ISO 9000 Standard - ISO 9000 Standards

ISO 9000 Standard - ISO 9000 Standards

Implementing ISO 9000 Quality Management System

Implementation of ISO 9000 affects the entire organization right from the start. If
pursued with total dedication, it results in 'cultural transition' to an atmosphere of
continuous improvement.
The process of implementing ISO 9000 depends on:
􀂃 a. The sophistication of your existing quality program,
􀂃 b. The size of your organization, and
􀂃 c. The complexity of your process.

The 14 essential steps, briefly described below, are to be followed through in order to implement ISO 9000 quality management system successfully.
Step 1: Top management commitment
Step 2: Establish implementation team
Step 3. Start ISO 9000 awareness programs
Step 4: Provide Training
Step 5. Conduct initial status survey
Step 6: Create a documented implementation plan
Step 7. Develop quality management system documentation
Step 8: Document control
Step 9. Implementation
Step 10. Internal quality audit
Step 11. Management review
Step 12. Pre-assessment audit
Step 13. Certification and registration
Step 14: Continual Improvement

Assessment to ISO 9000 Standards

Assessment to ISO 9000 Standards
Once all the requirements of ISO 9000 have been met, it is time for an external audit. This should be carried out by a third party, accredited certification body. In the UK, the body should be accredited by UKAS. The chosen certification body will review the quality manuals and procedures. This process involves looking at the companys evaluation of quality and ascertains if targets set for the management program are measurable and achievable. This is followed at a later date by a full on-site audit to ensure that working practices observe the procedures and stated objectives and that appropriate records are kept.
After a successful audit, a certificate of registration to ISO 9000 will be issued. There will then be surveillance visits (usually once or twice a year) to ensure that the system continues to work.

Why Is ISO 9000 Important?

ISO 9000 is important because of its orientation. While the content itself is useful and important, the content alone does not account for its widespread appeal.
ISO 9000 is important because of its international orientation. Currently, ISO 9000 is supported by national standards bodies from more than 150 countries. This makes it the logical choice for any organization that does business internationally or that serves customers who demand an international standard of excellence.
ISO is also important because of its systemic orientation. We think this is crucial. Many people wrongly emphasize motivational and attitudinal factors. The assumption is that quality can only be created if workers are motivated and have the right attitude. This is fine, but it doesnt go far enough. Unless you institutionalize the right attitude by supporting it with the right policies, procedures, records, technologies, resources, and structures, you will never achieve the standards of quality that other organizations seem to be able to achieve. Unless you establish a quality attitude by creating a quality management system, you will never achieve a world-class standard of quality.
Simply put, if you want to have a quality attitude you must have a quality system. This is what ISO recognizes, and this is why ISO 9000 is important.

History and Evolution of ISO 9000 Standards

Pre ISO 9000
During World War II, there were quality problems in many British industries such as munitions, where bombs were exploding in factories during assembly. The solution adopted to address these quality problems required factories to document their manufacturing procedures and to prove by record-keeping that the procedures were being followed. The standard was BS 5750, and it was known as a management standard because it specified not what to manufacture, but how the manufacturing process was to be managed. In 1987, the British Government persuaded the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to adopt BS 5750 as an international standard. The international standard was named ISO 9000.

ISO 9000: 1987 Version
ISO 9000:1987 had the same structure as the British Standard BS 5750, with three ‘models’ for quality management systems, the selection of which was based on the scope of activities of the organisation:
• ISO 9001:1987 Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation, and servicing was for companies and organisations 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 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 (Year 1994 Revision)
ISO 9000:1994 emphasised 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 9000:2000 (Year 2000 Revision)
ISO 9001:2000 combines the three standards 9001, 9002, and 9003 into one, called 9001. Design and development procedures are required only if a company engages in the creation of new products. The 2000 version sought to make a radical change in thinking by placing the concept of process management front and centre (”Process management” was the monitoring and optimising of a company’s tasks and activities, instead of just inspecting the final product). The Year 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 9000:2008 (Year 2008 Revision)
The new ISO 9001:2008 was published on 15 November 2008. ISO 9001:2008 uses the same numbering system as ISO 9001:2000 to organise the standard. As a result, the new ISO 9001:2008 standard looks very much like the old standard. No new requirements have been added. However, some important clarifications and modifications have been made.

