The number "9001" means something.
Via our web site, I get asked this question a lot: What is the significance of the number 9001? The answer is NONE. 9001 is a label. Nothing more. Period.
You can go from "nothing" to "certified" in just three months.
Fact is, you need at least three months of system activity – after the implementation work is done – before you can undergo certification audit. So to claim you can go from nothing to certified in three months is false on the face of it.
Our best time was 7 months. And that was kicking. Because – and here’s another press release – you can’t just shut down your business to do ISO.
So before you bite on a consulting claim that sounds too good to be true, ask the 17 Questions.
9002.
Throw dirt on it. As of December 2003, it ceased to exist. ISO 9003, too. The operative standard is ISO 9001. (ISO 9001:2000, to be strictly accurate -- sometimes called just plain ISO 9000 or ISO9000.)
A lot of people need to repaint their building signs and trucks.
ISO 9001 is just about paperwork.
Which means: "You don’t have to change anything about how you operate, when you implement ISO 9000. Just the paperwork."
True, the ISO 9001 requirements are so very basic and common-sense, most organizations at the outset already meet 60-70% of them.
But inevitably, some organization processes get changed. And some new processes are added.
Most important, if you’re implementing for the most important reason of all – to improve continually your organization’s ability to meet customer needs – your organization will as a result of ISO 9001 undergo a significant trans formation.
This does not happen overnight, or before certification. It takes years.
When done right, "the paperwork" is in fact the least important aspect of ISO 9001 implementation.
You must write your system detailed enough so that a rookie can step right in and do the jobs well.
According to this patently absurd notion, with an ISO 9001 system you don’t need qualified people or job function training, or visual aids or reference documents. Just write everything in thorough, exhaustive, no-contingencies-overlooked detail, and let people be mindless puppets.
One big problem with this notion – aside from its obvious impossibility – is that it causes organizations to overdocument their systems.
And in this business, leanness is critical.
ISO 9000/9001 is incompatible with TQM and various statistical tools.
On the contrary: ISO 9001 embraces management and statistical tools. And many of them – statistical process control, design of experiments, pareto studies, Six Sigma, balanced scorecard, etc. – not only fit comfortably, but actually leverage the effectiveness of the ISO 9001 system too.
In fact, it’s hard to imagine an effective ISO 9001 system that lacks an array of statistical methods.
But ISO 9001 does not mandate the use of any particular tools. Pick what works best for your processes.
The trick isn’t knowing which ones to put in. The trick is knowing which ones to leave out.
The goal is to get certified.
I once thought that way, when I was starting out, 15 years ago.
Of course, certification tells the world that you’ve got a compliant system. And it gives you bragging rights. Which is understandable, because getting there is not easy.
But all certification means is that you have a compliant system that is in place.
The real objective is to have a compliant system that is in place – and helping you continually improve your ability to meet customer needs.
The ultimate measure of the value of an ISO 9001 system is customer satisfaction. Period. If your ISO 9001 system helps you improve customer satisfaction, then its costs are irrelevant. If your ISO 9001 system is not helping you improving customer satisfaction, then it’s a) poorly designed, and b) "just for show".
Which makes what it costs you a tax.
You can make concrete life jackets and still be certified.
This was the laugh line of a Motorola executive back in the 80s. It found its way into print (Business Week, if I’m not mistaken), and you still hear people parroting it all these years later.
Let’s overlook, for a moment, the fact that you could not have a company that made concrete life jackets – at least long enough to get registered. The jibe was aimed, it would seem, at the fact that the first two editions of ISO 9001 made no reference to customer satisfaction. They focused on adherence to requirements. The ultimate "requirement" of customer satisfaction was left presumed.
ISO 9001:2000 took care of that. The Standard is saturated with the criticality of customer satisfaction. So the "concrete life jackets" scenario (which, I submit, had little if any validity to begin with) can be safely dismissed.
