An environmental policy is a statement of the organization’s overall aims and principles ofaction with respect to the environment, including compliance with all relevant stakeholders. As such, it should be written clearly and concisely to enable a
regulatory requirements. It is a key tool in communicating the environmental priorities of your organization to employees at all levels, as well as to external layperson to understand it, and should be made publicly available. It is up to the organization to decide on environmental priorities based on an initial environmental review, but these choices should be justified in the policy. To be truly effective the policy should regularly be reviewed and revised and incorporated into the organization’s overall corporate policy. The policy statement should set in writing a few achievable quantifiable priorities related to the environmental management system and the significant environmental effects found at the work-site. Furthermore, EMAS requires that the most signifcant environmental effects be mitigated within three years. Some form of improvement must also be accomplished from year-to-year by the organization and must be shown in the annual reports.
Although the formulation of policies and clear priorities is the most important step of
environmental management, this step is often neglected. Many top managers feel pressure to do something for the environment and thus embark on some form of ?Environmental activism?E often containing many isolated activities but no clear direction. For an organization to be a credible and efficient environmental performer and to reap the benefits of being an environmental leader in its markets, the rationale for investing in environmental management must be very clear.
To ensure an organization’s commitment towards a formulated environmental policy, it is
essential that top management is involved in the process of formulating the policy and of setting priorities. Therefore the first step is to get the commitment from the highest level of management. Based on this commitment the organization should then conduct an initial environmental review and draft an environmental policy. This draft should be discussed and approved by the board of directors. Finally, the approved environmental policy statement must be communicated internally and made available to the public.
As the environmental policy establishes an overall sense of direction and sets the principles
of action for an organization, it requires commitment from the highest level of management. Top management should be involved in the development and adoption of an environmental policy.
Getting the commitment from the highest level should be argued on the basis of costs and the implementation of an EMS increases shareholder value it is easier for top
benefits and their impact on shareholder value. If management to commit themselves to approving an environmental policy and to implementing an environmental management system. This commitment includes three basic policy statements:
Continuous improvement in environmental performance
Compliance with environmental regulations
Maintaining public relations regarding environmental issues of the organization, its activities, products and services.
The central focus of the policy should be a commitment to continuous improvement. This
means improvement in the EMS itself and a decrease in environmental impacts caused by an organization’s activities, products and services. It is important for businesses to show improvement over time, both in environmental performance and in organizational commitment to this path.
A commitment to comply with at least local environmental regulations is a minimum
requirement for all of the environmental standards. However, multinationals operating in various environments and facing different laws in each, should think about which laws to abide by and if it is feasible to adopt the same standard worldwide. Generally, laws in newly industrializing countries are lax as compared to industrialized countries. However, given the increase in interest in environmental issues in these industrializing countries and the possible impact of the ISO 14000 series, it may be sound practice to adopt the more stringent laws in worldwide operations, where it is feasible to do so. In addition, the adoption of high standards worldwide can yield other benefits, such as an improved public image or easier technology transfer between different sites.
Companies should guard against going overboard in fulfilling environmental policies. Limits
are in fact set on how far a company has to go to reduce its environmental impacts. Reductions do not have to exceed levels which can be achieved by economically viable application of the best available technology (BAT).
Showing posts with label ISO 9000 series. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISO 9000 series. Show all posts
Saturday, October 10, 2009
ISO 9000 Series and Six Sigma
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 9000 series standards were first published in 1987, revised in 1994, and re-revised in 2000 by the ISO. The 2000 revision, denoted by ISO 9000:2000, has attracted broad expectations in industry.
As of the year 2001, more than 300,000 organizations world-wide have been certified to the ISO 9000 series standards. It embodies a consistent pair of standards, ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000, both of which have been significantly updated and modernized. The ISO 9001:2000 standard specifies requirements for a quality management system for which third-party certification is possible, whereas ISO 9004:2000 provides guide- lines for a comprehensive quality management system and performance improvement through Self-Assessment.
The origin and historical development of ISO 9000 and Six Sigma are very different. The genesis of ISO 9000 can be traced back to the standards that the British aviation industry and the U.S. Air Force developed in the 1920s to reduce the need for inspection by approving the conformance of suppliers’ product quality. These standards developed into requirements for suppliers’ quality assurance systems in a number of western countries in the 1970s. In 1987 they were amalgamated into the ISO 9000 series standards.
Independent of ISO 9000, the same year also saw the launch of Six Sigma at Motorola and the launch of Self-Assessment by means of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in USA. Both Six Sigma and Self-Assessment can be traced back to Walter A. Shewhart and his work on variation and continuous improvement in the 1920s. It was Japanese industry that pioneered a broad application of these ideas from the 1950s through to the 1970s. When variation and continuous improvement caught the attention of some of the American business leaders in the late 1980s, it took the form of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, on a national level, and of Six Sigma at Motorola.
