ISO 9001 and Quality Management
With the increase of companies asserting that they are conforming to the requirements of this particular international Standard, we may well begin to believe that product and service quality has reached perfection and every customer is completely satisfied with the level of achievement of their ISO 9000 registered supplier. However, it’s entirely possible that we could have just misunderstood the actual purpose of this Standard and the registration process itself. Perhaps the Standard isn’t actually about the quality of services or products.
The current (year 2000) version of ISO 9001 is clearly focussed on the definition of a Quality Management System. This is by convention the mechanism by which an organisation defines and manages the quality of its output delivery. This current document is the latest in a series of ISO Standards devoted to the topic, and shortly to be replaced by a 2008 version - but not just yet. These Standards can trace their direct history back to the middle of the last century, these having antecedents with origins certainly back to the early 20th Century.
Originating within the manufacturing industry, and until comparatively recently predominantly focussed there, their original objective was to control the manufacturing processes so as to correct the errors endemic within the ethos of working class operatives. It was a ‘given’ that product (and now service) errors occurred due to the nature and attitudes of the workers employed. Seldom was it considered possible that errors and omissions - i.e. defects, could be related to the management or management methods employed within the industry. Standards were therefore developed with the sole purpose of identifying and correcting failings before they became a problem for the customer, or servicing the customer need for corrective action after delivery. E.g. warrantee. The working ISO 9000 structure is founded on the method Plan Do Check Act, and for Act we can fairly accurately say ‘Fix’ - although this isn’t quite how Act is usually explained in any sort of publicity information. Without a doubt, this is an implied acknowledgement of possible failure, as opposed to a program to avoid failure.
For those who doubt this is correct, consider how often you have heard the expression - it must be a Monday morning or Friday afternoon product. Perhaps partly as a joke, but coming from the point of view that workers on the whole don’t really care, and systems have to be developed to fix what they, the workers, do wrong.
As the years have passed, the Standards have evolved and their presentation has turned into a much less authoritarian form, but just under the surface lies exactly the same concept, that all work is prone to error, and management planning must acknowledge this understanding and act appropriately. The possibility that work of any nature could routinely be performed ‘error free’ has no place within this or any other Standard.
This specific failure to identify what is both a significant weakness and an opportunity isn’t just restricted to the Standards creators, it’s native to the majority of industry and commerce as well. A major supplier of domestic kitchen fitments has recently conceded that they have increased the investment in their after sales service operation - in other words, in the rectification processes following a new installation. The notion that the money could have been put toward fixing the cause of the problem instead of repeatedly correcting it doesn’t seem to have been thought of by anyone. Is it any wonder that organisations continue to believe that the ISO Standards are useful only in the context of enhancing the marketing image of the company?
Earlier in the 20th Century the managers of quality systems became besotted with so-called statistical data gathering and presentation. Based on a lifetime of belief-reinforcing experience that compelled them to believe in the inevitability of error and failure in any work process, they persuaded their masters to support the concept of Acceptable Quality Level (AQL). This term, when used in a truly statistical situation, is a reliable method of predicting the quality of a batch through the examination of a smaller sample. As applied within industry it generally became a justification for accepting the inferior in both service and product delivery. This then has developed into the League Table idiocy driven by government and their civil servants that contains the tacit acceptance of less than perfect work performance, so long as there are those whose performance is deemed inferior to the current product or service examination. League tables are a failure because they support the inevitability of failure. This is a failure to recognise the fact that the present situation arises from a historic perspective of work and culture, along with the absence of the realisation that it doesn’t have to be like it is. To quote a 20th Century Guru - Philip Crosby, ‘It costs no more to do the job right than it costs to do it wrong and then again’. Quality is Free!
So, as we look to the coming of yet another ISO Standard for a quality management system, what are the prospects of a turn-round in philosophy, and a drive for Error-Free working?
Don’t hold your breath!
Ed. Bones is a chartered quality professional, an IRCA registered Lead Auditor, and is a senior partner with Meon Consulting Group, providing expert audit and consultant services for ISO9001 & ISO14001 management systems. The company web site provides detailed information, and includes the offer of FREE Advice.

Posted July 30, 2009
Comments(0)