Cement life preservers? Scott M. Paton is correct in his October 2000 column in defending the QS-9000 registrar, LRQA, in
the Firestone/Ford debacle. He states that QS-9000 is not a guarantee of product perfection, that it simply ensures that a company's procedures are being followed. This is true. However,
the point made by USA Today--that QS-9000 is long on paper and short on results--is very relevant. What good is a quality assurance standard that does not assure quality? I'm sure the definition
of "quality" to the users of Firestone/Ford products is, at least, that the product purchased will not kill them. We have all seen articles over the past few years that address
the concern that many automotive suppliers just "go through the motions" to satisfy QS-9000 documentation requirements. This is an indication that the suppliers do not feel there is any
value added in the effort. This needs to be taken more seriously either in the development or the application of the standard. The standard should provide more focus on that which is truly
important. --Greg Ard
Quality Engineering Manager
Swagelok Co. Scott M. Paton too quickly absolves the registrar of accountability in
the Firestone case. Remember that "customer requirements" includes end-users' needs. QS-9000 requires detailed planning methods to prevent failures and corrective action after they
occur. Without knowing what records were reviewed during the registrar's audits, one cannot conclude whether the registrar acted appropriately. QS-9000 and ISO 9000 exist to
provide a measure of trust to customers. Registered companies, registrars and accreditation boards share the obligation to uphold that trust. I refuse to accept the cynical notion that any
registrar would accept cement life preservers. People died here. What is needed now is an investigation to determine how the system failed and what might be done to protect
other registered companies and their customers. It is wrong to turn on the Decatur staff when the going gets tough. --Bob McGowan Scott M.
Paton hit the nail on the head exactly! The problem with all this "quality madness" is that no one seems to be making sure that the documented procedures are correct. It seems to me
that this is a major flaw in all of the auditing. Maybe "quality auditors" should actually be "qualified" to perform the areas or tasks they are auditing.
--(Name withheld) Scott M. Paton's point is well-taken. The Firestone issue has nothing to do with the "quality" of the LRQA audit.
I'm sure that an equally accurate position could be made that ISO 9000 has nothing to do with the "quality" of the goods and services provided by manufacturers. I once asked my
customer which one he wanted most: a well-documented inspection system/quality program or fully compliant products/services that meet the standards of intended use. I contend that ISO 9000
provides the former (at best) with little regard for the latter. ISO 9000 auditors are long on the "system" ideology with no insight into fitness for use. Shame on the quality assurance
industry. --Bob Horton If, as you say, the registrar is only responsible for certifying that a quality system complies with QS-9000, and
QS-9000 does not do anything to ensure quality product, then what is QS-9000 for? --Mark Bronson
President
Bronson & Bratton Inc. Quality's migratory path Being a quality professional, a former Baldrige examiner and a great admirer of Joseph M. Juran,
I am very disappointed in the inaccuracy I discovered in Joseph A. DeFeo's October 2000 Last Word column. Joe's message was excellent but a little loose in its facts. As of this date, no Baldrige
winners have been announced in health care and education. The Baldrige award is not even available for government entities, including the military. --David T. Yoest
Quality Officer
Sverdrup Technology, Jacobs Engineering |
