I have just returned from the Ninth Annual IRCA Conference, held in Yokohama, Japan. It was a great privilege being invited to speak at such a prestigious and high profile event, and to be among such interesting and distinguished company

The theme of the event was “Auditing for Effectiveness” and I guess that I was invited because I have been quite vocal on the subject over the past year or so. I still find it hugely flattering whenever I realise that someone is listening

Auditing for Effectiveness: The CPD Workshop

Anyway, prior to the event I ran a 2 day CPD workshop for a number of individuals who wanted to explore the concepts in more depth. I had put together a 2 day program earlier in the year, and I must pass on my gratitude to the people of Gloucestershire College for allowing my to test out the new materials on them in May. The feedback I received from that trial run was extremely valuable and helped me refine elements of the workshop to the extent that it received excellent feedback

The workshop explored ways in which the EFQM RADAR assessment mechanism could be incorporated into more general QMS audits to add depth and rigour to the process. Here’s a group shot of the workshop delegates

The 9th Annual Conference

The annual conference was something of a daunting affair. It was held in the very grand surroundings of the Pacifico Yokohama Conference Centre, with over 300 delegates attending. I had a one hour slot mid-afternoon, the other speakers included:

• Simon Feary, Director of the IRCA and Chief Executive of the CQI
• Masakuzu Ikoma, JAB (Japan Accreditation Bureau)
• Noriyuki Hishino, Technical Advisor of LRQA in Japan
• Ashihiko Aoki, Cannon
• Paul Palmes, Business Standards Architects Inc
• Ian Nield, Investors in Excellence Ltd

All in all the delegates all received good value for money, and it appeared that the general consensus was that third party certification could not carry on drifting in its current direction, and decisive action to protect the integrity of the system was required. This would clearly involve improvements in both technique and governance

Free stuff for my blog readers

If anyone is interested in receiving copies of the powerpoint slides I used during my 1 hour presentation on the topic of “Auditing for Effectiveness” you can download them from the Members Area of this blog. You’ll need a password which you can request via the contact form on our main site – MAKE SURE YOU TYPE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS IN PROPERLY – otherwise I can’t send it

We love japan

Finally I need to thank everyone we met while we were in Japan. When I say “we” I mean me and Mrs Shaun, who tagged along for the experience. The people and the county are quite lovely, and we have never encountered such kindness in all our lives. Particular thanks go to the IRCA team in Japan, Masayo, Miho and Yuki, who looked after us so well. I’d also like to nod in the direction of Ian Nield from Investors in Excellence. His operation may well be worthwhile checking out – they have some interesting ideas

Post from: Capable People Blog

9th Annual IRCA Conference: Yokohama 2010

This topic has taken on somewhat of a scary feel for me lately. In June I will be presenting to several hundred representatives from the third party certification industry in Japan, at the IRCA 2010 Conference in Yokohama. This is my topic

I think I know why I was asked. I’ve had a lot to say about weaknesses in third party audit systems on this blog and a few other places, and I have expressed strong views on the need for modernisation of traditional and (dare I say it) out-dated conformity focussed approaches. It may be that the industry is starting to agree with some of the things I have been saying. I hope …

Anyway, I really need to start constructing something. An argument. Something that is challenging enough to make people think differently, but engaging enough not to turn people off and create a defensive response. A dilemma and no mistake

Fortunately I have been able to review a JIBDEC/JAB action document, so I know a little about where they are coming from. That document talks about the need for a balanced effectiveness/conformity assessment. Not so much “does it work to its own procedures?” more like “does it do what the customer wants it to?” The JIBDEC/JAB document also talks about how the audit needs to add value. It is this second aspect that has got me thinking. What do we mean when we say we want the third party audit to “add value?”

Third party audits – adding value for whom?

When we talk about “value adding” third party audits are we really suggesting that a third party auditor, without performing any meaningful research or necessarily having any great expertise in the sector, should be able to go into an established company for a couple of days and tell them much that they did not already know? Come on, let’s take a trip to planet earth for a second, is that realistic?  I think anyone who thinks that a third party audit is going to yield a treasure trove of hitherto unknown and valuable management information is living in a dream world. It is not going to happen. The good news, though, is that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because third party certification schemes were never designed or intended to do that in the first place. Its just that somehow over the years we’ve lost sight of what the primary purpose actually is, and for whose benefit they exist. Third party certification schemes exist primarily to provide information not to the audited organisation, but to customer organisations. It is these organisations that we really should be thinking about. What do CUSTOMER organisations want from third party certifications? How can we improve third party certifications to increase value for CUSTOMER organisations?

