Warning: Misuse of tool may cause undesirable results!
Many organizations dislike ISO 9001, evidenced by the dwindling number of ISO 9001 certificates being issued in many parts of the world. Organizations commonly find ISO 9001 to be confusing and somewhat painful, while at the same time requiring odd documentation seemingly only understood by ISO 9001 consultants and quality auditors.
The funny part: many organizations are simply applying ISO 9001 improperly, but not knowing that, they turn their distain to the standard itself. After all, they implemented and followed the consultant’s pre-written procedures to a tee, and auditors arrived to eventually declare “Good job.” Yet these systems drawing accolades from consultants and auditors seem dysfunctional to sensible management personnel. No wonder they don’t like ISO 9001.
THE CHALLENGE
The problem in a nutshell: ISO 9001 was never intended to help management manage, but to help auditors audit. Organizations were encouraged to treat ISO 9001 as if it was intended to help management manage. I believe that this was a mistake.
ISO 9001 is audit criteria (see ISO 9001:2008, 0.1). It is not a management tool or an implementation guide. If it were, the standard would say so. But it doesn’t. Yet organizations errantly attempt to implement these criteria as if they represent a quality management model to be imitated. No wonder it makes no sense to them.
What tool produces good results when used contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions?
A BAD BASIC APPROACH TO QUALITY
Although a basic approach problem has persisted for decades vis-à-vis ISO 9001, it is only now coming to light with some proposed language included in the newest revision of the standard expected in 2015. The ISO 9001:2015 Committee Draft even dedicates a shall to it: “ . . . the organization SHALL apply a process approach . . .” (caps mine).
Many organizations are “doing” ISO 9001 wrong by not applying a process approach. They operate systems designed to pass audits, instead of systems designed to manage quality. Their documentation is written in response to a standard’s requirements, rather than being written to make processing clear. Documentation written in response to requirements by design fails to address and describe real organizational processes.
It was clear enough that a process approach was not being widely applied by the end of the 90s that the authors of ISO 9001 responded by demanding a process approach with ISO 9001:2000. Well aware that many organizations adopted a poor approach to quality management in an effort to become ISO 9001 certified, the authors of the standard have been trying to overcome this problem for 13 years.
STANDARDS BASED MINDSET
Had organizations been using a process approach consistently up until 2000, the requirements to use a process approach would not have appeared in the 2000 standard. But the endorsement of, and requirement to apply a process approach went overlooked by those steeped in a standard-based mind-set.
Consultants continued churning out standard-based solutions (i.e., pre-written manuals and procedures responding to ISO 9001 requirements), while auditors continued accepting them. Common though they are, standard-based solutions contradict a process approach.
If organizations were consistently using a process approach today, the requirement to use a process approach would not be emphasized as expected in the upcoming revision of ISO 9001. So the problem is still going strong.
INDUSTRICIDE
Since it’s original release in 1987, consultants have been providing bad solutions to quality management to satisfy customers in haste to “get certified.” These solutions included pre-written documentation based upon the requirements of the standard itself, exemplifying a standard-based approach to ISO 9001 certification. It’s basically cheating from the perspective of quality management, and worlds apart from the process approach demanded of ISO 9001.
Often unfamiliar with a process approach, organizations are happy simply to be certified, though they are unknowingly bending over backwards and sideways to demonstrate conformity to the standard. That’s gotta hurt!
It costs these organizations plenty in terms of unnecessary operating costs (including the control and auditing of unneeded documentation), and unwanted headaches caused by the confusion surrounding application of the requirements. The concept of quality management itself is also damaged. So many think that a quality management system is a confusing set of procedures based upon the requirements of ISO 9001.
Management personnel generally seem to like things that make sense. When ISO 9001 is rolled out with a standard-based spin, as it so commonly is, management does not see the sense in it. Nor should they.
The problem is not so much with the standard itself. The standard is good. It has simply been widely misinterpreted and misapplied. This misapplication problem is killing the small industry that has cropped up around ISO 9001. It seems to provide an example of industricide—an industry killing itself by failing to properly apply the very standard sustaining the industry.
Organizations applying a standard-based approach to certification, rather than a process approach to quality management, unwittingly make ISO 9001 much more difficult than it should be. No wonder ISO 9001 is not very popular: organizations are basically doing it wrong, they have been for years, and nobody has told them. We really must demand better quality of ISO 9001 professionals and leadership in the industry. In the words of W. Edwards Deming, “Learning is not compulsory, neither is survival.”
Bio:
T. D. (“Dan”) Nelson is a quality management consultant, author, and trainer
specializing in the process approach, ISO 9001, and related sector schemes.
Dan has roughly 20 years of experience with ISO 9000 and over 15 years’
experience with the process approach. Dan holds an MA in Business
Administration from the University of Iowa.