It hasn't been than many years ago that there were lots of complaints
about the inconsistent quality of Grizzly's products here in the wreck.
Some arrived in fine shape, others had fit/finish problems, missing or
damaged parts, etc. The only thing going for them was their good
customer service.
Did anyone notice how this changed with their release of the G0555
"Ultimate Bandasaw"? Excellent design, almost no complaints, and it's
been a runaway best seller.
The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
It's kinda like quality control on steroids, since the loop involves
improvements in both manufacture and design. Generally ISO 9000 extends
to plant conditions and worker attitudes as well.
I don't pretend to know the plant and worker conditions in the plants
that manufacture Grizz products, but the improvement in product quality
is very evident, and Grizz is putting the "Made in an ISO 9001 factory"
on more and more of their products. Contrast this with the generally
declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
"Disturbing Trend" thread.
--
Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.
On 12 May 2006 06:18:55 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
><snip boatloads of whining about ISO>
>
>Ya know, I have worked as a Software Quality Engineer in the medical
>device industry for 14 years. Currently, my company comply both with
>9001 and 13485, as well as a host of other US and foreign Quality
>System regulations. I have observed the work habits and attitudes of
>the engineers and managers I work with and I am extremely happy, and
>you should be too, that these medical devices development are
>subjected to these controls. Not that all, or even most of these
>people would make decisions that would threaten people's health or
>lives, but the presence of a quality system helps to prevent these
>attitudes and work habits from negatively impacting people's health and
>possibly lives.
>
>When it comes to safety critical products, the suggestion to let
>"market forces insure quality" means nothing to me. Would YOU be
>willing to accept that it would take 20 extra deaths (perhaps YOU, or
>your loved ones?) to cause a company to fix a product that has a defect
>in it that they deemed unnecessary to fix because there was a sale on
>the line?
>
>Klingspor can do what they want, companies whose products can kill, on
>the other hand......
>
>D'ohBoy
If half of your engineers and technicians are tied up chasing
insignificant issues, when they should be working on the significant
you don't think that is going to impact the quality of your product?
And do you think your ISO auditor can tell the difference?
That was my point and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Mark,
> Having been involved in the pain of ISO audits, what you are saying about
> being ISO certified implying higher quality products is not correct. The
> only thing the ISO audit and process does is certifies that the business
> has and follows a process in the design and manufacturing of its products.
> If the company builds crappy products, as long as there is a traceable
> process, the company can be ISO certified. It will just consistently
> produce crappy products with no danger of any good products escaping the
> process.
I won't go into details, but my wife is the QA manager and she really liked
your paragraph.
I have cut and pasted it into MS word and printed it out in big print so she
can hang it beside her desk.
Thanks,
David.
<snip boatloads of whining about ISO>
Ya know, I have worked as a Software Quality Engineer in the medical
device industry for 14 years. Currently, my company comply both with
9001 and 13485, as well as a host of other US and foreign Quality
System regulations. I have observed the work habits and attitudes of
the engineers and managers I work with and I am extremely happy, and
you should be too, that these medical devices development are
subjected to these controls. Not that all, or even most of these
people would make decisions that would threaten people's health or
lives, but the presence of a quality system helps to prevent these
attitudes and work habits from negatively impacting people's health and
possibly lives.
When it comes to safety critical products, the suggestion to let
"market forces insure quality" means nothing to me. Would YOU be
willing to accept that it would take 20 extra deaths (perhaps YOU, or
your loved ones?) to cause a company to fix a product that has a defect
in it that they deemed unnecessary to fix because there was a sale on
the line?
Klingspor can do what they want, companies whose products can kill, on
the other hand......
D'ohBoy
Hi, Frank -
Sorry, my reference to boatloads of whining wasn't specifically
directed at you, but rather some of the anti-QS regulation/standard
attitudes in general.
To answer your first question ("If half of your engineers and
technicians are tied up chasing insignificant issues, when they should
be working on the significant you don't think that is going to impact
the quality of your product?"), it depends on what you deem an
insignificant issue.
To answer your second question ("...do you think your ISO auditor can
tell the difference?), yes. Our auditors seem sufficiently
knowledgeable for the job.
I can understand your frustration. I am an internal auditor and I have
attended a few auditor and lead auditor trainings and was not at all
impressed with the general level of intellectual function possessed by
the other attendees. Seems the old saw "those that can do ..." could
be modified to be "those that can do, those that can't, audit" ;-)
D'ohBoy
T
Vince Heuring wrote:
> The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
> anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
> certification or the equivalent can attest.
>
>. Contrast this with the generally
> declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
> "Disturbing Trend" thread.
I'm 99% certain that Delta is ISO 9001 certified as well. As is GM and
other companies that are held up as examples of "poor quality". ISO
9001 does not mandate quality, only a documentation of processes.
That's the short answer, I won't bore you with the long answer.
David F. Eisan wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > Having been involved in the pain of ISO audits, what you are saying about
> > being ISO certified implying higher quality products is not correct. The
> > only thing the ISO audit and process does is certifies that the business
> > has and follows a process in the design and manufacturing of its products.
> > If the company builds crappy products, as long as there is a traceable
> > process, the company can be ISO certified. It will just consistently
> > produce crappy products with no danger of any good products escaping the
> > process.
>
> I won't go into details, but my wife is the QA manager and she really liked
> your paragraph.
>
> I have cut and pasted it into MS word and printed it out in big print so she
> can hang it beside her desk.
>
An aquaintance pointed out to me that with ISO 9000 you can
cetify a brick as flightworthy.
--
FF
That says loads.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am an internal auditor
On 12 May 2006 06:18:55 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
><snip boatloads of whining about ISO>
>
>Ya know, I have worked as a Software Quality Engineer in the medical
>device industry for 14 years. Currently, my company comply both with
>9001 and 13485, as well as a host of other US and foreign Quality
>System regulations. I have observed the work habits and attitudes of
>the engineers and managers I work with and I am extremely happy, and
>you should be too, that these medical devices development are
>subjected to these controls. Not that all, or even most of these
>people would make decisions that would threaten people's health or
>lives, but the presence of a quality system helps to prevent these
>attitudes and work habits from negatively impacting people's health and
>possibly lives.
>
I think you miss the point of some of the comments. For safety-critical
items, there darn well better be strong processes in place to assure that
all appropriate validations and verifications as well as configuration
controls are performed properly. Those processes and methodologies existed
well before ISO-9000. (IIRC, NASA and its subcontractors weren't ISO
certified when we went to the moon). Those processes however, can be
independent of an ISO-9000 certification.
>When it comes to safety critical products, the suggestion to let
>"market forces insure quality" means nothing to me. Would YOU be
>willing to accept that it would take 20 extra deaths (perhaps YOU, or
>your loved ones?) to cause a company to fix a product that has a defect
>in it that they deemed unnecessary to fix because there was a sale on
>the line?
>
The issue with ISO, as I and other posters have pointed out is that even
with ISO certification in place, the processes in place can actually allow
for the situation you cite above. ISO does *not* guarantee defect-free nor
high quality products. It only assures that the process you have in place
allows you to *consistently* produce whatever level of product quality from
your process that you choose.
For safety-critical applications, ISO-900x process certification is
certainly a *tool* to assure that appropriate processes are followed to
assure that consistent product results are obtained. However, it is not a
panacea and is not the *only* solution to assure that the desired results
are obtained.
>Klingspor can do what they want, companies whose products can kill, on
>the other hand......
>
>D'ohBoy
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Part of the issue is that with paid outside auditors (or government
> auditors even), they are not considered to be doing their job if they
> don't
> find *something*. A clean inspection is often not viewed favorably by
> their higher-ups, so they dig down into the weeds until they find even
> some
> little thing so they can say they have done their job.
Ah yes, the old "we look good only by comparison" inspectors. Survived a
lot of them when I was in the service.
On Fri, 12 May 2006 03:12:15 GMT, MOP CAP <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>ISO in a nut shell:
>
>Document what you do.
>
>Do what you document.
>
>If it moves train it.
>
>If it dosen't calibrate it.
>
>
>That all there is.
You missed one:
If it exists, label or placard it [often taken to ridiculous extremes]
>
>Chuck P.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:27:44 -0600, Vince Heuring
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>It hasn't been than many years ago that there were lots of complaints
>about the inconsistent quality of Grizzly's products here in the wreck.
>Some arrived in fine shape, others had fit/finish problems, missing or
>damaged parts, etc. The only thing going for them was their good
>customer service.
>
>Did anyone notice how this changed with their release of the G0555
>"Ultimate Bandasaw"? Excellent design, almost no complaints, and it's
>been a runaway best seller.
>
>The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
>anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
>certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
>loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
>It's kinda like quality control on steroids, since the loop involves
>improvements in both manufacture and design. Generally ISO 9000 extends
>to plant conditions and worker attitudes as well.
>
>I don't pretend to know the plant and worker conditions in the plants
>that manufacture Grizz products, but the improvement in product quality
>is very evident, and Grizz is putting the "Made in an ISO 9001 factory"
>on more and more of their products. Contrast this with the generally
>declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
>"Disturbing Trend" thread.
Having run a manufacturing operation, gone through the ISO
certification process, and ultimately made the decision to drop the
certification, I'm amazed that so many people who posted to this
thread consistently hit the nail on the head.
The value in ISO is only there if you have an excellent quality system
to start with are a sincere desire to develop one. ISO makes you
document and integrate processes, and by doing so you can detect and
correct holes in your system if you look at it objectively. I found
this to be of great value.
Continuing certification is only of value if you do not have the
discipline to follow your documented procedures. That is where the
auditor comes in and the threat of decertification forces corrective
action. What I found is that the auditors know very little about
your particular processes and culture, at least the importance of
their weighting and they will find things of little consequence and
treat them as if they are of great importance. For this " service"
you get to pay a hefty fee to them and jump through hoops to establish
corrective action for insignificant issues. A waste of resource.
ISO operations can design and manufacture great products or they can
make junk if the system is designed to do so.
Frank
Yeah, me too????
[email protected] wrote:
> David, did you slip out and get married recently or sumpthing?
>
"Vince Heuring" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
>> anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
>> certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
>> loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
>> It's kinda like quality control on steroids, since the loop involves
>> improvements in both manufacture and design. Generally ISO 9000 extends
>> to plant conditions and worker attitudes as well.
ISO means a lot of paperwork, much of it unnecessary. In some companies it
helps, but it is not all that it is touted to be. You can make crap, and
you can assure it is crap because you have the paperwork to back it up.
To comply with ISO standards I had to buy an expensive 24" scale with a
certificate of somethingorother to verify the accuracy. Makes a nice
straightedge, but has never been used to measure anything, but I have to
have it. .
On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:27:44 -0600, Vince Heuring
<[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>
>The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
>anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
>certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
>loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
>It's kinda like quality control on steroids, since the loop involves
>improvements in both manufacture and design. Generally ISO 9000 extends
>to plant conditions and worker attitudes as well.
>
Having been involved in the pain of ISO audits, what you are saying about
being ISO certified implying higher quality products is not correct. The
only thing the ISO audit and process does is certifies that the business
has and follows a process in the design and manufacturing of its products.
If the company builds crappy products, as long as there is a traceable
process, the company can be ISO certified. It will just consistently
produce crappy products with no danger of any good products escaping the
process.
>I don't pretend to know the plant and worker conditions in the plants
>that manufacture Grizz products, but the improvement in product quality
>is very evident, and Grizz is putting the "Made in an ISO 9001 factory"
>on more and more of their products. Contrast this with the generally
>declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
>"Disturbing Trend" thread.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 2006/5/12 10:01 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> David F. Eisan wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>>> Having been involved in the pain of ISO audits, what you are saying about
>>> being ISO certified implying higher quality products is not correct. The
>>> only thing the ISO audit and process does is certifies that the business
>>> has and follows a process in the design and manufacturing of its products.
>>> If the company builds crappy products, as long as there is a traceable
>>> process, the company can be ISO certified. It will just consistently
>>> produce crappy products with no danger of any good products escaping the
>>> process.
>>
>> I won't go into details, but my wife is the QA manager and she really liked
>> your paragraph.
>>
>> I have cut and pasted it into MS word and printed it out in big print so she
>> can hang it beside her desk.
>>
>
> An aquaintance pointed out to me that with ISO 9000 you can
> cetify a brick as flightworthy.
All that any of the ISO 9000 series certification do is to look at process,
not product. If the basic design is crap, you get consistent crap.
True.
"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ISO operations can design and manufacture great products or they can
> make junk if the system is designed to do so.
>
> Frank
>
>
Do you really believe that horsecrap or do you work for ISO?
"Vince Heuring" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:110520061427442041%[email protected]...
>
> It hasn't been than many years ago that there were lots of complaints
> about the inconsistent quality of Grizzly's products here in the wreck.
> Some arrived in fine shape, others had fit/finish problems, missing or
> damaged parts, etc. The only thing going for them was their good
> customer service.
>
> Did anyone notice how this changed with their release of the G0555
> "Ultimate Bandasaw"? Excellent design, almost no complaints, and it's
> been a runaway best seller.
>
> The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
> anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
> certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
> loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
> It's kinda like quality control on steroids, since the loop involves
> improvements in both manufacture and design. Generally ISO 9000 extends
> to plant conditions and worker attitudes as well.
>
> I don't pretend to know the plant and worker conditions in the plants
> that manufacture Grizz products, but the improvement in product quality
> is very evident, and Grizz is putting the "Made in an ISO 9001 factory"
> on more and more of their products. Contrast this with the generally
> declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
> "Disturbing Trend" thread.
>
> --
> Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.
In article <110520061427442041%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>This isn't just hype, as
>anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
>certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
>loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
when applicable, yes. our research institution went through iso9000 some
years back. it was a fad which management siezed and ran with. too bad
they dragged us along.
--
regards,
greg (non-hyphenated american)
http://users.adelphia.net/~kimnach
"Vince Heuring" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:110520061427442041%[email protected]...
>
> I don't pretend to know the plant and worker conditions in the plants
> that manufacture Grizz products, but the improvement in product quality
> is very evident, and Grizz is putting the "Made in an ISO 9001 factory"
> on more and more of their products. Contrast this with the generally
> declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
> "Disturbing Trend" thread.
>
> --
> Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.
One can sum it up by comparing US autos against Japanese cars. GM is
closing plants, Toyota is building new ones in the US. It's your mind set,
they are not smarter, better workers or anything like that. We get what we
accept. We have only ONE weapon, but its a big one. HOW YOU SPEND YOUR
MONEY
On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:33:00 -0700, "David F. Eisan"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark,
>
>> Having been involved in the pain of ISO audits, what you are saying about
>> being ISO certified implying higher quality products is not correct. The
>> only thing the ISO audit and process does is certifies that the business
>> has and follows a process in the design and manufacturing of its products.
>> If the company builds crappy products, as long as there is a traceable
>> process, the company can be ISO certified. It will just consistently
>> produce crappy products with no danger of any good products escaping the
>> process.
>
>I won't go into details, but my wife is the QA manager and she really liked
>your paragraph.
>
>I have cut and pasted it into MS word and printed it out in big print so she
>can hang it beside her desk.
>
>Thanks,
>
>David.
>
Happy to help. Any time. ;-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 12 May 2006 08:33:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Hi, Frank -
>
>Sorry, my reference to boatloads of whining wasn't specifically
>directed at you, but rather some of the anti-QS regulation/standard
>attitudes in general.
Having been a Quality Manager prior to an Operations Manager, I'm a
believer in strong quality systems. Just not in ISO as the means to
get and stay there. The OP's contention seemed to be that ISO means a
quality product. I don't necessarily agree. Ironically, a lot of the
product that is being cited as part of the "disturbing trend" toward
poor quality comes from ISO operations in the far east.
>
>To answer your first question ("If half of your engineers and
>technicians are tied up chasing insignificant issues, when they should
>be working on the significant you don't think that is going to impact
>the quality of your product?"), it depends on what you deem an
>insignificant issue.
In our world it was fairly easy to distinguish the difference. If it
is an omission, a procedural inconsistency, or a basic root cause that
leads to a safety problem regardless of the statistical impact, or if
it is of statistical relevance with regard to product function and
customer satisfaction, it is important. If it is neither, it is not.
The one benefit to the audits was that the host (our Quality Manger)
sometimes would discover important things that the auditor missed
during the course of the audit and we could develop our own list of
corrective action. However, we had to assign our resources to his
list which in most cases was loaded with things of little
significance.
>
>To answer your second question ("...do you think your ISO auditor can
>tell the difference?), yes. Our auditors seem sufficiently
>knowledgeable for the job.
You are fortunate. That was not our experience. The auditors
assigned to our operation had no relevant manufacturing experience.
While they seemed to be good, intelligent people the lack of
experience was alarming given the fees we were paying for the audit
service.
>
>I can understand your frustration. I am an internal auditor and I have
>attended a few auditor and lead auditor trainings and was not at all
>impressed with the general level of intellectual function possessed by
>the other attendees. Seems the old saw "those that can do ..." could
>be modified to be "those that can do, those that can't, audit" ;-)
>
>D'ohBoy
>
>
>
>
>
>T
On Sat, 20 May 2006 21:23:16 -0400, Eddie Munster
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> David, did you slip out and get married recently or sumpthing?
>>
>Yeah, me too????
>
I was wondering the same thing when he posted his reply to my posting.
Having seen a picture of his "helper" while working on his parent's
kitchen; it that is his new wife, he certainly could have done worse [but
she could have done better ;-) ]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Vince Heuring" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:110520061427442041%[email protected]...
>
> It hasn't been than many years ago that there were lots of complaints
> about the inconsistent quality of Grizzly's products here in the wreck.
> Some arrived in fine shape, others had fit/finish problems, missing or
> damaged parts, etc. The only thing going for them was their good
> customer service.
>
> Did anyone notice how this changed with their release of the G0555
> "Ultimate Bandasaw"? Excellent design, almost no complaints, and it's
> been a runaway best seller.
>
> The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
> anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
> certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
> loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
> It's kinda like quality control on steroids, since the loop involves
> improvements in both manufacture and design. Generally ISO 9000 extends
> to plant conditions and worker attitudes as well.
>
> I don't pretend to know the plant and worker conditions in the plants
> that manufacture Grizz products, but the improvement in product quality
> is very evident, and Grizz is putting the "Made in an ISO 9001 factory"
> on more and more of their products. Contrast this with the generally
> declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
> "Disturbing Trend" thread.
>
> --
> Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.
ISO certification doesn't ensure quality products. Instead, it ensures the
company has the systems and processes in place to tie all the operations
together as well as deal with the "out of the norm" issues. A factory that
specs crap can be ISO as long as their systems are in accordance with what
ISO asks for....yet still produce crap. Now in fairness, most companies
that bother with ISO are quality concious but still, it doesn't dictate what
quality is produced.
Cheers,
cc
"Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." is Grizzly's codeword for "Made in Taiwan"
as opposed to "Made in China". That is the main reason for the difference
in quality.
"Vince Heuring" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:110520061427442041%[email protected]...
>
> It hasn't been than many years ago that there were lots of complaints
> about the inconsistent quality of Grizzly's products here in the wreck.
> Some arrived in fine shape, others had fit/finish problems, missing or
> damaged parts, etc. The only thing going for them was their good
> customer service.
>
> Did anyone notice how this changed with their release of the G0555
> "Ultimate Bandasaw"? Excellent design, almost no complaints, and it's
> been a runaway best seller.
>
> The difference: "Made in an ISO 9000 Factory." This isn't just hype, as
> anyone who his been involved in the pain of an ISO 9000, now 9001,
> certification or the equivalent can attest. It involves closing the
> loop between design, manufacture, and customer wishes and complaints.
> It's kinda like quality control on steroids, since the loop involves
> improvements in both manufacture and design. Generally ISO 9000 extends
> to plant conditions and worker attitudes as well.
>
> I don't pretend to know the plant and worker conditions in the plants
> that manufacture Grizz products, but the improvement in product quality
> is very evident, and Grizz is putting the "Made in an ISO 9001 factory"
> on more and more of their products. Contrast this with the generally
> declining quality of Delta, etc. that is being lamented in the
> "Disturbing Trend" thread.
>
> --
> Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.
On Fri, 12 May 2006 11:04:34 -0500, Frank Boettcher
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12 May 2006 08:33:10 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
... snip
>>
>>To answer your first question ("If half of your engineers and
>>technicians are tied up chasing insignificant issues, when they should
>>be working on the significant you don't think that is going to impact
>>the quality of your product?"), it depends on what you deem an
>>insignificant issue.
>
>In our world it was fairly easy to distinguish the difference. If it
>is an omission, a procedural inconsistency, or a basic root cause that
>leads to a safety problem regardless of the statistical impact, or if
>it is of statistical relevance with regard to product function and
>customer satisfaction, it is important. If it is neither, it is not.
>The one benefit to the audits was that the host (our Quality Manger)
>sometimes would discover important things that the auditor missed
>during the course of the audit and we could develop our own list of
>corrective action. However, we had to assign our resources to his
>list which in most cases was loaded with things of little
>significance.
Part of the issue is that with paid outside auditors (or government
auditors even), they are not considered to be doing their job if they don't
find *something*. A clean inspection is often not viewed favorably by
their higher-ups, so they dig down into the weeds until they find even some
little thing so they can say they have done their job. Most outside ISO
auditors often are contracted to larger corporations where the higher ups
*expect* findings. Since those outside contractors want/need future
consulting contracts with those corporations, they will find things and
then, regardless of how insignificant, brief upper management about how
important those findings were --either how that little thing could have led
to a huge (though wildly improbable) problem or how this was catching a
"disturbing trend" away from tight process control. That attitude and
expectation is going to carry over to the audits they do for smaller
companies as well.
>>
>>To answer your second question ("...do you think your ISO auditor can
>>tell the difference?), yes. Our auditors seem sufficiently
>>knowledgeable for the job.
>
>You are fortunate. That was not our experience. The auditors
>assigned to our operation had no relevant manufacturing experience.
>While they seemed to be good, intelligent people the lack of
>experience was alarming given the fees we were paying for the audit
>service.
... snip
That's the theoretical (sales-pitch) beauty of the ISO process. The
person doing the auditing doesn't *have* to be knowledgeable about the
product or the business being audited. The auditor's sole purpose and
knowledge is that the auditor knows how to follow process flows and
procedure documentation. Whether you are making chocolate chip cookies or
plutonium triggers for nuclear devices, it doesn't matter -- the auditor is
a process expert and thus all that needs to be done is to trace the process
and procedures, and voila!, you have quality product. Unfortunately, the
real world is a bit more complicated than that.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+