As with the release of previous versions, organisations registered to ISO 9001:2000 will be given a period to transition to the ISO 9001:2008 standard, assuming changes are needed.

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.

ISO 9000 process

The ISO 9000 process calls for adhering to certain set standards that have already been documented. It does not leave any scope for innovative changes that could be made for improving quality.

The process focuses on "what should be done" rather than identifying improvement potential in a business process as in Six Sigma. In spite of the differences, it is quite difficult to say which is the best quality improvement technique. Both the techniques have delivered desired results wherever they were successfully implemented, making it even more difficult to decide which is the best. Businesses can use any of these techniques as long as it helps them in increasing customer satisfaction, reducing operational costs and maximizing profits.

Guidance on Documentation Requirements For ISO 9001

The ISO 9001:2008 standard is meant to be generic and applicable to all kinds of organizations. Therefore, organizations from both the public and private sectors, including non-governmental organizations can benefit from the ISO 9001 quality management system model, regardless of whether they are small, medium or large organizations. The immediate benefit that can be realized from the implementation of ISO 9001 is the collective alignment of the activities of internal processes that are focused towards the enhancement of customer satisfaction, which in turn will result in many other benefits, whether internal or external. The magnitude of these benefits are determined by how effective the processes are in achieving its objectives. ISO 9001:2008 is not focused on the amount of documentation that must be established for the quality management system. The main objectives of an organization’s documentation are to provide a basis for communication of information, evidence of conformity and knowledge sharing. Clause 4.1 General requirements requires an organization to “establish, document, implement, and maintain a quality management system and continually improve its effectiveness in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard”. Clause 4.2.1 General of the ISO 9001:2008 standard explains that the quality management system documentation shall include: -Documented statements of a quality policy and quality objectives; -Quality manual; -Documented procedures required by this International Standard; -Documents needed by the organization to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of its processes, and -Records required by this International Standard.

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.

ISO 9000 vs Quality

ISO 9000 was conceived to bring about an improvement in product quality. It
was believed that if organizations were able to demonstrate they were
operating a quality system that met international standards, customers would
gain greater confidence in the quality of products they purchased. It was also
believed that by operating in accordance with documented procedures, errors
would be reduced and consistency of output ensured. If you find the best way
of achieving a result, put in place measures to prevent variation, document it
and train others to apply it, it follows that the results produced should be
consistently good.

The requirements of the standard were perceived to be a list of things to do
to achieve quality. The ISO co-ordinator would often draw up a plan based on
the following logic:
1. We have to identify resource requirements so I will write a procedure on
identifying resource requirements
2. We have to produce quality plans so I will write a procedure on producing
quality plans
3. We have to record contract review so I will write a procedure on recording
contract reviews
4. We have to identify design changes so I will write a procedure on identifying
design changes

The requirements in the standard were often not expressed as results to be
achieved. Requirements for a documented procedure to be established resulted
in just that. Invariably the objectives of the procedure were to define something
rather than to achieve something. This led to documentation without any clear
purpose that related to the achievement of quality. Those producing the
documentation were focusing on meeting the standard not on achieving quality.
Those producing the product were focusing on meeting the customer
requirement but the two were often out of sync. As quality assurance became
synonymous with procedures, so people perceived that they could achieve
quality by following procedures. The dominance of procedures to the exclusion
of performance is a misunderstanding of the implementers. The standard
required a documented system that ensured product met specified requirements – a
clear purpose. Once again the implementers lost sight of the objective. Or was it
that they knew the objective but in order to meet it, the culture would have to
change and if they could get the badge without doing so, why should they?

