I DON'T GET IT! Why is ISO 14000 being promoted as an element of the quality
function or, if not as an element directly, one that should be addressed
by and is of interest to the quality function? I have noticed, with some
dismay, the increasing presence of ISO 14000 editorial comment, articles
and advertising in Quality Digest.
What is the justification for linking quality management and environmental
management? It is true that the elements of ISO 9000 are being used as a
guide for developing ISO 14000. The logic in this respect is fine. To adequately
deal with these environmental issues, their management needs to be part
of the management system of a company just as the quality elements. But
so should safety and health as well as EEO and harassment issues. The ISO
9000 framework is a good model for any of these. But are safety, health
and EEO logical extensions of quality? I say "no" to these as
well as environmental management.
I see no justification whatsoever for dealing with environmental management
in publications devoted to the quality profession. The classic quality works
of Juran, Deming, Crosby, Feigenbaum, et al. don't describe environmental
management as an element of quality management. The core principles of the
ASQC CQE examination do not include environmental management as a fundamental
of quality. Who decided that it should be? I certainly didn't vote on it.
I have no knowledge of it being presented to the membership of ASQC for
discussion or vote.
These issues need to be managed by the environmental professional, not
the quality professionals. Given that both ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 are issued
by the same organization, that both require third-party assessment resulting
in registration and both use the same model for communication of their requirements
does not provide sufficient grounds for including ISO 14000 under the quality
umbrella, nor does it justify its existence on the pages of my favorite
-William L. Heintz, P.E.
As an ardent follower of process management and excellence in customer
service, I decided to play the unsatisfied customer to see if all the kudos
about Lexus customer service were true. The service manager resorted to
a self-righteous attitude when I attacked him. The car sat for almost two
weeks waiting for an engineer to take a look at it. I told him they would
save a lot of money by backhauling the auto to Los Angeles where the central
service facility and engineer were located, fixing the car and sending it
back to me (about $300 in hauling costs). Instead, they rented me a new
Lexus for about $50 a day for 30 days.
The owner of the Lexus dealership refused to return my call after I received
one of his form letters thanking me for purchasing the car. The car salesman
had no clue. The head of sales ran around in circles and fixed nothing.
No one seemed empowered to do anything! Yet they had all kinds of graduation
certificates hanging on their walls certifying their excellence in customer
service. I received three after-purchase surveys. Central customer service
took three weeks before calling me and basically did nothing.
If I ran my own organization like that, I'd lose all my customers. I kept
a journal and use it while training my employees to illustrate hype vs.
true customer service.
Mr. Crosby and I may not totally agree on the best methods for quality
management, but I will always agree that he is a gentleman first-class.
After reading his letter, I would be inclined to debate anyone who says
-William L. Davis