private matter between the company and the CB unless it got into the media through wistleblowers anonymous.
Regarding your article in QW Paul, I would agree wholehartedly with your observations. The whole industry has lost its way. If you go back and look at ISO 9000:1987 you will find that the series was billed as embodying a rationalization of the many and various national approaches to achieving and sustaining good economic performance through continual improvement in the customer specification and the organizational system to design and produce the product or service to satisfy the user’s needs or requirements”.
A requirement to demonstrate a connection between the management system and business results was omitted from ISO 9001 thus making it easy for firms to get the badge.
Steve is right too about ISO 9004. Again in ISO 9000:1987 it clearly advocated that after considering the concepts in ISO 9000, ISO 9004 be used to develop and implement a quality system and should certification be required only then to select the appropriate “quality assurance” standard. But of course very few people read ISO 9000 or ISO 9004. They only read what they were examined on - ISO 9001. So the certification industry and the consuiltants and trainers are the culprits not the standard.
But does any CEO really care? ISO 9000 is synonymous with certification and this ihas become a joke and nothing to do with business and economic performance. It is all about vested interests and regretably once a firm has the badge, it may find it difficult to withdraw without sending the wrong signals to its customers - so they maintain the charade.
I put the root cause with TC 176. They could have forseen the impact and if they had adopted the tried and tested practice from the military thay would have put the system design requirements together with the system verification requirements in one specification and prevented the auditors deviating from the true intent of the standard.
If you have read the proposed 2008 revision to ISO 9001 you will see that TC 176 is in complete denial about culture as they plan to exclude psycological factors from the Work Environment thus refusing to accept that the achievement of product quality depends upon culture. They even ignore the definition of Work Environment in ISO 9000:2000 (If anyone has the 2005 version can you please check if this has changed?) Here is what it says
Note: The term work environment relates to conditions necessary to achieve conformity to product requirements such as clean rooms, anti-static precautions and hygiene controls Incidentally, ISO have been ask me to write an article in their Magazine on the impact of ISO 9000 as it's the 20th anniversary. Suffice it to say that unlike the CBs and Standard Bodies I don't have any vested interest to mainitain.
Best Regards
David Hoyle Hon.FCQI | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul Simpson
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Jun 2005
Total Posts : 318
| Posted 04/07/2007 10:36 (GMT +1) | | David Hoyle said...
It reminds me of the BNFL scandal over the falsification of Quality Control records.
David Hoyle said...
If I remember correctly, the third party auditors at the time were LRQA and they wrote in Quality World something to the effect that checking for fraudulent QC Records was outside the scope of certification. This shows how misguided the certification industry is but they got away with it. To my knowledge they were not challenged by UKAS probably because there is no requirement in ISO 9001 addressing culture directly. However, an effective auditor would use the requirement for managing the work environment to test for evidence of a culture that supported or was in conflict with the implementation of the stated quality policy.
David Hoyle said...
The BNFL case was widely resported in the press and it is not beyond our capability to highlight these sort of cases and link them with failures of the management system and certification. I admit we would not be dealing with the cases that don't reach the media but those that do are fair game. Trading Standards web site have lots of cases which with a bit of research could reveal that many of these are ISO 9000 registered companies.
The CQI should have an opinion.
My vision is that Trading Standards / news media should be coming to us for our opinion.
Perhaps this forum is the vehicle – albeit the lack of a uniform view (that we see evidence of in these threads) is a serious concern.
David Hoyle said...
I think we would be breaching confidentiality to make public that which is a private matter between the company and the CB unless it got into the media through wistleblowers anonymous.
David Hoyle said...
Regarding your article in QW Paul, I would agree wholehartedly with your observations. The whole industry has lost its way.
There are pockets of consistency and even excellence in our industry but, from my experience, mediocrity and even downright silliness is starting to get the upper hand.
If CQI stands for anything then it should be seen to be challenging this. Not just by giving a platform to the “anti ISO” brigade but by providing a balanced view and attacking inadequacy, wherever it comes from.
David Hoyle said...
A requirement to demonstrate a connection between the management system and business results was omitted from ISO 9001 thus making it easy for firms to get the badge.
However,I believe the audit process is still too compliance focussed and perhaps some auditors are unable to deal with standing in the spotlight areas of “the business,” preferring the dark corners of document control and calibration.
David Hoyle said...
But of course very few people read ISO 9000 or ISO 9004. They only read what they were examined on - ISO 9001. So the certification industry and the consuiltants and trainers are the culprits not the standard.