Some people are wondering if the ISO 9000:2000 series standards make Six Sigma superfluous. They typically refer to clause 8 of ISO 9001: “Measurement, analysis, improvement.”
It requires that companies install procedures in operations for the measurement of processes and data analysis using statistical techniques with the demonstration of continuous improvement . They also partly refer to the ISO 9004:2000 standards that embody guidelines and criteria for Self-Assessment similar to the national quality awards.
The author firmly believes that Six Sigma is needed regardless of whether a company is compliant with the ISO 9000 series. The two initiatives are not mutually exclusive and the objectives in applying them are different. A Six Sigma program is applied in organizations based on its top-line and bottom-line rationales. The primary objective for applying the ISO 9000 series standards is to demonstrate the company’s capability to consistently provide conforming products and/or services. Therefore, the ISO 9000 series standard falls well short of making Six Sigma superfluous.
The ISO 9000 series standards have from their early days been regarded and practiced by industry as a minimum set of requirements for doing business. The new ISO 9000:2000 stan
dards do not represent a significant change to this perspective. Six Sigma on the other hand, aims at world-class performance, based on a pragmatic framework for continuous improvement.
The author believes that Six Sigma is superior in such important areas as rate of improvement, bottom-line and top-line results, customer satisfaction, and top-level management commitment. However, considering the stronghold of ISO 9000 in industry, Six Sigma and ISO 9000 are likely to be applied by the same organization, but for very different purposes.
As of the year 2001, more than 300,000 organizations world-wide have been certified to the ISO 9000 series standards. It embodies a consistent pair of standards, ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000, both of which have been significantly updated and modernized. The ISO 9001:2000 standard specifies requirements for a quality management system for which third-party certification is possible, whereas ISO 9004:2000 provides guide- lines for a comprehensive quality management system and performance improvement through Self-Assessment.
The origin and historical development of ISO 9000 and Six Sigma are very different. The genesis of ISO 9000 can be traced back to the standards that the British aviation industry and the U.S. Air Force developed in the 1920s to reduce the need for inspection by approving the conformance of suppliers’ product quality. These standards developed into requirements for suppliers’ quality assurance systems in a number of western countries in the 1970s. In 1987 they were amalgamated into the ISO 9000 series standards.
Independent of ISO 9000, the same year also saw the launch of Six Sigma at Motorola and the launch of Self-Assessment by means of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in USA. Both Six Sigma and Self-Assessment can be traced back to Walter A. Shewhart and his work on variation and continuous improvement in the 1920s. It was Japanese industry that pioneered a broad application of these ideas from the 1950s through to the 1970s. When variation and continuous improvement caught the attention of some of the American business leaders in the late 1980s, it took the form of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, on a national level, and of Six Sigma at Motorola.
Some people are wondering if the ISO 9000:2000 series standards make Six Sigma superfluous. They typically refer to clause 8 of ISO 9001: “Measurement, analysis, improvement.”
It requires that companies install procedures in operations for the measurement of processes and data analysis using statistical techniques with the demonstration of continuous improvement . They also partly refer to the ISO 9004:2000 standards that embody guidelines and criteria for Self-Assessment similar to the national quality awards.
The author firmly believes that Six Sigma is needed regardless of whether a company is compliant with the ISO 9000 series. The two initiatives are not mutually exclusive and the objectives in applying them are different. A Six Sigma program is applied in organizations based on its top-line and bottom-line rationales. The primary objective for applying the ISO 9000 series standards is to demonstrate the company’s capability to consistently provide conforming products and/or services. Therefore, the ISO 9000 series standard falls well short of making Six Sigma superfluous.
The ISO 9000 series standards have from their early days been regarded and practiced by industry as a minimum set of requirements for doing business. The new ISO 9000:2000 stan
dards do not represent a significant change to this perspective. Six Sigma on the other hand, aims at world-class performance, based on a pragmatic framework for continuous improvement.
The author believes that Six Sigma is superior in such important areas as rate of improvement, bottom-line and top-line results, customer satisfaction, and top-level management commitment. However, considering the stronghold of ISO 9000 in industry, Six Sigma and ISO 9000 are likely to be applied by the same organization, but for very different purposes.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
ISO 9000 Standards
ISO 9000 Standards
ISO 9000 is a written set of rules (a “Standard”) published by an internationalstandards writing body (International Organization for Standardization. The rules define practices that are universally recognized and accepted for assuring that organizations consistently understand and meet the needs of their customers.ISO 9000 is also highly generic. Its principles can be applied to any organization providing any product or service anywhere in the world.Since meeting customer needs is one of the (many) definitions of quality, ISO 9000 is often called a quality system or a quality management system. But the rules, referred to as requirements, go beyond quality matters as they are traditionally understood. The requirements fall roughly into the following types:
a. Requirements that help assure that the organization’s output (whether product, service, or both) meets customer specifications. (Making, and keeping, them happy.)
b. Requirements that assure that the quality system is consistently implemented and verifiable. (We must actually do what we say we are supposed to do. This must be verifiable via independent, objectiveaudit.)
c. Requirements for practices that measure the effectiveness of variousaspects of the system. (In God we trust; all others bring data.)
d. Requirements that support continuous improvement of the company’sability to meet customer needs. (We cannot sit still. We must strive to get better all the time, because customers change, and competitors gain strength.)