Issuing a procedure was considered to equate to task completed. Unfortu-
nately, for those on the receiving end, the procedures were filed and forgotten.
When the auditor came around, the individual was found to be totally
unaware of the ‘procedure’ and consequently found noncompliant with it.
However, the auditor would discover that the individual was doing the right
things so the corrective action was inevitably to change the procedure. The
process of issuing procedures was not questioned, the individual concerned
was blamed for not knowing the procedure and the whole episode failed to
make any positive contribution to the achievement of quality. But it left the
impression on the individual that quality was all about following procedures.
It also left the impression that quality was about consistency and providing
you did what you said you would do regardless of it being in the interests of
satisfying customers, it was OK. One is left wondering whether anyone
consulted the dictionary in which quality is defined as a degree of excellence?

Another problem was that those who were to implement requirements were
often excluded from the process. Instead of enquiring as to the best way of
meeting a requirement, those in charge of ISO 9000 implementation assumed
that issuing procedures would in fact cause compliance with requirements. It
requires a study of the way work gets done to appreciate how best to meet a
requirement. Procedures were required to be documented and the range and
detail was intended to be appropriate to the complexity of the work, the
methods used and the skills and training needed. The standard also only
required work instructions where their absence would adversely affect quality.
It is as though the people concerned did not read the requirement properly or
had no curiosity to find out for themselves what ISO had to say about
procedures – they were all too ready to be told what to do without questioning
why they should be doing it.

More often than not, the topics covered by the standard were only a sample
of all the things that need to be done to achieve the organization’s objectives.
The way the standard classified the topics was also often not appropriate to the
way work was performed. As a consequence, procedures failed to be
implemented because they mirrored the standard and not the work. ISO 9000
may have required documented procedures but it did not insist that they be
produced in separate documents, with titles or an identification convention
that was traceable to the requirements.

Critics argue (Seddon, John, 2000)3 that ISO 9000 did not enable organiza-
tions to reduce variation as a result of following the procedures. It is true that
ISO 9000 did not explain the theory of variation – it could have done, but
perhaps it was felt that this was better handled by the wealth of literature
available at the time. However, ISO 9000 did require organizations to identify
where the use of statistical techniques was necessary for establishing,
controlling and verifying process capability but this was often misunderstood.
Clause 4.14 of ISO 9001 required corrective action procedures – procedures to
identify variation and eliminate the cause so this should have resulted in a
reduction in variation. The procedures did not always focus on results – they
tended to focus on transactions – sending information or product from A to B.
The concept of corrective action was often misunderstood. It was believed to be
about fixing the problem and preventive action was believed to be about
preventing recurrence. Had users read ISO 8402 they should have been
enlightened. Had they read Deming they would have been enlightened but in
many cases the language of ISO 9000 was a deterrent to learning. Had the
auditors understood variation, they too could have assisted in clarifying these
issues but they too seemed ignorant – willing to regard clause 4.20 as not
applicable in many cases.

Clause 4.6 of the undervalued and forgotten standard ISO 9000 –1 starts with
‘The International Standards in the ISO 9000 family are founded upon the
understanding that all work is accomplished by a process.’ In clause 4.7 it starts
with ‘Every organization exists to accomplish value-adding work. The work is
accomplished through a network of processes’ In clause 4.8 it starts with ‘It is
conventional to speak of quality systems as consisting of a number of elements.
The quality system is carried out by means of processes which exist both within
and across functions’ Alas, few people read ISO 9000–1 and as a result the
baggage that had amassed was difficult to shed especially because there were
few if any certification bodies suggesting that the guidance contained in ISO
9000 –1 should be applied. Unfortunately, this message from ISO 9000 –1 was not
conveyed through the requirements of ISO 9001. ISO 9001 was not intended as
a design tool. It was produced for contractual and assessment purposes but was
used as a design tool instead of ISO 9000 –1 and ISO 9004 –1.