CQI is trying with the Body of Quality Knowledge to ensure that members at least have access to the founding principles of quality and how it fits into business and strategy.
All we now have to define is competence criteria that exclude those that do not understand while ensuring that those members that do buy in to the quality “thing” can become (for example) Chartered Quality Professionals. Maybe that is the route to getting some consistency?
I do agree with you that the standard is not the problem. There are, however, some CQI members who disagree even with this and their argument is given credence whenever stories go around of poor systems, duff non-conformities and dodgy auditing.
This is manna from heaven if you are selling another message.
David Hoyle said...
But does any CEO really care? ISO 9000 is synonymous with certification and this ihas become a joke and nothing to do with business and economic performance. It is all about vested interests and regretably once a firm has the badge, it may find it difficult to withdraw without sending the wrong signals to its customers - so they maintain the charade.
CBs like mine are all clamouring for the discerning customer. The organization that understands the value of assessment as well as certification.
David Hoyle said...
I put the root cause with TC 176. They could have forseen the impact and if they had adopted the tried and tested practice from the military thay would have put the system design requirements together with the system verification requirements in one specification and prevented the auditors deviating from the true intent of the standard.
- CBs have a responsibility for services they offer.
- Accreditation bodies for maintaining a level playing field and ensuring standards are maintained.
- Certified organizations for ensuring they understand the eight principles and developing systems that suit their needs and (secondary) meet standard requirements.
I have left consultants and trainers off the list because they will be driven by the market. If, as has been implied, customers and CBs only want certificates then that is what support organisations will provide. If, in the brave new world, customers want "real" systems and CBs are only prepared to certify same then consultants and trainers will adapt or leave.
David Hoyle said...
If you have read the proposed 2008 revision to ISO 9001 you will see that TC 176 is in complete denial about culture as they plan to exclude psycological factors from the Work Environment thus refusing to accept that the achievement of product quality depends upon culture.
David Hoyle said...
They even ignore the definition of Work Environment in ISO 9000:2000 (If anyone has the 2005 version can you please check if this has changed?) Here is what it says
Note: The term work environment relates to conditions necessary to achieve conformity to product requirements such as clean rooms, anti-static precautions and hygiene controls
Note: Conditions include physical, social, psychological, and environmental factors (such as temperature,recognition schemes, ergonomics and atmospheric composition)
The big caveat in terms of saying this gives free rein to auditors to cover “culture” is that 9001 says:
“The organization shall determine and manage the work environment needed to achieve conformity to product requirements.”
So if products are OK then work environment is, de facto, OK.
David Hoyle said...
Incidentally, ISO have been ask me to write an article in their Magazine on the impact of ISO 9000 as it's the 20th anniversary. Suffice it to say that unlike the CBs and Standard Bodies I don't have any vested interest to mainitain.
I look forward to reading the article – perhaps you can post it here?
I will however not view it as being the work of a totally impartial observer – I have read your posts on this forum, after all!
Regards, Paul Simpson
Looking for solutions
www.xbs.org.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
David Hoyle
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 480
| Posted 06/07/2007 19:44 (GMT +1) | | Paul
Many thanks for your comments. I followed the links you provided and found this:
Without effective awareness training or briefing to the process workers carrying out these fuel pellet diameter measurement tasks, such individuals are unlikely to appreciate the importance of the task or take ownership of it. This was another example of management failure within MDF
ISO 9001:1994 applied at the time not the 2000 version as I had implied but even so clause 4.18 required "Personnel performing specific assigned tasks shall be qualified on the basis of appropriate education, training and/or experience, as required" Clearly the staff were not educated sufficiently to know that what they were supposed to do was important. I accept the 3rd party auditor cannot be expected to find every fault but if he had only asked one question it should have been. When was the last occasion you reviewed the inspection methods and what changes were made as a result?
For LRQA to say that at 'there was no evidence of a failure of the 'Quality Management System' begs the question "What does LRQA think a QMS is supposed to do? According ISO 9001:1994 it is supposed to ensure that product meets specified requirements and it didn't as data for 31 lots were falsified and the customer was dissatisfied.
Anyway its history now but if audits don't detect such deficiencies we have to ask if they are of any value . The financial sector has gone through a major change because financial audit results could not be trusted (e.g. Sarbanes Oxley ) There is a movement on the horizon that might see quality system audits subsumed into Business Performanec Audits with the 3rd Party QMS Audits becoming defucnt,
On the question of your Soapbox Article, I concluded from it and my own observations that the industry has lost its way. I didn't intent to imply you said that but a little self criticism is good for the soul!