Nothing in ISO 9000 is new. The first edition, published by ISO in 1987, was drawn almost word for word from a British quality system standard. It in turn evolved from a long succession of written quality system specifications that had their ultimate origin in the defense and arms industries. Most of the practices required by ISO 9000 have been in use in industries of various kinds for decades. One intent of ISO 9000 is to simplify things for organizations. ISO 9000 strives to harmonize the sometimes conflicting, sometimes redundant quality programs that have traditionally been imposed by major corporations on their suppliers. (Note, however, that ISO 9000 is not meant to supersede customer, legal, or regulatory requirements.)
Very often, major customers require or strongly “suggest” that their suppliers implement ISO 9000 systems. Equally often, such customers require independent verification that suppliers are meeting the equirements.
So third-party registration bodies audit suppliers, confirm compliance to the ISO 9000 standard, and register the suppliers. It does not stop there. To stay registered, suppliers must undergo periodic (often semi-annual) surveillance audits, also carried out by their registration body.
Implementing an ISO 9000 quality system is neither cheap, nor easy. How costly and difficult it can be depends on:
a. The level of commitment of senior management. (The single most important factor.)
b. Where you are when you start. If you have already implemented a disciplined, documented quality system, you will have a less difficult time migrating to ISO 9000. (But that does not mean you will waltz to registration, either.)
c. Whether your company (or any part of it) is “design responsible” or not.
d. How much time you have. If you are under the customer’s gun and have merely months to get the job done, the process will be highly stressful.
e. The physical size and configuration of your company.
The bottom line is this. ISO 9000 is a comprehensive set of rules—a business system, really—that can cause the way your organization runs to profoundly change, almost always for the better. Yet, because it is often customer-mandated, many suppliers regard ISO 9000 as “just another hoop to jump through to keep our customers happy.”
They see their choice as swallow hard, pony up, and jump through the hoops; or walk away from the customer. What many do not fully appreciate is that implementing ISO 9000—expensive, exhausting, and annoying as it can be—can also have the salutary effect of improving the performance of your organization. Not just at first, but on an ongoing basis.
ISO 9000 is a written set of rules (a “Standard”) published by an internationalstandards writing body (International Organization for Standardization. The rules define practices that are universally recognized and accepted for assuring that organizations consistently understand and meet the needs of their customers.ISO 9000 is also highly generic. Its principles can be applied to any organization providing any product or service anywhere in the world.Since meeting customer needs is one of the (many) definitions of quality, ISO 9000 is often called a quality system or a quality management system. But the rules, referred to as requirements, go beyond quality matters as they are traditionally understood. The requirements fall roughly into the following types:
a. Requirements that help assure that the organization’s output (whether product, service, or both) meets customer specifications. (Making, and keeping, them happy.)
b. Requirements that assure that the quality system is consistently implemented and verifiable. (We must actually do what we say we are supposed to do. This must be verifiable via independent, objectiveaudit.)
c. Requirements for practices that measure the effectiveness of variousaspects of the system. (In God we trust; all others bring data.)
d. Requirements that support continuous improvement of the company’sability to meet customer needs. (We cannot sit still. We must strive to get better all the time, because customers change, and competitors gain strength.)
Nothing in ISO 9000 is new. The first edition, published by ISO in 1987, was drawn almost word for word from a British quality system standard. It in turn evolved from a long succession of written quality system specifications that had their ultimate origin in the defense and arms industries. Most of the practices required by ISO 9000 have been in use in industries of various kinds for decades. One intent of ISO 9000 is to simplify things for organizations. ISO 9000 strives to harmonize the sometimes conflicting, sometimes redundant quality programs that have traditionally been imposed by major corporations on their suppliers. (Note, however, that ISO 9000 is not meant to supersede customer, legal, or regulatory requirements.)
Very often, major customers require or strongly “suggest” that their suppliers implement ISO 9000 systems. Equally often, such customers require independent verification that suppliers are meeting the equirements.
So third-party registration bodies audit suppliers, confirm compliance to the ISO 9000 standard, and register the suppliers. It does not stop there. To stay registered, suppliers must undergo periodic (often semi-annual) surveillance audits, also carried out by their registration body.
