Golden opportunity
Derek Gravestock from Batalas Ltd discusses how QMS requirements have changed in the wake of the ISO 9001:2000 transition and recognizes the dynamic new environment as one that can be highly beneficial for organizations
Batalas and its partner organizations overseas deliver training and implementation support throughout Europe, the Americas and south-east Asia. The main lesson to be learnt from the new standard was made clear when Batalas designed its range of IRCA-approved courses.
The first attempt revealed how differently each designer interpreted the requirements. This was further complicated by attempts to modify the ISO 9000:1994 courses. This resulted in a disjointed programme which, while satisfying all the component elements stipulated by IRCA, did not address the intent of the standard. The solution was obvious - if top management commitment is required, have a top manager view the requirements. So, although the useful details of the course were retained, an entirely different programme emerged.
Learning from experience
The early problems Batalas encountered with course design have also been experienced by other organizations during transition. These mistakes have not led to failure to obtain registration but they have resulted in a less than fully effective QMS. It is never too late to change your QMS. A review of the most common issues organizations have faced, together with some practical suggestions for improvement, may be helpful.
A process approach
The process approach was designed to link the QMS with the delivery of business objectives. By doing so, top management would be more involved and committed to the QMS, certainly more so than if they saw the QMS as nothing more than a manual containing documented procedures for their staff.
Many organizations have interpreted the process approach as process mapping of its quality processes. If this gave some value to the QMS then this would justify the expenditure of effort. However, if process mapping merely replaces existing documented procedures then the aim of the changes to the standard has not been recognized or achieved.
A simple check to see if the process approach is correctly structured is to compare the performance measures of the key QMS processes with those used by top management. With the exception of some purely financial objectives there should be a direct link between the two.
If there is a misalignment then the best solution is to re-define the key processes. This should not be seen as purely a desktop exercise which just requires some modification to computer-generated process charts. It should be a top management exercise conducted as a workshop. In this way, top management involvement and commitment will be guaranteed. More importantly, if top management has not already realized the importance and relevance of the QMS to the operation of the business, this exercise will reinforce the issue.
More than a procedure
Internal auditing, when used correctly, is a great stimulus for improvement. Used incorrectly it only highlights negative aspects of an organization, causing its results to be disregarded by key managers.
The solution lies in the selection and training of internal auditors. Training an internal auditor to the 1994 standard was more simple. Essentially, it asked that the auditor checked that what was done conformed to documented procedures, and that they recorded non-conformities in an accurate manner. Most senior managers avoided this role, preferring to delegate the task to more junior staff.
With the 2000 standard there is still a need to conduct internal audits to check compliance with documented procedures. However, this should only be a relatively minor element of internal auditing, as all the requirements of the standard will not be met by documented procedures alone.
Therefore internal auditors must understand the requirements of the standard. This is a difficult task for internal auditors acting on a part-time basis. As the 2000 standard is based on good management practice, Batalas has found that the very best internal auditors are middle or senior managers. They do not have to memorise the requirements of the standard clause by clause, they just relate what they see to good management practice and then refer to the standard for confirmation.
There is another excellent reason why managers should be involved in internal audits, and that is the need to audit processes to ensure they are effective, and to identify opportunities for improvement.
A new focus
The new standard has provided a great opportunity for the quality professional. The broadening of the requirements particularly the introduction of performance measures, the process approach, top management commitment and continual improvement ensure that the standard and real life practices can be aligned.
To make sure that this opportunity is realised organizations need to concentrate on two areas and:
- ensure that the structure of the QMS processes is frequently reviewed and amended to reflect the changes within the business
- improve the skills of the internal auditors, enabling internal auditing to add real value to business performance
There are many organizations that have made an excellent start and show willingness to demonstrate that embracing the intent of the 2000 standard is highly beneficial to the performance of their organization. However, the long-term future of ISO 9001:2000 does depend upon the majority of organizations seizing this opportunity and not regarding registration as the ultimate goal.
Implementing a successful QMS:
- if top management commitment is needed, have a top manager view
the requirements
- compare the performance measures of key QMS processes with those
used by top management
- internal auditors should include middle or senior managers
- a fully effective QMS is one that is reviewed frequently
- long-term future of the ISO 9001:2000 standard does depend upon
the majority of organizations seizing this opportunity and not regarding
registration as the ultimate goal
About the author
Derek Gravestock is a director of Batalas Limited. Following an early
career in manufacturing, he moved into general management and then
into consultancy. He has led many successful organizational improvements
projects in both the commercial and public sectors. Recent projects
include the development of a productivity training programme for BMW,
the establishment of quality improvement programmes in ten eastern
European countries and supporting a government research organization
to introduce ISO 9001:2000 and the excellence model.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |