iso 9001:1994 and iso 9001:2000 compared

2
Is0 9001 : 1994 and Is0 9001:2000 compared It is likely that the amount of effort needed to transition an existing IS0 900 I: I 994 system to IS0 900 1:2000 will be approximately the same as obtaining registration in the first place. The starting point is a thorough understanding ofthe new standard. Dr. R. Ian Graham outlines some initial steps he nuniber ofrequirenients in IS0 9001 :2000 is approxi- mately double that of IS0 9001 : 1994. 111 CssCI~cc, there are five major coriceptual changes that will significantly impact existing 1 994 systems: process based, customer focus, iiieasui-eiiieiit, iniprovenient, aiid top management. Process based IS0 9001 :1994 is a procedure based system. This means that there are a certain iiuniber of requirenients in the standai-d. An organisation writes specific procedures to ineet those requirements, the organisation then dcmoiistiates to a certifying body that the procedures arc being followed Thei-eafter, the certifying body issues a certificate. The standard is suitable for large bul-eauci-atic organisations where there is a centla1 coiiiuiand arid where each individual has a structured de. Its lack of flexi- bility inhibits change and the custoiiier suffers. Process based organisations lay cnipliasis on the output, the customer. Its axiomatic that the customer is the lifeblood of any business and without satisfied custoiiiers they will go out of business. On tlic other hand IS0 9001 :2000 requires that orginisations defiiie and document their processes. Core processes have to be identified and arc brokeii down to sub pi-ocesses Identification and docu~iientation of processes especially through flow charts should lead to targeting and cxposure of iiiefticiciicies, which can be eliiiiinatcd. Caution therefore, should be exercised as this leads to staff reduction. Customer focus Customers air the beneficiaries of 9001 :2000 requires an organisation to improve the satisfaction of its customers. Who are the customers? This reyuires an organisation to defirie thcni. Custo- mer satisfixtion iiiust be measured: through surveys, focus groups, and custoiner meetings. Having found out the customer satisfaction level, how is an organisation going to improve it? IS0 9001 :2000 1-equires an orgaiiisation to docuiiient how this is going to be achieved. A customer satisfaction improvement plan is iiccded. Custoiner satisfactioii is n coiitiiiuous prcxxss and iiiust be updated. Questions fioui the ~SS~SSOI’S deiiiand improveniciit iii customer satisfaction and to demonstratc the results claimed. the output of the systcln and IS0 Measurement IS0 9001:2000 requires that two tliiiigs be measured; processes, and customer satisfixtion. These inemire- iiients uiust be nu~ncrical. IS0 9001 : 1994 only I-equired monitoring of processes. A manager walking around the process and deeming it to be in coiiti-olwould have been adequate. IS0 9001 :2000 requires numerical nieasures. Such nic;~s~ires liavc to be suitable and appropriate. The temptation to measure for the sake of it must be resisted. Certifying bodies will not be iinpi-essed with p~-ocess measui-es that arc meati- ingless. Management iii~ist locate and ideiitify the iiieas~rciiient points. Questions ciisue, such as. ‘What is the critical SLICC~SS factor of this process’! ‘How do we know it’s in control?’ Measurements cannot be taken in isolatioii of cacli other. They have to form part of a hierarchy of measures. How does one particular process measure contribute to the quality objectives of the organisation? If this contribution cannot be demonsti-ated then the certitj/ing body will almost ccrtaiuly raise a iioii-coiiforiiiity How will an organisation know when a process is in coiitrol and fhctioriiiig as it should? What is the target it is trying to achieve?This iiieans that targets and objectives have to be set aiid linked to the quality objectives of the organisation. If these targets are not I68 MANUFACTURING ENGINEER AUGUST 2002

Upload: ri

Post on 21-Sep-2016

248 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9001:2000 compared

Is0 9001 : 1994 and Is0 9001:2000

compared It is likely that the amount of effort needed to transition an existing

I S 0 900 I : I 994 system to IS0 900 1:2000 will be approximately the same as obtaining registration in the first place. The starting point is a thorough understanding ofthe new standard. Dr. R. Ian Graham

outlines some initial steps

he nuniber ofrequirenients in I S 0 9001 :2000 is approxi- mately double that of I S 0 9001 : 1994. 111 CssCI~cc, there

are five major coriceptual changes that will significantly impact existing 1 994 systems: process based, customer focus, iiieasui-eiiieiit, iniprovenient, aiid top management.

