| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| articles:how_iso_perpetuates_flawed_concepts [2023/03/17 08:57] – [Perpetuatuation of "flawed" Concepts] rrandall | articles:how_iso_perpetuates_flawed_concepts [2023/05/17 10:28] (current) – [Quality Objectives] rrandall |
|---|
| |
| When ISO 9001 was first released, in 1987, it was based on many military standards and the philosophical approach of many so-called "Quality Gurus" of that time. Unfortunately, rather than evolve through embracing more modern concepts (e.g., Lean, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma), ISO 9001 has remained "stuck" in the past. The worst aspect of ISO 9001:2015 is that it perpetuates many of the flawed concepts that were promoted by Philip Crosby's motivational management approach calling for "[[articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects|Zero Defects]]"... ignoring the proven concepts promoted by Walter Shewhart & W. Edwards Deming. | When ISO 9001 was first released, in 1987, it was based on many military standards and the philosophical approach of many so-called "Quality Gurus" of that time. Unfortunately, rather than evolve through embracing more modern concepts (e.g., Lean, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma), ISO 9001 has remained "stuck" in the past. The worst aspect of ISO 9001:2015 is that it perpetuates many of the flawed concepts that were promoted by Philip Crosby's motivational management approach calling for "[[articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects|Zero Defects]]"... ignoring the proven concepts promoted by Walter Shewhart & W. Edwards Deming. |
| | |
| | ==== Quality Policy ==== |
| |
| A perfect example of a //non-value added// requirement intended to support the "[[articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects|Zero Defects]]" motivational management approach is contained in ISO 9001 & AS91xx is sec. 5.2: \\ | A perfect example of a //non-value added// requirement intended to support the "[[articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects|Zero Defects]]" motivational management approach is contained in ISO 9001 & AS91xx is sec. 5.2: \\ |
| |
| The above is contrary to No. 10 of [[https://deming.org/demings-14-points-for-management/|Deming’s 14 Points for Management]]... | The above is contrary to No. 10 of [[https://deming.org/demings-14-points-for-management/|Deming’s 14 Points for Management]]... |
| <blockquote>//__Eliminate slogans, exhortations__, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. __Such exhortations__ only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.//</blockquote> | <blockquote>//__Eliminate slogans, exhortations__, and targets for the workforce asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. __Such exhortations__ only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the workforce.//</blockquote> |
| | |
| | I've never seen a single instance of a "Quality Policy", or lack thereof, have any impact on the QMS at all. |
| | |
| | ==== Quality Objectives ==== |
| | |
| | Another example of a //non-value added// requirement intended to support the "[[articles:crosbys_church_of_zero_defects|Zero Defects]]" motivational management approach is contained in ISO 9001 & AS91xx is sec. 6.2: \\ |
| | <box 80% round blue|**6.2 Quality Objectives and Planning to Achieve Them**> |
| | 6.2.1 The organization shall establish quality objectives at relevant functions, levels, and processes needed for the quality management system. \\ |
| | The __quality objectives__ shall: \\ |
| | a. be consistent with the quality policy; \\ |
| | b. be measurable; \\ |
| | c. take into account applicable requirements; \\ |
| | d. be relevant to conformity of products and services and to enhancement of customer satisfaction; \\ |
| | e. be monitored; \\ |
| | f. be communicated; \\ |
| | g. be updated, as appropriate. \\ |
| | \\ |
| | The organization shall maintain documented information on the quality objectives. \\ |
| | </box> |
| | |
| | The above is contrary to No. 11b of [[https://deming.org/demings-14-points-for-management/|Deming’s 14 Points for Management]]... |
| | <blockquote>//11b. Eliminate __management by objective__. Eliminate management by numbers, __numerical goals__. Substitute leadership.//</blockquote> |
| | |
| | The primary reasons that Deming opposed “management by objective” are: |