Implementing an ISO 9000 quality system is neither cheap, nor easy. How costly and difficult it can be depends on:
a. The level of commitment of senior management. (The single most important factor.)
b. Where you are when you start. If you have already implemented a disciplined, documented quality system, you will have a less difficult time migrating to ISO 9000. (But that does not mean you will waltz to registration, either.)
c. Whether your company (or any part of it) is “design responsible” or not.
d. How much time you have. If you are under the customer’s gun and have merely months to get the job done, the process will be highly stressful.
e. The physical size and configuration of your company.
The bottom line is this. ISO 9000 is a comprehensive set of rules—a business system, really—that can cause the way your organization runs to profoundly change, almost always for the better. Yet, because it is often customer-mandated, many suppliers regard ISO 9000 as “just another hoop to jump through to keep our customers happy.”
They see their choice as swallow hard, pony up, and jump through the hoops; or walk away from the customer. What many do not fully appreciate is that implementing ISO 9000—expensive, exhausting, and annoying as it can be—can also have the salutary effect of improving the performance of your organization. Not just at first, but on an ongoing basis.
What is a quality systems registrar
What is a quality systems registrar
A registrar, or registration body (the preferred term), is sometimes called a certification body. (Accreditation bodies are entirely different—they are the entities that audit/approve registration bodies.)
There are some 573 registration bodies in operation worldwide, including52 in the United States.
The registrar is the organization that checks your quality system and confirms that it meets ISO 9000 requirements for a prescribed and agreed period of time.
To do this, the registrar:a. Audits your organization’s quality system to determine the degree of conformity to ISO 9000 standards. The audit is carried out:— On paper (desktop study).— On site (throughout your facility).b. Registers your quality system, assuming it conforms, to ISO 9000.c. Monitors conformity on an ongoing basis by means of regular reauditsand other methods.All quality system registrars perform these functions, with certainvariations. Registrars differ in two principal ways:a. Accreditation status.b. Scope of accreditation
Reputable ISO 9000 registrars are accredited by international accreditationbodies. These enforce a standard, EN 45012 (European Standard for Bodies Certificating Suppliers’ Quality Systems), that governs the processes that registrars follow. This standard is quite strict:a. Registrars must make their services available to all qualified supplierswithout imposing undue financial or other conditions, andmust administer their regulations in a nondiscriminatory manner.b. The registrar’s organization must not engage in activities that mayaffect its impartiality. For example:— It must not provide consulting services “on matters to whichits certificates are related” (i.e., quality systems). This requirement is superseded by the ISO 9000 restriction noted earlier.— It must not directly engage in commerce with firms that it hasassessed and/or registered.— Individuals involved in the registration process must not haveprovided consulting services to registration clients, or any relatedfirms, within the previous two years.— Its employees and agents must not engage in business activitiesthat would cause others to question the firm’s impartiality.— The registrar may not market consultancy and registrationservices together, and may not recommend consulting servicesto clients.— Auditors may not give advice as part of registration audits.— The registrar must provide the accreditation body with documentationof its employees’ qualifications.— The registrar must have appropriate facilities for carrying outits activities.— The registrar must have a quality manual and documentedprocedures. (Curiously, EN 45012 does not require that registrarsregister to ISO 9000!)— Registrars may not grant or renew certificates of registration until all major noncompliances are eliminated.
Another point of differentiation is scope of accreditation. All registrarsare not accredited, or approved, to register firms in any line of business. Each registrar is accredited to operate within the business or industrial sectors about which it has documented expertise. This is generically referred to as the registrar’s scope.
A registrar, or registration body (the preferred term), is sometimes called a certification body. (Accreditation bodies are entirely different—they are the entities that audit/approve registration bodies.)
There are some 573 registration bodies in operation worldwide, including52 in the United States.
The registrar is the organization that checks your quality system and confirms that it meets ISO 9000 requirements for a prescribed and agreed period of time.
To do this, the registrar:a. Audits your organization’s quality system to determine the degree of conformity to ISO 9000 standards. The audit is carried out:— On paper (desktop study).— On site (throughout your facility).b. Registers your quality system, assuming it conforms, to ISO 9000.c. Monitors conformity on an ongoing basis by means of regular reauditsand other methods.All quality system registrars perform these functions, with certainvariations. Registrars differ in two principal ways:a. Accreditation status.b. Scope of accreditation
Reputable ISO 9000 registrars are accredited by international accreditationbodies. These enforce a standard, EN 45012 (European Standard for Bodies Certificating Suppliers’ Quality Systems), that governs the processes that registrars follow. This standard is quite strict:a. Registrars must make their services available to all qualified supplierswithout imposing undue financial or other conditions, andmust administer their regulations in a nondiscriminatory manner.b. The registrar’s organization must not engage in activities that mayaffect its impartiality. For example:— It must not provide consulting services “on matters to whichits certificates are related” (i.e., quality systems). This requirement is superseded by the ISO 9000 restriction noted earlier.— It must not directly engage in commerce with firms that it hasassessed and/or registered.— Individuals involved in the registration process must not haveprovided consulting services to registration clients, or any relatedfirms, within the previous two years.— Its employees and agents must not engage in business activitiesthat would cause others to question the firm’s impartiality.— The registrar may not market consultancy and registrationservices together, and may not recommend consulting servicesto clients.— Auditors may not give advice as part of registration audits.— The registrar must provide the accreditation body with documentationof its employees’ qualifications.— The registrar must have appropriate facilities for carrying outits activities.— The registrar must have a quality manual and documentedprocedures. (Curiously, EN 45012 does not require that registrarsregister to ISO 9000!)— Registrars may not grant or renew certificates of registration until all major noncompliances are eliminated.