Process based I S 0 9001 :1994 is a procedure based

system. This means that there are a certain iiuniber of requirenients in the standai-d. An organisation writes specific procedures to ineet those requirements, the organisation then dcmoiistiates to a certifying body that the procedures arc being followed Thei-eafter, the certifying body issues a certificate. The standard is suitable for large bul-eauci-atic organisations where there is a centla1 coiiiuiand arid where each individual has a structured d e . Its lack of flexi- bility inhibits change and the custoiiier suffers.

Process based organisations lay cnipliasis on the output, the customer. Its axiomatic that the customer is the lifeblood of any business and without satisfied custoiiiers they will go out of business. O n tlic other hand I S 0 9001 :2000 requires that orginisations defiiie and document their processes.

Core processes have to be identified and arc brokeii down to sub pi-ocesses Identification and docu~iientation of processes especially through flow charts should lead to targeting and cxposure of iiiefticiciicies, which can be eliiiiinatcd. Caution therefore, should be exercised as this leads to staff reduction.

Customer focus Customers a i r the beneficiaries of

9001 :2000 requires an organisation to improve the satisfaction of its customers. Who are the customers? This reyuires a n organisation to defirie thcni. Custo- mer satisfixtion iiiust be measured: through surveys, focus groups, and custoiner meetings.

Having found out the customer satisfaction level, how is a n organisation going to improve it? I S 0 9001 :2000 1-equires an orgaiiisation to docuiiient how this is going to be achieved. A customer satisfaction improvement plan is iiccded. Custoiner satisfactioii is n coiitiiiuous prcxxss and iiiust be updated. Questions fioui the ~ S S ~ S S O I ’ S

deiiiand improveniciit iii customer satisfaction and to demonstratc the results claimed.

the output of the systcln and I S 0

Measurement I S 0 9001:2000 requires that two

tliiiigs be measured; processes, and customer satisfixtion. These inemire- iiients uiust be nu~ncrical. I S 0 9001 : 1994 only I-equired monitoring of processes. A manager walking around the process and deeming it to be in coiiti-ol would have been adequate. IS0 9001 :2000 requires numerical nieasures. Such nic;~s~ires liavc to be suitable and appropriate. The temptation to measure for the sake of it must be resisted. Certifying bodies will not be iinpi-essed with p~-ocess measui-es that arc meati- ingless. Management ii i~ist locate and ideiitify the iiieas~rciiient points. Questions ciisue, such as. ‘What is the critical S L I C C ~ S S factor of this process’! ‘How do we know it’s in control?’

Measurements cannot be taken in isolatioii of cacli other. They have to form part of a hierarchy of measures. How does one particular process measure contribute to the quality objectives of the organisation? If this contribution cannot be demonsti-ated then the certitj/ing body will almost ccrtaiuly raise a iioii-coiiforiiiity

How will an organisation know when a process is in coiitrol and fhctioriiiig as i t should? What is the target it is trying to achieve? This iiieans that targets and objectives have to be set aiid linked to the quality objectives of the organisation. If these targets are not

I68 MANUFACTURING ENGINEER AUGUST 2002

Page 2: ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9001:2000 compared

met, plans need to be documented detailing how the shortfall is to be bridged. In other words-improve- inent plans. When nieasurenients are completed the results have to be analysed. This, essentially, means asking the following questions; ‘what are the results telling us?’ and ‘what conclusions can be made?’ The conclusions must lead to iiiiprovenient.

The certifying body will almost certainly ask ‘what iiiiproveiiient projects came from this data?’ This implies an au&t trail: what is being measured, what conclusions have been drawn, and what improvenients have been made? This trail could go backwards. For instance the certifying body could ask ‘where are the results to justify such a project?’ Organisations need to be ready for such questions and have systems in place to demonstrate these trails.

