Scott Simmerman states that his his "take on ISO is that the focus is more
on closing the gap in paperwork and diagnostic processes rather than
performance improvement per se."
I sense in this observation someone who has witnessed the kind of weakness
to ISO that he seems to document in his words.
ISO says nothing whatsoever about intrinsic product or service quality
(explicit and latent qualities attractive to the customer), marketability,
future employment, the rise of the NASDAQ. If I manufacture
concrete-filled life jackets, and some customer was intrigued enough to
purchase from me, then my ISO-certified company might be able to
demonstrate how each of these heavy babies is manufactured, delivered and
priced to customer spec.--time and time again.
ISO can, under the right leadership circumstances and with the proper
intention, become a stepping stone for quality initiatives. ISO may align
employees where there was sub-optimal alignment before. ISO may reveal
inadequacies in processes. And by such revelation, employees with wits may
seek to not only "align" but to improve.
The desire and empowerment to improve will lead to some form of SDCA/PDCA
recognition, the very basis of all quality management.
To paraphrase one of my favorite novelist's opening sentence from a great
work: "All happy families are happy for the same reason; every sad family
has its own reasons to be sad."
My environment and yours determine our view of ISO, TQM and everything
else we employ or deploy to make our work lives fruitful and multiplying.
Customers want product at their expected price, when they want it, and to
their specification. When we screw u p on these basics, we screw up in
myriad ways. If we're constructive, we turn the wheel of iterative
improvement. I agree: there are all sorts of approaches.
Best regards,
-- Barry Mallis Manager - Quality and Development MARKEM CorporationLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>