With the proliferation of companies claiming to conform to the requirements of this international Standard, we might well come to believe that product and service quality has reached its peak and every customer is satisfied with the performance 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. Maybe the Standard isn’t about quality of service or product.
At Present, the (year 2000) version of ISO 9001 is undeniably directed toward 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 ‘taken for granted’ that product (and now service) errors happened due to the abilities and habits of the workers who were 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. Therefore, these Standards were created with the single purpose of locating and fixing failings before they became an issue for a customer, or servicing the customer requirement for repair or replacement 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 disagree, ask yourself how often you’ve heard the expression – it must be one of those Monday morning or Friday afternoon products. Maybe partly in jest, but originating from the concept that workers generally don’t care, and systems have to be devised to put right 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 likelihood that work of any kind could consistently be done ‘error free’ doesn’t have any place within this or any other Standard.
This failure to recognise what is both a major weakness and an opportunity is not confined to Standards makers, but is endemic in much of industry and commerce. A large supplier of domestic kitchen fittings has recently admitted that they’ve increased their expense in after sales service operation – or put more clearly, in the repair and replacement required after 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.