It’s the customer, stupid

How could we be so blind? The reason the vast majority of companies seek registration is not because they want it for some intrinsic reason (although I accept one or two may do), nor is it because they believe the CB will send along a kind of Tom Peters to sort out all their problems and tell them how to conquer the world. It isn’t these companies we should be focussing on. We must think about the external value of certification and what that is supposed to mean in the public domain. When we think about adding value we should be asking questions like

• What is it supposed to say about a company that has certification?
• How high are the standards?
• Dare we trust the certification?
• Is it consistently applied?

What if every hotel was rated 5 star?

Maybe we need to start thinking about it in the same way that we think about star rating systems on hotels, because the same principle applies. When we choose a hotel for a family holiday we look at the hotel’s star rating and this adds value to us as customers. The ratings are extremely useful so long as we feel we can trust them. They give us information and help us to reduce the risk of choosing a hotel that might not suit our needs

But what would happen if we lost faith in the integrity of the star rating system? Well, for a start, we’d pay no attention to it. We would not use it as a selection tool, hotels would stop going through the rating process and the scheme would soon fall into disuse. Pretty soon there would be no more pointless star ratings. That is what would happen if the integrity was lost

I think it is this parallel we need to consider when we talk about breathing new life and credibility into third party management system certification. Above all else the system has to be consistent, trusted and enforced to a level that means something to prospective CUSTOMER organisations. We need to be clear about what the badge means and go back to basics to a certain extent. Maybe there needs to be more fails too. Think about it. Should it be our aim to get everyone certified? Great for CBs in the short-term, lots of fees, but in fact it is the last thing we should ever want if we think about it properly. All differentiation would effectively be lost

The day everyone achieves certification is the day that nobody needs it any more

Post from: Capable People Blog

Value adding third party audits

ISO 9001, that part of the ISO 9000 series that defines the quality management system requirements, clearly means many things to many people. There are certainly people with a vested interest in promoting its virtues and (sometimes) overstating its merits in the process. There are also some very vociferous opponents, including some career critics who have made a good living from slagging it off. But let’s try to be objective, (whilst simultaneously declaring an obvious interest in the its continued existence)

Why do people seek registration?
Check out this thread for some contributions. The simple inarguable truth is that most registered organisations seek registration to meet the requirements of an important customer, or an important prospect. It basically allows the company to bid for work they would otherwise be excluded from, as the customer has defined it as a condition to supply. Is this right? Well, we’ve talked about this in the past. The customer is king, if he says “jump!” we should all say “how high?”

Interestingly, when the benefits of ISO 9001 registration are debated, most people launch into often unquantified justifications revolving around control, conformity and efficiency themes, almost as if doing it mainly because the customer wants it is somehow something to be ashamed of. The fact that it opens doors economically is often overlooked. This obvious economic advantage of offering access to more contracts has to be a major benefit, and “quality guys” should not be afraid of recognising it

Is it a mark of excellence?
Some people might claim that it is but they are just plain wrong. There may well be a decent set of good business practices woven into that clumsy and badly written document, but the requirements set out in ISO 9001 are no more than a base line. Successful certification indicates that the bones of a documented QMS is in place, it is auditable and it is supported by a basic set of management processes and, if we’re lucky, a PDCA theme running through it. The company may be a million miles from world class and may even be going steadily out of business at the same time. So I’m saying, in quality terms, it’s no more than our starter for ten

Why the confusion then?
The ten thousand dollar question, but I can offer a personal opinion. From my own personal experience I find that quality guys don’t speak the language of business, and business guys don’t speak the jargon of quality. That means strategic, commercial and quality people often have parallel agendas and, because the communication and transparency are poor within the processes (the principle that we should all be seeking the same end result, a successful business), is lost in the ensuing conflict and battle for resources. How often do we hear the QA department moaning about poor top management commitment to quality? Time for a common language and a clear focus on what is important to the business and the customer, whichever way we want to badge it up

A business approach to managing quality
Another favourite theme, but let’s expand on it a little this time by exploring the cost of quality in economic terms. Quality, generally, is defined as “the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements” or “conformity to requirements” or a variation on that theme. Often “quality” is stated only in product conformity terms, as if that was the only thing that mattered to the customer and, as a consequence, the lower the level of functional defects, the better things are. However there comes a point at which investing in conformity related improvements does not yield any economic benefits. Eventually we reach a point at which (at the current price) we offer the customer a tolerable level of defect, a lower rate of defect may come at a price that the customer is not prepared to pay. So “better quality” (in this situation) increases the chances the customer will seek a cheaper provider, possibly one with an inferior defect rate. So examining the likelihood of repeat business only from a conformity and defect rate perspective is a dangerous mistake to make. Customers care about lots of things. Once the level of defects is tolerable they start to care more about other things. After sales service, response times, ease of dealing with, user-friendliness of contact systems, flexibility, image even. If these are important to the customer, then they become the new conformity

Post from: Capable People Blog

The real benefits of ISO 9001 certification

It’s here. A year after the publication of ISO 9001:2008, the companion document ISO 9004 has been updated. And whilst the most recent changes to ISO 9001 have been minimal and to all intents and purposes largely cosmetic, the changes to ISO 9004 have not. The changes are big. In fact the revised standard is barely recognisable from its predecessor. It’s different

So what are the changes?

… Where do we start?

OK, gone is the old title “Guidelines for Performance Improvement”. The new title for ISO 9004:2009 is “Managing for the sustained success of an organisation – a quality management approach”. Gone is the old familiar format that mirrored ISO 9001. The ISO 9001 requirements as “boxed text” accompanied by some general hints and tips outside the boxed text, there to help us understand and apply the various requirements of ISO 9001. That is gone

In fact, ISO 9004 no longer follows the structure and requirements of ISO 9001 in any real way. It no longer goes through the ISO 9001 requirements and offers specific clause by clause advice. It actually does more or less what the title implies, it offers guidance on a more general “quality management approach”

This calls into question what the intended application of ISO 9004 actually is. It can no longer really function as an implementation guide to ISO 9001, firstly because it no longer tries to, but secondly because the scope of its content is now fundamentally different. It contains, for example, guidance on such matters as:

• Strategy and policy formulation
• Strategy and policy deployment
• Financial resources
• Knowledge, information and technology
• Natural resources
• Innovation & learning

Wow. That’s different. Good topics though these might be for any management system, they are, arguably, out-with the current scope of ISO 9001:2008. What is more, it appears that ISO 9004 is starting to use some established terms in a different way to ISO 9001. “Policy” for instance. If we look at the way ISO 9001 uses the term “Policy” (with reference to clause 5.3) it deals very much with the one page “statement of intent” that we all know and (maybe) love. ISO 9004 appears to be using the term “Policy” in a broader sense, something more detailed, meaningful and less neutral. And strategy? Well, ISO 9001 currently does not even go there

The most obvious “hit you in the face” feature of ISO 9004:2009, however, is that it borrows very heavily from the EFQM Excellence Model

All of those new topics I listed above feature heavily in the excellence model, and have done for a couple of decades. We saw a small movement to an “excellence model approach” in 2000 when the “8 Principles” were introduced. These principles were lifted, more or less, from the principles that underpinned the EFQM excellence model at the time. Some of them (Continual Improvement, Customer Focus) even generated some significant new requirements within ISO 9001:2000. Many people expected ISO 9001:2008 to move a little further in that general “excellence” direction. It did not, of course. Some of us were pleased, some of us were disappointed. Maybe ISO 9004:2009 is a kind of half-way house? Maybe it has been developed this way as a means of placating those of us that maintain ISO 9001 standards are old fashioned or not challenging enough? Maybe ISO is saying, “OK you want something more challenging? There you are. Next time be careful what you wish for!”

Either way, as a general observation, I have to say that I am detecting some initial confusion. Not that the contents are in any way badly written or irrelevant, just that practitioners are simply confused as to what the intent of ISO 9004:2009 actually is. How are we to use it? Will certification bodies develop a certification scheme for it? (there’s a thought), how are ISO 9001 auditors meant to use it? All these questions remain for the moment, so far as I can see, unanswered

So, yes, it appears to be a “quality” document, but will it be used in a “quality” way? Only time will tell

KWVBPN9H9MGS

Post from: Capable People Blog

ISO 9004:2009 – A review

There was an interesting discussion thread on the IRCA forum recently. After a while John Coggan posted this particularly insightful appraisal of the inherent problems and conflicts of interests with the current system of accredited certification. He also explores the question as to how competent the CBs may actually be in assessing the effectiveness of service provision. It was a nice piece of work, so I’ll just post it (having secured John’s permission first – thanks John) as it was written. It’s quite thought provoking

“There are 3 dichotomies that the CBs face and may or may not be competent in addressing them.

1. Certification value vs market share
2. Market legal/contractual obligations vs. certification cost
3. Value add vs operational cost
4. Delivery vs volume

All of these are conflicting requirements and will depend on management decisions and policy

1. Typical regional/country offices appoint their managers based on the need to increase certifications, hence audits and sometimes audit days sold as the indicator, operational costs, and sometimes market share leadership. The remainder is considered of secondary importance

2. Some countries demand that for tax exemption programs the organization be certified to 9001. Governments may require that to supply services to government entities compliance to 27001 is required. Note compliance and not certification. In any case companies will need the ” document” to offer services and products. They want to know what it takes to get it and will investigate available options. Typically they will decide on the lowest cost (not audit days) but logistical costs like transport and so on. Why pay for a competent english speaking auditor plus translator from London when there is a spanish speaking one around the corner? Money talks

3. Competent auditors cost more than trainees. Audit days are short and capacity planning becomes an issue. You cant have auditors swanning around the office with nothing to do. And you cant have competent auditors available at a touch of a button withought paying. There is no free lunch.
4. As volumes grow so do costs. After all this is not what can be called a scalable business. It is better to deliver volume than satisfaction, and so on. After all if the customer complains it will be to the sales people and not to auditor or planning process. Only when volumes drop or the ” marlet objectives” are not met will any of these issues be eventually discussed

Again, who audits these CB internal objectives, results? Have they actually ever worked in a CB? Are the “controls” necessary in place and effective?

Competent audits – what is a good audit and who determines that? Clause 7.5.2 and IAF auditors group july 2005 post on this 9001 clause for service delivery. see http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4298366/APG-AuditingServiceOrganizations.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4298366 for auditing service organizations.

Those processes that involve real time delivery, and are carried out directly at the organization/customer interface can rarely (if ever) have their output verified by subsequent monitoring or measurement before they are delivered to the customer. Therefore, such processes are indeed subject to validation according to the requirements of ISO 9001, clause 7.5.2. This is also essential in order to prevent nonconformities from occurring

In order to ensure adequate control over the quality of the service to be provided, the auditor should:

• understand the service characteristics, the service provision processes, and their acceptance criteria, as defined by the organization (this should be done during the Stage 1 audit)
• determine whether validation of “real-time” service provision processes (or any other process that requires validation) has been performed and if this has taken into account the associated risks;
• assess if the appropriate tools, training and empowerment have been provided to the personnel involved.

For many service industries, the service provided is instantaneous (i.e. via “real- time” processes), which does not readily allow for inspection before delivery of that service. Quality thinking says that the most cost-effective way of doing business is to apply the philosophy of “special processes to ALL processes: the more the organization gets its processes right, the less the organization needs to worry about the outcome of their processes. Therefore it is very unlikely that this clause can be excluded

John”

Inspection & surveillance ain't what it used to be

Post from: Capable People Blog

Certification and conflicts of interest

In ISO 9001 terms there is this requirement for “Management Commitment”. Quite right, you may say. What hope for the QMS if the top level support is not there? Well, I’m with you so far. Management can make things happen, they can also make sure they don’t, or can’t. That’s why their support is so important. For stuff that matters anyway. Not so important for stuff that doesn’t

The only problem is, as soon as ISO 9001 is put on the table, it is amazing how this criteria of “Management Commitment” gets assessed, with radically different interpretations of how that commitment must materially manifest itself. For example, is the failure of the Quality Policy Statement to be signed by the Top Guy (or Gal) a fatal weakness? Is it necessarily a weakness at all?

Clearly the contributors to this thread would argue the case for the prosecution. However, let’s be grown up about it for a moment. What actually happens as a result of this “weakness”? Will it affect the ability of  “the workers” to achieve their objectives? Wooooah!!!! Hold on a minute (some might say) if they can’t be bothered to sign the statement that will probably be the thin end of the wedge.

