This blog has previously linked to JM Raventos’ excellent article. Important posts from other blogs have disappeared. We wouldn’t want to lose this one, so here it is (Google translation from Spanish).
Remember, this just exposes ISO 9000. The article doesn’t refer to ISO 9000’s mutant children for laboratories, ISO 17025 and ISO 15189.
The introduction to ISO 17025 admits that ISO 9000 was inadequate to assure valid lab results. But a review of External Quality Assurance results also shows that accredited labs sometimes get things wrong. Probably at about the rate you would expect from a normal distribution – not dissimilar to good, non-accredited labs.
But that remains to be proved, should anyone be fearless enough to do so. Has the inspection cartel published anything to prove otherwise?
Yes, accredited labs still get results that are wrong sometimes. Actually, some accredited labs get things wrong fairly consistently despite all their comfort rituals. But at least there’s the “assurance” that other work in the same lab was inspected, which proves they have “quality”, says UKAS.
Do you think they considered offering a money-back guarantee? And accept legal liability for what they accredit? Of course not – that’s why they remind you each year their inspection is “only a sampling exercise.” It’s a coded way of saying they know what they do is pretty worthless so don’t try to sue the inspectors when the lab gets it wrong. Making the extreme demands they do is just a cover-up to distract you into thinking that so much effort must be worth something. It’s not. This is the fallacious Labour Theory of Value.
So the next time the inspectors call, ask them about some of these points. Watch them squirm and give illogical answers to avoid admitting the controversies the cartel has previously failed to confront. All they have is smoke, mirrors and lots of wasteful work. Their system exists for inspection and cannot exist without it. Tagging on clauses about recording improvement actions just isn’t enough for the ISO standards to compete with real quality improvement.
If “delivering confidence” of the UKAS kind makes no sense to you, if you think formerly professional organisations have been silenced by their complicity with and membership of UKAS, then José María’s article will make perfect sense.
July 13, 2011 by jmraventos
In the organization I work for Europe in Spain and especially its leader John Seddon are very critical to ISO 9000. Our reviews are based on observation of the results and consequences of the application of the rule has had and has in organizations public and private services for the past 20 years.
The origin of the ISO is in the BS (British Standard) 5750, an initiative of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, which had the objective of improving the management of companies in the UK, incorporating some of the elements that had made possible the “Japanese miracle.”
Despite much criticism from sectors of the British economy, in 1987 the British Standard Institute and the British Government decided to create the International Standard Organization to adopt an international standard BS5750.
At this time born organizational dangerous and serious disease called ISO 9000 which expands worldwide.
ISO 9000 is now clearly in recession in developed economies. Major Japanese companies, starting with Toyota, many years ago that rejected. In Western Europe and the US survives because it has become a succulent business for hundreds of certifying companies that are connected to the same companies who force their customers to certify.
Mainly ISO 9000 commits 10 mistakes:
- The ISO 9000 encourages organizations to do things that end up hurting customers / users
- Quality inspection based on quality not.
- It is based on the erroneous assumption that the work is monitored and improved specifying and controlling procedures and standards (command and control)
- The typical method of implementing the ISO tends to cause performance suboptmización not being a systemic approach
- Relies too much on the personal interpretation of quality assessors and certifiers.
- Promotes and recommends explicitly asked to carry out actions that clearly cause sub-optimization.
- When people are subject to external controls tend to pay attention only and exclusively to those things which are subject to controls.
- The ISO 9000 ignores the theory of variation in the systems.(Shewart)
- The rule has failed to promote and improve customer-supplier relationships to base them on transactional subject to constant inspection and suspected relationships.
- In terms of “intervention” ISO helps neither encourages managers and managers to think in a different way. In any case do better as usual.
But today the ISO continues to have prestige in many areas.
When at conferences or workshops explain the consequences of the ISO there are always people with very good intentions, they tell me that the problem of ISO is not known to implement but that “in itself” is a good rule.
I’m waiting for the day when someone takes me to an organization that ISO has served to improve performance (reduce costs, increase sales or improve citizen services in public and improve the morale of the employees trust them)
On the contrary, the last case we have seen, a public hospital, advised by consultants who are also certifiers, ended its first phase of implementation of the standard in some areas. Their costs have increased 12%, services have deteriorated and people are crazy “doing paperwork all day” Of course, now it cut in benefits to the user.
Aware that there are companies that are subject to blackmail by their customers “if you do not certificates do not buy”, we made a practical guide on how to achieve certification minimizing damage to the organization.
You can find it here in Spanish version .
Also for those who are interested in going deeper into the subject I recommend reading this book
But beware that come more fashions, most recently on EFQM, another serious illness. I will discuss it in a future post.
PS I have a friend who tells me to never put the aternativas what critical. In this case the alternative is “systems thinking”, the method which led the Japanese to overtake North America and began Taiichi Ohno and Edward Deming .