RE: Seddon on Six Sigma . . . is ISO 9000 really the best way?

["Alan Meekings" <alan@landmarkconsulting.co.uk>]

Dirk,

You say, "The ISO 9001 standard was written as an improvement tool. The
business of conformity assessment to ISO 9001 developed around the
standard. The standard was and is meant to be an improvement tool.
Conformity assessment is a separate but related industry."

Forgive me if this strikes me as rather like saying, "I murdered this
individual for very good reasons and with the intention of ridding
society of at least one ill. I can't help it if society thinks the
consequences of murder are intolerable."

All my experience tells me that there are better ways to achieve
fundamental improvement - not only in how work gets done but also in how
organizations are managed - than by going down the ISO 9000 route.

Organisations have choices as to where they spend their time and
attention. I believe it is both legitimate and important to advise
organisations not to waste time on ISO 9000 registration (unless, of
course, their principal customers INSIST on registration - but that's
another whole issue in its own right).

In that respect, I don't see how you can avoid differentiating the
worthy aims of the ISO 9000 standard from the practical consequences of
its implementation.

Am I missing something here, Dirk? 

Are you actually advocating that all organizations should go down the
ISO route because that's the very best way to encourage fundamental
improvement (in quality, productivity, cost, innovation, staff
retention, etc, etc)?

Regards as ever,

Alan 


-----Original Message-----
[mailto:clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu] On Behalf Of Dirk van Putten
To: den.list@deming.ces.clemson.edu
Subject: RE: Seddon on Six Sigma

Hello All:

The ISO 9001 standard was written as an improvement tool. The business
of
conformity assessment to ISO 9001 developed around the standard. The
standard was and is meant to be an improvement tool. Conformity
assessment
is a separate but related industry.