They’ll probably not participate actively in management review, they will probably under-resource quality projects and and and …. and they probably eat babies too! ….. (and then laugh about it later)

Well, wooooah yourselves. If some of those secondary issues are true then that would certainly constitute a lack of commitment that could easily affect the QMS in a detrimental way. However, the fatal weakness is the failure of the management review and resource allocation process. The policy signature “problem” pales into insignificance in the face of these bigger sins. In the same way if we see active participation in objective setting, management review and resource allocation, then the lack of a signature on the policy (again) pales into insignificance. It does not matter one jot either way, If we look at it in a grown up way, which, as it’s ISO 9001, we might not want. Then there is the punchline.

Despite what a lot of third party auditors would have you believe, a signature on the Policy is not even a specific ISO 9001 requirement. Check clause 5.3 yourselves. It may well be assessed through custom and practice as though it is a cornerstone of the standard and some sort of critical success factor, but it is a myth. And (for once) there’s a good reason that it is omitted as a specific requirement and that reason is, from a business risk perspective ….

IT DOESN’T MATTER

Post from: Capable People Blog

What is management commitment?

The following table summarises the circumstances under which an organisation may consider excluding a part of section 7 from the scope of certification. The most common exclusions are clauses 7.3, 7.6, 7.5.2 and 7.5.4:

Need more?

Try the Capable People ISO 9001 distance learning training module.

Post from: Capable People Blog

Exclusions to ISO 9001 section 7

Follow this link for the official IRCA requirements and press release

These transition requirements are actually quite limited, and to that end Capable People offers auditors the opportunity to gain the appropriate CPD and transition training through a distance learning program, which all things considered is the most sensible and cost effective option all round. It’s already going down well as customers take advantage of being able to demonstrate the appropriate CPD through formal structured learning, and also to be able to deal with it from home and very quickly, if they need to – you could register, complete the program and receive your hard copy certificate inside a week if you wanted to

The ISO 9001:2008 Auditor Transition module is now available. Details can be found here

Post from: Capable People Blog

ISO 9001:2008 IRCA auditor transition requirements

Customer focus

“Organisations depend on their customers and therefore should understand current and future customer needs, should meet customer requirements and strive to exceed customer expectations”

Fundamental concepts include: effective customer communication regarding requirements, orders and complaints, a means of measuring customer satisfaction and identifying a means of improving customer satisfaction over time. This principle acknowledges the fact that success is not all about conformity, and that even with good conformity levels, it is possible to lose business by upsetting the customer relationship by other means. So far as customer satisfaction goes, perception is reality. This means that if the customer is not satisfied (even if they should be) they aren’t. A number of ISO 9001 clauses link directly to this principle, for example:

5.2 Customer focus (the organisation should know what that means in its operational context)

5.6.2 b Management review input (should include customer feedback metrics)

5.6.3 b Management review output (should include customer related actions)

6.1 b Provision of resources (should be adequate to meet customer requirements)

7.2 Customer related processes (orders, contracts, changes, communications, etc should all work for the customer) 8.2.1 Customer satisfaction (should be measured)

8.4 a Analysis of data (customer satisfaction data should be analysed)

Leadership

“Leaders establish unity of purpose and direction in an organisation. They should create and maintain the internal environment in which people can become fully involved in achieving the organisation’s objectives”

Fundamental concepts include: active involvement in policy and objective setting, in management review and the provision of resources and an appropriate infrastructure. The entire section 5 of ISO 9001 identifies those aspects of the management system that require a direct (not delegated) involvement from top management. This is important so that the management system effectively points in the right direction. Competent and capable person that the QA manager often is, he/she will usually not have access to all of the important strategic information that will influence policy and objectives, and that person certainly won’t have the authority and budget to make everything happen. The vital link between understanding customer preferences, and using customer and market data wisely at strategic level is emphasised by this article. If you get lazy and start taking your customers for granted, even the big boys can be asking for trouble

Involvement of people

“People at all levels are the essence of an organisation and their full involvement enables their abilities to be used for the organisation’s benefit”

Fundamental concepts include: effective communication systems top-down and bottom-up, appropriate training and competence levels, involvement of technical experts in improvement projects. This principle is supported within the standard by those clauses that emphasise the importance of training, competence and communication. These include:

5.1 a Management commitment (communication of important information to staff) 5.3 d Quality policy (communication, again)

5.5.1 Responsibility & authority (communicating these internally so that everyone understands)

5.5.3 Internal communication (ensuring effective processes for this are in place)

6.2 Human resources (systems for establishing and enhancing competence levels)

People are our greatest asset? Think what you like, but a disenfranchised workforce and a high staff turnover can be highly disruptive to effective operations Just a pair of hands, or just a bowl of brains? Take your tips on process improvement from the people who really know what’s going on, but make sure the communication channels are open, otherwise it’ll all get lost

Process approach

“A desired result is achieved more efficiently when activities and related resources are managed as a process”

Fundamental concepts include: big picture thinking, an understanding of work flow activities and management of interfaces at each stage in the process, measurement of process capability. ISO 9001 identifies the requirement to establish the the QMS along process lines in a number of early clauses, namely:

4.1 General requirements (read the sub-clauses. It’s process, process, process)

4.2.2 Quality manual (one of the three mandatory content requirements of the manual is a description of the interaction of the processes within the QMS. The purpose of this is to demonstrate that you’ve understood the general points made in 4.1 – probably) The requirement to monitor and measure processes is defined within clause

8.2.3, whilst the requirement to monitor and measure product is defined in clause

8.2.4. Every single organisation will perform the latter with far more diligence than they will do the former.

Many organisations will struggle even to understand the concept of “process measures”. An easy way to look at this would be to think of “product measures” as measures of conformity, and to think of “process measures” normally to be measures of efficiency. Process measures could therefore include things like: * scrap and waste levels * materials and utility consumption levels * cycle times * process down time Follow this link to a great post on shmula that really gets down and dirty on process measurement

System approach to management

“Identifying, understanding and managing inter-related processes as a system contributes to the organisation’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its objectives”

Fundamental concepts include: a realisation that if all departments are left to their own devices they will default to look after number 1. A system has to be implemented to ensure effective cross-departmental co-operation and alignment. Deming said that the output of a system is never the sum of its constituent parts, and that is inarguably true. Each time the flow of work or responsibility passes from one team or function to another we have an opportunity for inefficiency or even break down. Therefore an organisation has to work hard to manage these interfaces as well as they can and to minimise the chances of bottlenecks, delays and communication breakdowns. ISO 9001 is peppered with references to “systems” – each reference to the QMS is a reference to the “Quality Management System”, and since these are too numerous to list, we won’t.

Continual improvement

“Continual improvement of the organisation’s overall performance should be a permanent objective of the organisation”

Fundamental concepts include: a proactive approach to improvement – rather than a “if it’s not broke don’t fix it mentality. A structured approach to improvement planning. You stand still at your peril, because chances are the competition is stealing a march on you. Taking a proactive approach to improvement is critically important these days because of the sheer speed that a company can hit a terminal decline. Chances are, a split second after you receive first sight of a problem, your customers and shareholders find out about it. They get nervous, take action to protect themselves, and two weeks later you find yourself at last chance saloon. Check out these stories relating to UK Bank Northern Rock for a classic example. Continual improvement is a process, that will involve several elements of the system. related clauses include:

5.3 b Quality policy (contains a statement of commitment to CI)

5.4.1 Quality objectives (identify key improvement areas)

5.4.2 b QMS planning (requires a plan to implement the improvements – saying it doesn’t make it happen)

5.6.2 g Management review input (involves a proactive examination of improvement options)

5.6.3 Management review output (should be focussed on improvement, improvement, improvement)

Factual approach to decision making

“Effective decisions are based on the analysis of data and information”

Fundamental concepts include: an appreciation that guess work and gut feel are generally less reliable than data based on hard facts. A broad range of good quality data will help the decision making process. Section 8 of the standard identifies a range of areas where metrics should be collected for the purpose of review and improvement. The principle is that decisions, wherever possible, should be based on hard facts and evidence, as this increases our odds of success. Don’t get too anal about this however, as even Deming himself acknowledged that there would always an element of risk inherent in the decision making process

Mutually beneficial supplier relationships

“An organisation and its suppliers are inter-dependent and a mutually beneficial relationship enhances the ability of both to create value”

Fundamental concepts include: good supplier selection and review processes, good customer/supplier communications and attitude to resolving supplier related problems. Section 7.4 of ISO 9001 defines the main requirements for the selection and management of suppliers, whilst there are a couple of other minor references to suppliers in the following areas:

4.1 General requirements (last paragraph). This relates to outsourced activities. It basically says that it is permissible to outsource work, but the organisation does not outsource the responsibility for getting it right

8.4 d Analysis of data (should include supplier related metrics)

It is important that we appreciate that these principles themselves are inter-dependent of one another. A “Systems Approach to Management” relies on a clear application of the “Process Approach”, “Continual Improvement” relies heavily on support through active “Leadership” and the accuracy of leaders’ decisions are based upon a sound “Factual Approach to Decision Making”. A system, by definition, is a set of inter-related activities and processes. Nothing should be viewed in isolation, and an effective QMS depends on effectively managing both the little picture (the detail of the procedures) and the big picture (but are we still in business?)

Post from: Capable People Blog

Applying the 8 principles of quality management

However, there is obviously nothing inherently wrong with quality schemes as such. After all they seem to work quite well in, say, the restaurant and hospitality sector. But schemes for rating restaurants and hotels are administered differently. There are fewer commercial conflicts of interest and they are more clearly run for the primary benefit of the consumer, not to suit the interests of the establishments. Notably, hotel and restaurant “star rated” schemes tend to incorporate an element of “mystery shopper”. These things are not so true of management system certification schemes, and in this post I suggest that this might be the real underlying reason for the credibility crisis, and not ISO 9001 itself

To illustrate the point, and for a bit of fun, let’s just consider what would happen if the Michelin Star Restaurant award were run along the same lines as third party QMS certification

We’ll start by eaves-dropping on the strategic management team meeting at Michelin Star HQ …

—————————————————————————–

“Thank you all for coming to this special meeting today, gentlemen. To start, I think it would be appropriate if I summarise things so we can all agree on where we stand. (Ahem) Since the inception of the Michelin Star restaurant recognition scheme in the early nineties, the scheme has grown to the point that it now recognises over 170,000 establishments in the UK alone, reaching a peak of 195,000 in 2001.  Over the past 7 or 8 years we have seen a slight year on year decline in the number of recognitions, and the time has come to act on the causes of that decline, to protect the future of the scheme. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that suggests that the scheme may be suffering a credibility crisis as a result of some negative press. Negative press not from our customers, you understand (the recognised establishments), but from the food consuming public”

“The peasants are revolting!”

“Ha ha, very good Reg. But seriously we must find a way to shut them up because they are starting to become bad for business”

“What do they know anyway? They need to respect our assessment expertise. We’ve assessed more hot dinners than they’ve … had … hot … dinners … oh, that metaphor doesn’t really …”

“A valid point nonetheless Reg. But the fact remains that they are noisy and irritating and we need to do something to put a stop to their continual moaning”

“What sort of things are they saying anyway?”

“Oh, I’m surprised you have to ask. The usual rubbish about it being too easy to achieve a Michelin Star, the old accusations that we want to issue as many stars as possible, stars are meaningless, that sort of thing. As an example, the other day I got a complaint asking me how we could award a star to Café Joe on Dewsbury High Street, as it was, in their words, ‘a shit-hole’ – pardon my French”

“How did you respond to that?”

“I simply explained the facts. That the Michelin Star is awarded based on a sample generated at the time of the assessment and that we can only make our recommendation based on what we witness at the time of the assessment”

“Did you also explain that we give them two months notice, turn up only by appointment and only speak to members of staff that we have agreed well in advance?”

“Er, no – I thought it would only confuse matters. Oh, by the way Reg, how did your assessment of Il Polio go yesterday?”

“Oh very well, very well. Infrastructure was sound, doors, tables, floor, that type of thing. Work equipment was in order, plates, forks etc. Food tasted like a tramp’s underpants, but the process for putting it on the table was sound, so the system met our criteria”

“So you’ll be recommending recognition?”

“Absolutely. After all, it’s about system and process - that’s what is important. When are the great unwashed going to wake up to that fact?”

“Probably never, but back to the job at hand. What we need to do is to inject some sort of credibility into the scheme”

“You’re a mad man – it cannot be done!”

“Quiet Ron! – I believe it can. What we need to do is to conduct a high profile review of standards, to prove we’ve got them right. We do need to demonstrate that the stars actually mean something”

“Agreed”

“So as a starter, what I’d like you to do, Reg, is a customer survey – find out what the customer thinks – we are, after all, a customer focused organisation”

“Ask the general public?”

“Oh Christ no – we already know what that rabble thinks, thank you very much. No, our customers – those great establishments who pay their fees and dues to the scheme. We need to find out what they think”

“What sort of things do you want me to ask them?”

“Well Reg, basically just ask them if they think the scheme is fair, or whether they would like us to make it more difficult for them”

“Oh … right. How many do you want me to ask? All of them?”

“What??? Have you been drinking? No! You’re an auditor for god’s sake … a random sample of, say, two hundred will be just fine”

“When you say random sample, do you mean random sample or ‘random sample’ …?”

“Well ‘random sample’ of course. We certainly don’t need to go looking for trouble. Especially from the up-market west end brigade”

“You’re right there. I did an assessment in the west end last week, you know, one of these posh places. Assessment went well enough, a few observations …”

“Like what?”

“Just the usual. Portion sizes too small, prices too high, no childrens’ menu, ambience could be improved by the addition of generic piped muzak, not everyone likes rabbit – consider the addition of some family favourites such as lasagne or gammon & pineapple … – just the type of findings you’d expect from one of these places. Anyway, I’m sitting in the closing meeting with the owner of the place, going through these observations and he starts changing colour, then steam starts coming out of his ears – literally”

“Medical condition?”

“That’s what I thought at first, then he starts turning the air blue with all manner of abuse. You know the type of stuff, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’ve never ran a restaurant …”

“Ah yes … if I had a pound for every time I’ve heard those old chestnuts …”

“Exactly. So I say to him that actually I do know what I’m talking about because I’ve personally issued over 500 Michelin Stars – 180 in Rotherham alone – and I gave him a few practical suggestions”

“Quite right, after all, the assessor should try to add value …”

“Exactly. I gave him some examples of good practice that I’d seen at Il Polio. The massive portions at low low prices … the pet’s menu … the karaoke corner … cheesey chips …”

“I bet that shut him up”

“Huh, you’d think, but no. Made him worse if anything. Told me what I could do with my star. Have you ever had Jamie Oliver telling you to ‘thtick your thtar up your arthe?’ Good job I was wearing my anorak”

“Hah! He’ll be back”

“Yeah, no doubt, but I had the last laugh on him. Because of his attitude towards my best practice suggestions I gave him a non-conformance –‘ failure to consider benchmark data for continual improvement’ …”

“Ha ha you got him there Reg!”

“Bang to rights!”

“People like him just haven’t embraced the continual improvement philosophy. In fact he probably can’t even spell it”

“That’s right. He’s dyslexic”

“Er, yeah right, so back to the job at hand. Don’t waste your time with that load of pretentious so and so’s. They’re in the minority thankfully, and we need to focus on where our bread’s buttered. So can you conduct this vox pop and get back to me with the results in, say … a year?”

“Or thereabouts?”

“Yeah, yeah, a year or thereabouts”

Two years later …

“I’ve got the results of that customer survey you asked for, sir”

“Oh, that’s great Reg. What are your findings?”

“Do you want me to read out all 200 responses or just the summary?”

“Erm, just the summary if you don’t mind Reg …”

“Right you are. Well, the vast majority of the respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they didn’t want the standard to be raised at all”

“That’s fine, anything else?”

“Yes, a little. Some establishments, mostly the Michelin Star takeaways and burger vans, commented that if the standard was raised, they would be worried whether they would be able to meet the higher criteria and that they might have to drop out of the scheme”

“Oh no no, that would never do. There are bloody loads of them – we’d be ruined”

“Exactly. So do you want to hear my recommendation?”

“Yes, go on”

“We leave it alone”

“But what about all this noise from the great unwashed? How are we going to address that little problem of perception?”

“Well, we could publicise the fact we’ve conducted a review …”

“ That won’t be enough – they really want us to do something about our standards, but go on …”

“We could change a few words and re-date the scheme criteria? Recommend a more regular review at unspecified intervals – that might kick it into the long grass for a few years …”

“Brilliant!”

“I’ve also got an idea for extending the scope of the Michelin Star scheme to embrace the not-for-profit sector”

“Not for profit? What does that mean?”

“Well, works canteens, army messes, prison kitchens, homeless shelters … there are LOADS of them!”

“Brilliant – great job! Let’s do it! What are you up to tomorrow?”

“Just a routine surveillance on Il Polio – but don’t worry – I’m taking a packed lunch”

——————————————————-

What if all schemes were run like this ….?

Post from: Capable People Blog

What a way to run a quality scheme