Another point of differentiation is scope of accreditation. All registrarsare not accredited, or approved, to register firms in any line of business. Each registrar is accredited to operate within the business or industrial sectors about which it has documented expertise. This is generically referred to as the registrar’s scope.
What is a quality systems registrar
What is a quality systems registrar
A registrar, or registration body (the preferred term), is sometimes called a certification body. (Accreditation bodies are entirely different—they are the entities that audit/approve registration bodies.)
There are some 573 registration bodies in operation worldwide, including52 in the United States.
The registrar is the organization that checks your quality system and confirms that it meets ISO 9000 requirements for a prescribed and agreed period of time.
To do this, the registrar:a. Audits your organization’s quality system to determine the degree of conformity to ISO 9000 standards. The audit is carried out:— On paper (desktop study).— On site (throughout your facility).b. Registers your quality system, assuming it conforms, to ISO 9000.c. Monitors conformity on an ongoing basis by means of regular reauditsand other methods.All quality system registrars perform these functions, with certainvariations. Registrars differ in two principal ways:a. Accreditation status.b. Scope of accreditation
Reputable ISO 9000 registrars are accredited by international accreditationbodies. These enforce a standard, EN 45012 (European Standard for Bodies Certificating Suppliers’ Quality Systems), that governs the processes that registrars follow. This standard is quite strict:a. Registrars must make their services available to all qualified supplierswithout imposing undue financial or other conditions, andmust administer their regulations in a nondiscriminatory manner.b. The registrar’s organization must not engage in activities that mayaffect its impartiality. For example:— It must not provide consulting services “on matters to whichits certificates are related” (i.e., quality systems). This requirement is superseded by the ISO 9000 restriction noted earlier.— It must not directly engage in commerce with firms that it hasassessed and/or registered.— Individuals involved in the registration process must not haveprovided consulting services to registration clients, or any relatedfirms, within the previous two years.— Its employees and agents must not engage in business activitiesthat would cause others to question the firm’s impartiality.— The registrar may not market consultancy and registrationservices together, and may not recommend consulting servicesto clients.— Auditors may not give advice as part of registration audits.— The registrar must provide the accreditation body with documentationof its employees’ qualifications.— The registrar must have appropriate facilities for carrying outits activities.— The registrar must have a quality manual and documentedprocedures. (Curiously, EN 45012 does not require that registrarsregister to ISO 9000!)— Registrars may not grant or renew certificates of registration until all major noncompliances are eliminated.
Another point of differentiation is scope of accreditation. All registrarsare not accredited, or approved, to register firms in any line of business. Each registrar is accredited to operate within the business or industrial sectors about which it has documented expertise. This is generically referred to as the registrar’s scope.
A registrar, or registration body (the preferred term), is sometimes called a certification body. (Accreditation bodies are entirely different—they are the entities that audit/approve registration bodies.)
There are some 573 registration bodies in operation worldwide, including52 in the United States.
The registrar is the organization that checks your quality system and confirms that it meets ISO 9000 requirements for a prescribed and agreed period of time.
To do this, the registrar:a. Audits your organization’s quality system to determine the degree of conformity to ISO 9000 standards. The audit is carried out:— On paper (desktop study).— On site (throughout your facility).b. Registers your quality system, assuming it conforms, to ISO 9000.c. Monitors conformity on an ongoing basis by means of regular reauditsand other methods.All quality system registrars perform these functions, with certainvariations. Registrars differ in two principal ways:a. Accreditation status.b. Scope of accreditation
Reputable ISO 9000 registrars are accredited by international accreditationbodies. These enforce a standard, EN 45012 (European Standard for Bodies Certificating Suppliers’ Quality Systems), that governs the processes that registrars follow. This standard is quite strict:a. Registrars must make their services available to all qualified supplierswithout imposing undue financial or other conditions, andmust administer their regulations in a nondiscriminatory manner.b. The registrar’s organization must not engage in activities that mayaffect its impartiality. For example:— It must not provide consulting services “on matters to whichits certificates are related” (i.e., quality systems). This requirement is superseded by the ISO 9000 restriction noted earlier.— It must not directly engage in commerce with firms that it hasassessed and/or registered.— Individuals involved in the registration process must not haveprovided consulting services to registration clients, or any relatedfirms, within the previous two years.— Its employees and agents must not engage in business activitiesthat would cause others to question the firm’s impartiality.— The registrar may not market consultancy and registrationservices together, and may not recommend consulting servicesto clients.— Auditors may not give advice as part of registration audits.— The registrar must provide the accreditation body with documentationof its employees’ qualifications.— The registrar must have appropriate facilities for carrying outits activities.— The registrar must have a quality manual and documentedprocedures. (Curiously, EN 45012 does not require that registrarsregister to ISO 9000!)— Registrars may not grant or renew certificates of registration until all major noncompliances are eliminated.
