ISO 9000's transition
In response to Scott M. Paton's March 2001 editorial, I would like to suggest that the
issuance of the new ISO 9001:2000 standard is being greeted somewhat coldly because many organizations see the implementation of these requirements as a win/lose venture. One of the revision's
positive components is the shift to a more process-based approach to quality, which more accurately depicts the actual workings of industry. Additionally, a more relaxed quality structure is part
of ISO 9001:2000, and this will contribute to less painful adjustments. However, one negative element is the absence of an alternative to adopting the new standard, albeit within a two-year-plus
window, and this transition will require added costs and measures that existing, efficient quality systems could utilize elsewhere. On a related note, I would like to propose that a major
motivating factor in the ISO 9000:
1994 series' "flourishing" --despite it being thrashed by critics --was its status as the only game in town. At the time, European, Asian and other
business communities had decided on ISO as the standard bearer of the industrial world, and companies deciding to forgo membership in it saw their international contracts dwindle as a result.
--Donald Richard Abrams
Quality Manager AGRA Baymont Inc.
Sick of Six Sigma
In Thomas Pyzdek's April column "Ignore Six Sigma at Your Peril," he states, "Unlike TQM, Six Sigma goes beyond defect reduction to emphasize business process improvement in
general which includes cost reduction, cycle-time improvement, increased customer satisfaction and any other metric important to the company."
Citing the Baldrige Award
criteria as a model of a TQM system, I would challenge this statement. Within the criteria is category 6 --Process Management, which "...is the focal point within the criteria for all key work
processes. Built into the category are the central requirements for efficient and effective process management; effective design; a prevention orientation; linkage to suppliers and partners and a
focus on supply chain integration; operational performance; cycle time; and evaluation, continuous improvement and organizational learning."
Based upon this criterion, I don't
understand the basis for Pyzdek's position. TQM and Six Sigma are separate approaches but potentially equal in effectiveness. Both are "data/fact driven," evaluate data to determine
opportunities, take action on the opportunities, and go beyond defect reduction.
Patrick Townsend and Joan Gebhardt's April 2001 Last Word editorial made my day. While the world is marching to the ISO 9000 and "Sick Sigma" drummers, companies are spending megabucks with
I suspect that Six Sigma is going to take a nasty turn. In many companies, "Black Belts" and "Master Black Belts" are being appointed; they have no special
training, skills or credentials. I have seen measures of performance distorted in some very large and prominent "Six Sigma companies"; managers were too ignorant to understand what was happening.
Most "quality managers" are nothing more than purchasing agents buying into the latest fads to show their customers and their management that they are "with it." They show no
imagination or creativity, just an "if everybody is doing it, then we should too" mentality.
Caring for your career
In his April editorial, Scott M. Paton makes some excellent points that I think should be followed in good
and lean times. His is just a solid, proactive approach to ensure success. I always have trouble understanding the logic of those who won't spend an ounce of effort or a nickel of their own to
improve themselves or their companies.
--Leonard "Len" Zody