| | - The “objectives” are typically driven by emotion rather than data, are often outside of the [[:downloads#unilateral_cp-cpk_calculator|process's capability]]… and are therefore unachievable. This results in the workers being blamed rather than management focusing on improving the processes. |
| | - When an “objective” is achieved, management celebrates success (e.g., the pizza party), losing sight of the true goal… which is continual improvement. |
| | |
| | My experiences in performing ISO 9001 & AS91xx audits over the past 25 years support Deming's concerns. |
| | |
| | ==== AS9100 Contradictory Requirements ==== |
| |
| Consequently, to the educated Quality Professional, ISO 9001 is a living philosophical battleground. In some cases (particularly with AS 9100) the standard even contains contradictory requirements. While ISO 9001 (and all of the QMS standards using it as a base) promotes the concept of continuous improvement, it also mandates the institutionalization of flawed concepts that perpetuate the status quo. Worse, QMS certification to these standards promotes mediocrity and creates a //constraint// hindering innovative improvements. | The AS 9100 standard contains at least one contradictory requirement. |
| |
| <box 80% round blue|**AS9100 Contradictory Requirements**> | <box 80% round blue|**AS9100 Contradictory Requirements**> |
| When using ANY sampling plan, an AQL (or equivalent) must first be determined. The AQL (defined in [[https://www.iso.org/standard/1141.html|ISO 2859-1:1999]]) represents the maximum percentage of defective units, beyond which a batch is rejected. For example, an "AQL of 1.5%” means “//The company is willing to ACCEPT that there will be no more than 1.5% defective items in the entire order quantity, on average over several production runs//”. Companies usually establish different AQLs for critical, major, and minor defects. \\ | When using ANY sampling plan, an AQL (or equivalent) must first be determined. The AQL (defined in [[https://www.iso.org/standard/1141.html|ISO 2859-1:1999]]) represents the maximum percentage of defective units, beyond which a batch is rejected. For example, an "AQL of 1.5%” means “//The company is willing to ACCEPT that there will be no more than 1.5% defective items in the entire order quantity, on average over several production runs//”. Companies usually establish different AQLs for critical, major, and minor defects. \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| Now, the contradiction is contained in AS9100 is sec. 8.7.1: \\ | The contradiction is contained in AS9100 is sec. 8.7.1: \\ |
| "//The organization’s nonconformity control process shall be maintained as documented information including the provisions for: \\ | "//The organization’s nonconformity control process shall be maintained as documented information including the provisions for: \\ |
| − defining corrective actions for nonconforming products and services detected after delivery, as appropriate to their impacts (see 10.2).//" \\ | − defining corrective actions for nonconforming products and services detected after delivery, as appropriate to their impacts (see 10.2).//" \\ |
| Obviously, if the company must define "corrective actions for nonconforming products and services detected after delivery", then it makes no sense to allow the establishment of ANY sampling plan (including c=0 plans) BECAUSE that sampling plan allows for an ACCEPTABLE number of defects to be shipped! \\ | Obviously, if the company must define "corrective actions for nonconforming products and services detected after delivery", then it makes no sense to allow the establishment of ANY sampling plan (including c=0 plans) BECAUSE that sampling plan allows for an ACCEPTABLE number of defects to be shipped! \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| Even more interesting, AS9101F, sec. 3.3 defines a "Major Nonconformity as: \\ | Even if we adopt a more lax interpretation of the above requirement, AS9101F, sec. 3.3 defines a "Major Nonconformity as: \\ |
| //• any nonconformity that can result in the probable delivery of nonconforming product or service;// \\ | //• any nonconformity that can result in the probable delivery of nonconforming product or service;// \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| Consequently, using a sampling plan (compliant with AS9100, 8.5.1C,2) can result in a Major Nonconformity!!! | Consequently, using a sampling plan (compliant with AS9100, 8.5.1C,2) can result in a Major Nonconformity being issued by the Certification Body!!! |
| </box> | </box> |
| |
