Quality management slogans 1. This article is based on the second committee drafts CD 2 of the three basic standards in the family. The reader should remember that these documents are subject to change as the standards development process continues.
They should not be used as a basis for changing existing management systems. Each of these three documents has its own role in the family. ISO will remain the most used of the three, but the other two are useful companions that should not be ignored. Context for the update 2. Over the years, the world's view of how quality is created and assured has been evolving. This natural progression did not directly create the need to revise the ISO family, but it may be useful to view the proposed revisions in the context of the evolution of quality thinking.
The original ISO family was based on the understandings of an earlier era in which quality was thought to be primarily a technical discipline--the purview of the quality professional.
In the s we discovered that this view was incomplete. We heard the slogan "Quality is a human resources problem, not a technical problem. Today most organizations understand that all work is accomplished through processes, which are most effective when they are actively managed. As the s advanced it became clear that quality has both a technical and a human side. There has also been an increasing interest by organizations other than traditional manufacturing such as the services sector, education, governmental agencies in using ISO as a basis for quality management.
This has proven to be somewhat awkward because ISO uses language that is focused on manufacturing. It is not surprising to find this maturing of quality thinking and application in the mids reflected in revisions to quality system standards. In the early s the committee put plans in place to make the updates. These plans included the development of specifications for the changes to ensure that the needs of users around the world would be met.
The specifications outlined how the ISO revisions would resolve perceived shortcomings with the current documents. These specifications created the criteria for a significant advancement of the ISO family and reflect contemporary concepts of quality management. The goals of the specifications are summarized in the sidebar "Goals for the New Revisions.
This article presents an overview of the changes in presentation, terminology and format. Future articles will highlight changes in requirements in ISO Quality management principles As an initial step along the road to the ISO revisions, TC developed a consensus on a set of quality management principles QMPs.
The principles were developed after research of the quality concepts in use around the world. Many input sources were considered. Eight principles resulted from this work and they have been used as a foundation for the revisions see sidebar "The Eight Quality Management Principles".
While the principles were a basis for developing ISO , they do not formally appear in that document. Each principle has a place within the ISO requirements, but the extent of application to ISO is quite limited compared to its application in the new ISO ISO uses each principle fully to help organizations drive for excellence.
Format and presentation The format of ISO and ISO has been changed to link the quality management system with the processes followed by most organizations. The requirements of ISO are now given as four primary processes. The interrelationship of these four processes in the quality management system is shown graphically in the quality management process model in Figure 1, which is reproduced with the permission of the International Standards Organization ISO.
The model may change as the standards progress through the draft stages. Audits are conducted of the quality management system. Data 4. The data and analysis are used to improve the system continually. Terminology There has been a major effort to use everyday English terms that are easily understood. This is more difficult than it would seem. For example, the first committee draft attempted to avoid jargon by using common words.
Unfortunately, a careful reading of the draft revealed that many of these common words have several meanings. In many cases, when words were used multiple times in the draft, the various uses had different intended meanings. Much of this has been corrected with the CD 2, but simple language remains a challenge. A good example of a shift to common language is the word used to describe an organization that implements ISO In the edition, the term "supplier" is used.
This is derived from the initial focus of ISO as a tool to be used in a contractual relationship between a customer and a supplier. Don't modify or change the ISO logo. Don't use a modified or changed ISO logo. Don't use "ISO" as, or in, your product or service name. Don't say that you, your products or your services are endorsed, approved or certified by ISO. That means we get to compete against other companies for products and services.
If Quality is value to some person, as Weinberg tells us, and the customer is that person, then those of us who build better products will sell more of them, make more money, and have successful businesses.
Of course there are exceptions; big brands getting by on reputation, companies creating monopolies or manipulating the market. Now as for the other concern — that this idea of doing quality work can lead to better products, more products for less cost, and lower defects — well, I agree. Where can we start?
Well, once place to start, I think, would be by giving examples and case studies of successful organizations, along with exploring ideas behind systems thinking. Sure, Six Sigma and ISO might be tools, and they might have a place, but they are relatively shallow tools with a niche place. To do that, we would first model our workplace as a system, then see what the right tool is for the job, focusing all the while on the customer and customer needs.
Great post man!! Hopefully, in the year, in my new position that I just started, I can provide some of those case studies, examples and discussions.
It is exactly what I am here to try and do, and God knows it was all but impossible in my last gig. But for me, this is the key line in your entire post. I am looking really closely at Lean; I think it has a lot to offer.
But as you say, at some point, the coder codes, the tester tests, and the user accepts, happily or otherwise…those things can NEVER be processized. Is it possible to blend formalized process with creativity? Seems to me our modern musical system demonstrates that it is not only possible, but it is quite doable. Hmmm, that sounds like a blog of my own in the making! One thing about quality which I would add is that qualty is ambiguous.
In that sense, quality means different things to different people, and is therefore quite unhelpful to have a meaningful discussion about. Instead let's find out what quality means to the people we care about. Excellent post! In our cheaper, better, faster world I believe quality gets lost. Lately I have observed to much complacency with respect to quality in the software industry. We all need to evangelize quality!
You are off to a great start with this post. The ambiguity of quality is precisely that which makes it slogan material. Excellent insight Matthew and Markus. Sloganeering has its place, though.
Big change usually only comes from an emotional impetus. There has to already be a desire for quality regardless of form before data about quality will have any effect.
0コメント