Improve men t I S 0 9001 :2000 dictates that

improvement is a requirement, and has- to be demonstrated in both the processes and the customer require- ments. An organisation cannot now relax when it has achieved its targets. It now has to increase those targets. Improveiiient plans have to be put in place to achieve those new increased targets. This is an on-going process, which cannot cease’.

What if an organisation cannot (or will not) iniprove? It may claim that it is as good as it can possibly be, and that its customers cannot be satisfied anymore. I S 0 9001:2000 does not recognise this. It requires continual improvement. If there is no demonstrable improvement then the certifying body must withdraw registration.

Therefore, this requireinetit will become more and more difficult to achieve. In the early years iniprovements can always be found and iinplemented. However, as time goes by each incre- mental improvement will be more and more difficult to find. Therefore, management must have a system to obtain these iiiiprovenient opportu- nities. It i s quite likely that cultural change will be needed to do this.

I S 0 9001 :2000 doesn’t quantifi how niuch iiiiprovenient is needed. A new

computer system can be seen as an iniprovcnient, but will be a major expense and a large project involving niuch resource. However, iniprovenient can be as small as, for instance, a box ou

a form being removcd. It niay not seem a great thing in the gl-and scheme of things, but it has iniproved, at least, one person’s job, even though slightly.

Management should not forget that all these iniprovements will add ~q-7 to makc the whole organisation better.

Top management ‘Top management’ iiiust now

demonstrate their coniinitmciit to their management systems, and to continually iiiiproving them. Under

had to be coiiimitted, now they have to provide evidciice of that commitment. There is a world of ditiereiice between

I S 0 9001:1994 top lllanagelllellt only

being committed, and demonstrating that coinmitnient’.

Top nmiagcnicnt is the person or group of persons who direct or control a n organisation at the highest level. The organisation must determine this; but the certifying body will need to be satisfied that this is appropriate.

The certifying body will ask the top nianagers to provide evidciice of its comiiitinent. The top nianagei-s will, therefore, need a systeni to be able to answer this question in a sensible \my without enibarrassiiieiit.

How is conimitment denioustrated? Usually it is demonstrated by two things-time and nioney. By way of a siiiiple example, let LIS assume a person has a hobby, let us say staiiip collecting. He spends money on stanips, albums, and all the things lie needs to display his collection. Uut , probably 111orc iniport-

antly, lie spends t ime 011 his collection, sorting, categorising, and displaying his collection, Likewise, iiianagers must spend money on their systems. Salaries, fees to the certifying body process iinprovenients, for exaniple. This i s relatively easy to demonstrate. However, how much time lias top nianagcment spent on their systems?

Under I S 0 9001 :I 994 it was quitc usual for top manageinent to delegate the running of their system to a ‘quality inaiqyx’2. The ‘cluality nianager’ set up an organisation t o nianage quality Top iiianagenient was rarely involvcd, and only when there was a problem needing their iiivolvenient ( L I S L ~ ~ determined by the quality manager). This has now changed. Top management now lias to be more actively involved. They will

this involveiiient. They must now conduct the iiianageiiiciit review. Just being copied onto the niinutcs will no longer be acceptable.

need a system to be able to ciemonrtratc

Conclusion Tlic major clianges between the two

procedural based system to a process based system. There is a heavy enipha- sir on ciistomers, nieasLirenieiit of processes and customer satisfaction. Improvenicnt is now a requirement, both in the system and in customer satisfaction. The involvement of top management is now greatly increased aiid must be dernonstrated.

I S 0 9001 :2000 is a conceptually different standard to I S 0 9001 :1994. It is likely that many organisations will not meet its requircnients. However, those that adopt it and make the necessary comiiiitment to it should heiiefit &om it. After all, what is wrong with sonicthing that forces you to i n i p v e ?

standards relate to a change fi-0111 a

References

1 Kctola, J., aud ILoberts, IC.: ‘]<e- defining managemen t responsibility’, Qual i ty D(qcrf, March 2000, p.30

2 James, M.: ‘Meeting the challenge', Qiualify Wodd, May 2000, 1-7.1 0

0 IEE 2002

MANUFACTURING ENGINEER AUGUST 2002 I69