I’ve noticed that more and more people want – or need – to collide, rather than interact or cooperate.  It’s happening with most organizations as well.

And the trend line is not optimistic.  We’re seeing ever more collisions and fewer interactions.  Not good!

That aggressiveness may be a basic characteristic of all living beings, I guess.  We’re seeing and hearing this all over.  TV overflows with talk shows where highly paid people who are expected to be educated goad each other with offensive ideas and nonsensical words.

Is this quality communications? Probably not!  If yes, what are we teaching our children?

I just read some internet news on ISO 9001:2015.  No really positive news.  OK, bad news.  In this case, the ISO elephant gave birth to a mouse.  This will be our fourth ISO 9001 iteration since its inception. So what’s the problem?

ISO:  ON A COLLISION COURSE
It seems ISO TC/176 (the technical committee that give us ISO 9001) is on a collision route with industry and the economy, too.

The basic problem?  If I were to register ISO to their own standards, it would be a very hard job.   ISO’s main failure is lack of consistency.  WHAT TYPE OF LACK OF CONSISTENCY

So it’s a collision, it may be a severe one, because of no interaction.  If at ISO headquarters they are worried for the future of ISO 9001, it makes no sense.   if there’s a solution, why to worry; and if there’s none, why to worry?

Mr. Seldon wrote a book A Case Against ISO 9000 some twenty years ago.  In my humble opinion, he was and still is right.  But while the Geneva ISO writers insist that they listen to their customers, they just seem to be listening push on listening to their own ‘voices.’ They don’t seem to listen to the voice of the customer and of the market.

It is evident that the ISO TC organization needs a radical remake, to make it fit for the present industrial and economic world.  It’s not only a problem of bureaucracy, it’s a question of cultural drawbacks, instead.  PLEASE ELABORATE

Staying on this route, ISO will soon collide against other more dynamic standards and more flexible management systems.

MAJOR QUESTION
The air transportation industry developed TCAS devices to avoid collision among airplanes.  Should the quality and risk management industry develop a similar system to avoid collisions among its technical committees, stakeholders, and volunteer leaders?