Dear Learners,
Many thanks for sharing your views on this topic with me. It is brilliant
to have hands-on information, as till now, it was more a theoretical
research than a real approach to this situation. I understand that some of
you work for organizations which, somehow follow the pattern or ideas of
the LO while at the same time, they are ISO 9000 certified. (Oh guys, you
don't know how much does this help!)
I understand that this situation that I posed in my first e-mail (job
descriptions and responsibilities) may have happened to you before. It is
true that in my last company, ISO 9000 certification was taken very
strictly and rigidity was the norm in the atmosphere. However, you are now
telling me that experimenting can be in accordance with ISO. I understand
the necessity of this as for learning, experiment is necessary and
obviously, one of the ultimate purposes of ISO would be to let the company
learn and improve. However, when experiments are carried out (I refer to
experiments in the company procedures), how do we ensure consistency in
the product or service? Are you referring to small/incremental changes?
And if this were the case, would you include these changes in the quality
manual of the company once approved and adopted so consistency can be
ensured from that moment onwards? I don't know if I am answering my own
questions or just guessing.
On the other hand, during several interviews with two ISO external
auditors, I was told that, most companies avoid having non-conformances
(this occurs when operations/procedures are carried out against the
specifications in the quality manual of the organization.) In many cases,
this is the only way to improve and sort out certain situations but still,
even when non-conformances are not necessary a bad thing, managers try to
avoid them, especially when an external audit is close. What I try to say
is that, according to these auditors, managers try to stick to the
company's quality manual so that they ensure that procedures are carried
out in a consistent way. Of course, changes may be necessary and
sometimes, implemented. However, do you think that managers would be
constantly questioning the way things are done or, on the contrary, would
they try to conform to the way things are done as the best way to perform?
This is where I see the incompatibility; not that much in the structure
but in the philosophy of the LO against that of ISO.
I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
best wishes,
Elixabete
--"elixabete escalona" <eliescalona@hotmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.