Another point of differentiation is scope of accreditation. All registrarsare not accredited, or approved, to register firms in any line of business. Each registrar is accredited to operate within the business or industrial sectors about which it has documented expertise. This is generically referred to as the registrar’s scope.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
ISO 9000 series of standards
ISO 9001 is one of a series of quality management system standards. It can help bring out the best in your organization by enabling you to understand your processes for delivering your products/services to your customers. The ISO 9001 series of standards consist of:
- ISO 9000 – Fundamentals and Vocabulary: this introduces the user to the concepts behind the management systems and specifies the terminology used. - ISO 9001 – Requirements: this sets out the criteria you will need to meet if you wish to operate in accordance with the standard and gain certification. - ISO 9004 – Guidelines for performance improvement: based upon the eight quality management principles, these are designed to be used by senior management as a framework to guide their organizations towards improved performance by considering the needs of all interested parties, not just customers.
ISO 9001 is suitable for any organization looking to improve the way it is operated and managed, regardless of size or sector. However, the best returns on investment come from those companies that are prepared to implement it throughout their organization rather than at particular sites, departments or divisions.
- ISO 9000 – Fundamentals and Vocabulary: this introduces the user to the concepts behind the management systems and specifies the terminology used. - ISO 9001 – Requirements: this sets out the criteria you will need to meet if you wish to operate in accordance with the standard and gain certification. - ISO 9004 – Guidelines for performance improvement: based upon the eight quality management principles, these are designed to be used by senior management as a framework to guide their organizations towards improved performance by considering the needs of all interested parties, not just customers.
ISO 9001 is suitable for any organization looking to improve the way it is operated and managed, regardless of size or sector. However, the best returns on investment come from those companies that are prepared to implement it throughout their organization rather than at particular sites, departments or divisions.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Version Of ISO 9000 Series
Version Of ISO 9000 Series
1987 version
ISO 9000:1987 had the same structure as the UK Standard BS 5750, with three ‘models’ for quality management systems, the selection of which was based on the scope of activities of the organization:
ISO 9001:1987 Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation, and servicing was for companies and organizations whose activities included the creation of new products.
ISO 9002:1987 Model for quality assurance in production, installation, and servicing had basically the same material as ISO 9001 but without covering the creation of new products.
ISO 9003:1987 Model for quality assurance in final inspection and test covered only the final inspection of finished product, with no concern for how the product was produced.
ISO 9000:1987
1994 version
was also influenced by existing U.S. and other Defense Standards (”MIL SPECS”), and so was well-suited to manufacturing. The emphasis tended to be placed on conformance with procedures rather than the overall process of management—which was likely the actual intent.
ISO 9000:1994 2000 version
emphasized quality assurance via preventive actions, instead of just checking final product, and continued to require evidence of compliance with documented procedures. As with the first edition, the down-side was that companies tended to implement its requirements by creating shelf-loads of procedure manuals, and becoming burdened with an ISO bureaucracy. In some companies, adapting and improving processes could actually be impeded by the quality system.ISO 9001:2000
The ISO 9000 standard is continually being revised by standing technical committees and advisory groups, who receive feedback from those professionals who are implementing the standard.2008 version
ISO 9001:2008 only introduces clarifications to the existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000 and some changes intended to improve consistency with ISO 14001:2004. There are no new requirements. Explanation of changes in ISO 9001:2008. A Practical Guide to ISO 9001:2008 Implementation A quality management system being upgraded just needs to be checked to see if it is following the clarifications introduced in the amended version.
combines the three standards 9001, 9002, and 9003 into one, called 9001. Design and development procedures are required only if a company does in fact engage in the creation of new products. The 2000 version sought to make a radical change in thinking by actually placing the concept of process management front and center (”Process management” was the monitoring and optimizing of a company’s tasks and activities, instead of just inspecting the final product). The 2000 version also demands involvement by upper executives, in order to integrate quality into the business system and avoid delegation of quality functions to junior administrators. Another goal is to improve effectiveness via process performance metrics — numerical measurement of the effectiveness of tasks and activities. Expectations of continual process improvement and tracking customer satisfaction were made explicit.