Regarding my comment addressing the omission of a requirement for demonstrating connectivity between business results and the QMS, I was attempting to draw your attention to the oringinal intent of the standards of defining an approach for achieving and sustaining economic performance. If the approach adopted is working, there will be a link between the QMS, the business results and customer satisfaction. Therefore a requirement to demonstrate this would be a wake up call for both managers and auditors.
I do agree with Paul that auditors are often too compliance focused but compliance audits do not have to be performed against ISO 9001 clause by clause. Auditors can
-
Ask to look at business objectives, then
-
Ask to look at business results, then
-
Ask for a description of the processes that achieved these results, then
-
Look for evidence that these processes are being managed effectively, then if not already detected,
-
Ask for evidence that action has been taken where results are not as planned, then and only then
-
Verify from the evidence gathered that the requirements of ISO 9001 have been met.
This is a process approach to auditing for compliance - would this work do you think?
Regarding ISO CD 9001:2008 I saw it through the SDG but you should be able to get hold of copies from BSI.
It is interesting that the defintion of Work Environment has not changed and still includs the pyscological factors. Therefore TC 176 are saying the these are not assessed elements of a QMS which I find rather odd.
The logic of, if product quality is ok the work environment is ok is flawed in the same that we haven't got any customer complaints therefore the customer must be satisfied was flawed.
Best Regards
David Hoyle Hon.FCQI | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul Simpson
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Jun 2005
Total Posts : 318
| Posted 10/07/2007 16:36 (GMT +1) | | David Hoyle said...
There is a movement on the horizon that might see quality system audits subsumed into Business Performanec Audits with the 3rd Party QMS Audits becoming defucnt,
Anyone fancy your financial auditors being responsible for your certification?
David Hoyle said...
On the question of your Soapbox Article, I concluded from it and my own observations that the industry has lost its way. I didn't intent to imply you said that but a little self criticism is good for the soul!
My purpose in having a soapbox "rant" was to try to help the industry to find its way a little better.
To moderate and misquote LB Johnson - I still want to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in!
David Hoyle said...
Regarding my comment addressing the omission of a requirement for demonstrating connectivity between business results and the QMS, I was attempting to draw your attention to the oringinal intent of the standards of defining an approach for achieving and sustaining economic performance. If the approach adopted is working, there will be a link between the QMS, the business results and customer satisfaction. Therefore a requirement to demonstrate this would be a wake up call for both managers and auditors.
Below is a quote sent through from BSI in response to a request for the origins of BS 5750.
BSI said...
The reason given for the conversion of BS 5179 into the BS 5750 series is "the growing demand for the application of quality assurance principles to contracts and for the assessment of suppliers' quality management systems, has led to the publication of a number of quality assurance standards by various purchasing and third party organizations.
This proliferation has highlighted the need for a British Standard that will encourage the rationalization envisaged in Sir Frederick Warner's report on 'Standards and specifications in the engineering industries', published by the National Economic Office (NEDO), February 1977.
So my reading is that the national standard was developed to reduce proliferation of industry standards for quality systems and for this to be included in contracts. So more of a compliance focus from a customer point of view.
Yes, the end result should still have been for improved quality and hence reduced costs / improved profits.
There is a need for a wake up call – as I mentioned identikit systems do nobody any favours and a “tick box” mentality to quality is no quality at all.
David Hoyle said...
I do agree with Paul that auditors are often too compliance focused but compliance audits do not have to be performed against ISO 9001 clause by clause. Auditors can
1. Ask to look at business objectives, then
2. Ask to look at business results, then
3. Ask for a description of the processes that achieved these results, then
4. Look for evidence that these processes are being managed effectively, then if not already detected,
5. Ask for evidence that action has been taken where results are not as planned, then and only then
6. Verify from the evidence gathered that the requirements of ISO 9001 have been met.
This is a process approach to auditing for compliance - would this work do you think?
Regards, Paul Simpson
Looking for solutions
www.xbs.org.uk | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:32 PM (GMT +1)
There are a total of 3,153 posts in 770 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 2 new threads and 11 reply posts. View Active Threads
| | Who's Online | This forum has 1134 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, Kevin Lee.
4 Guest(s), 0 Registered Member(s) are currently online. Details
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42
dotNetBB © 2000-2010 |
|
Posted 19/06/2007 18:55 (GMT +1)