1987 version
ISO 9000:1987 had the same structure as the UK Standard BS 5750, with three ‘models’ for quality management systems, the selection of which was based on the scope of activities of the organization:
ISO 9001:1987 Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation, and servicing was for companies and organizations whose activities included the creation of new products.
ISO 9002:1987 Model for quality assurance in production, installation, and servicing had basically the same material as ISO 9001 but without covering the creation of new products.
ISO 9003:1987 Model for quality assurance in final inspection and test covered only the final inspection of finished product, with no concern for how the product was produced.
ISO 9000:1987
1994 version
was also influenced by existing U.S. and other Defense Standards (”MIL SPECS”), and so was well-suited to manufacturing. The emphasis tended to be placed on conformance with procedures rather than the overall process of management—which was likely the actual intent.
ISO 9000:1994 2000 version
emphasized quality assurance via preventive actions, instead of just checking final product, and continued to require evidence of compliance with documented procedures. As with the first edition, the down-side was that companies tended to implement its requirements by creating shelf-loads of procedure manuals, and becoming burdened with an ISO bureaucracy. In some companies, adapting and improving processes could actually be impeded by the quality system.ISO 9001:2000
The ISO 9000 standard is continually being revised by standing technical committees and advisory groups, who receive feedback from those professionals who are implementing the standard.2008 version
ISO 9001:2008 only introduces clarifications to the existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000 and some changes intended to improve consistency with ISO 14001:2004. There are no new requirements. Explanation of changes in ISO 9001:2008. A Practical Guide to ISO 9001:2008 Implementation A quality management system being upgraded just needs to be checked to see if it is following the clarifications introduced in the amended version.
combines the three standards 9001, 9002, and 9003 into one, called 9001. Design and development procedures are required only if a company does in fact engage in the creation of new products. The 2000 version sought to make a radical change in thinking by actually placing the concept of process management front and center (”Process management” was the monitoring and optimizing of a company’s tasks and activities, instead of just inspecting the final product). The 2000 version also demands involvement by upper executives, in order to integrate quality into the business system and avoid delegation of quality functions to junior administrators. Another goal is to improve effectiveness via process performance metrics — numerical measurement of the effectiveness of tasks and activities. Expectations of continual process improvement and tracking customer satisfaction were made explicit.
ISO 9000 — a way of managing for conformance
Quality assurance, according to the Standard, is a way of managing that prevents non-conformance and thus “assures quality”. This is what makes ISO 9000 different from other standards: it is a management standard, not a product standard. It goes beyond product standardisation: it is standardising not what is made but how it is made. To use standards to dictate and control how organisations work was to extend the role of standards to new territory. To take such a step we might have firstly established that any such requirements worked — that they resulted in ways of working which improved performance.
Yet the plausibility of this Standard, and the fact that those who had an interest in maintaining it were (and still are) leading opinion, prevented such enquiries. In simple terms the Standard asks managers to say what they do, do what they say and prove it to a third party.
ISO 9000 (1994) paragraph 1: “The requirements specified are aimed primarily at achieving customer satisfaction by preventing non-conformity at all stages from design through servicing.”
To put it another way, the Standard asserts that preventing non-conformance achieves customer satisfaction. But does it? Of course it matters to customers that a product works. But there is no guarantee that the Standard will ensure even that. Furthermore, customers take a total view of an organisation — how easy it is to do business with — in respect of all things of importance to each and every customer.
ISO 9000 requires managers to “establish and maintain a documented quality system as a means of ensuring that product conforms to specified requirements”. Loosely translated this is “say what you do”. Management is supposed to “define and document its policy for quality . . . including its commitment to quality”.
What management would not declare its commitment to quality? But would they know what it means? Would they argue (as they should) that quality management is a different and better way to do business, or would they believe that ISO 9000 will take care of quality? The Standard encourages managers to think of “quality” and “business as usual” as separate and distinct. It helps managers avoid the revelation that quality means a wholly different view of management. Instead, the organisation “shall appoint a management representative who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have defined authority and responsibility” [for ISO 9000]. At a practical level this means only one executive might decide he or she had better learn a thing or two about quality. However, would being responsible for ISO 9000 lead to learning about quality or simply enforcing the ISO 9000 regime in an organisation?
Key to the regime is auditing. The Standard requires organisations to conduct internal quality audits to “verify whether quality activities comply with planned arrangements”. This can be loosely translated as “do you do as you say?” and the purpose of the audit is to see that you do. It was not until the 1994 review that the words were changed to “quality activities and related results”. It was a Standard which was rooted in the philosophy of inspection: fifteen years after its initial promulgation the promoters sought to extend the focus to results. But results or improvements assessed by what means? Inspection. By the time the Standard was adopted world-wide, quality thinking had moved a long way from the philosophy of inspection. It is now understood, at least by a few, that quality is achieved through managing the organisation as a system and using measures which enable managers to improve flow and reduce variation (which we explore in chapters 5 and 7). The defenders argue that there is nothing stopping a company having ISO 9000 and implementing methods for managing flow and reducing variation, but where are such companies? Few of the companies we researched, formally and informally, knew anything about this thinking. The Standard does not talk about it; moreover, the Standard effectively discourages managers from learning about it by representing quality in a different way.
According to ISO 8402 (quality vocabulary), quality is:
“The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.”
Everything we have learned about ISO 9000 suggests that the people who created this definition were thinking about the things which need to be controlled, those things which “bear on its ability . . .”. The builders of the Standard assumed that customer needs would be listed in contractual agreements between the supplier and customer. ISO 9000 has a “make” logic — procedures for “how you do what you do” — and a “control” logic — check to see that it is done. It is a relic of the era when contractual agreements were perceived to be an important device for regulating the behaviour of suppliers. In these ways, ISO 9000 encouraged “planning for quality”.
Planning for quality sounds plausible, but it assumes many things: that the plan is the right plan, that it is feasible, that people will “do it”, that performance will improve. It is an approach which, paradoxically, leads to poor decisions. Planners of quality systems, guided by ISO 9000, start with a view of how the world should be as framed by the Standard. Understanding how an organisation is working, rather than how someone thinks it should, is a far better place from which to start change of any kind.
Yet the plausibility of this Standard, and the fact that those who had an interest in maintaining it were (and still are) leading opinion, prevented such enquiries. In simple terms the Standard asks managers to say what they do, do what they say and prove it to a third party.
ISO 9000 (1994) paragraph 1: “The requirements specified are aimed primarily at achieving customer satisfaction by preventing non-conformity at all stages from design through servicing.”
To put it another way, the Standard asserts that preventing non-conformance achieves customer satisfaction. But does it? Of course it matters to customers that a product works. But there is no guarantee that the Standard will ensure even that. Furthermore, customers take a total view of an organisation — how easy it is to do business with — in respect of all things of importance to each and every customer.
ISO 9000 requires managers to “establish and maintain a documented quality system as a means of ensuring that product conforms to specified requirements”. Loosely translated this is “say what you do”. Management is supposed to “define and document its policy for quality . . . including its commitment to quality”.
What management would not declare its commitment to quality? But would they know what it means? Would they argue (as they should) that quality management is a different and better way to do business, or would they believe that ISO 9000 will take care of quality? The Standard encourages managers to think of “quality” and “business as usual” as separate and distinct. It helps managers avoid the revelation that quality means a wholly different view of management. Instead, the organisation “shall appoint a management representative who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have defined authority and responsibility” [for ISO 9000]. At a practical level this means only one executive might decide he or she had better learn a thing or two about quality. However, would being responsible for ISO 9000 lead to learning about quality or simply enforcing the ISO 9000 regime in an organisation?
Key to the regime is auditing. The Standard requires organisations to conduct internal quality audits to “verify whether quality activities comply with planned arrangements”. This can be loosely translated as “do you do as you say?” and the purpose of the audit is to see that you do. It was not until the 1994 review that the words were changed to “quality activities and related results”. It was a Standard which was rooted in the philosophy of inspection: fifteen years after its initial promulgation the promoters sought to extend the focus to results. But results or improvements assessed by what means? Inspection. By the time the Standard was adopted world-wide, quality thinking had moved a long way from the philosophy of inspection. It is now understood, at least by a few, that quality is achieved through managing the organisation as a system and using measures which enable managers to improve flow and reduce variation (which we explore in chapters 5 and 7). The defenders argue that there is nothing stopping a company having ISO 9000 and implementing methods for managing flow and reducing variation, but where are such companies? Few of the companies we researched, formally and informally, knew anything about this thinking. The Standard does not talk about it; moreover, the Standard effectively discourages managers from learning about it by representing quality in a different way.
According to ISO 8402 (quality vocabulary), quality is:
“The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.”
Everything we have learned about ISO 9000 suggests that the people who created this definition were thinking about the things which need to be controlled, those things which “bear on its ability . . .”. The builders of the Standard assumed that customer needs would be listed in contractual agreements between the supplier and customer. ISO 9000 has a “make” logic — procedures for “how you do what you do” — and a “control” logic — check to see that it is done. It is a relic of the era when contractual agreements were perceived to be an important device for regulating the behaviour of suppliers. In these ways, ISO 9000 encouraged “planning for quality”.
Planning for quality sounds plausible, but it assumes many things: that the plan is the right plan, that it is feasible, that people will “do it”, that performance will improve. It is an approach which, paradoxically, leads to poor decisions. Planners of quality systems, guided by ISO 9000, start with a view of how the world should be as framed by the Standard. Understanding how an organisation is working, rather than how someone thinks it should, is a far better place from which to start change of any kind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)