I am looking for a better phrase than "making sausages".
Let me explain ...
I remember hearing that you should never ask about how laws and sausages are made because the process is very messy even if the end-product seems alright. (No comment!)
So I use the phrase "making sausages" to refer to something which seems nice enoug but which has a production method that would might upset the layman if were to know about it.
So I am asking for a more formal phrase for "making sausages".
I was being somewhat facetious. Part of the company I worked for went ISO 9000, and repeatedly sent us stuff that didn't work, and some that didn't survive shipping. One of our vendors sent us some equipment with parts installed backwards, so that when they were switched on, they went off, and switched off, they went. When I told them about it, their defense was that they were an ISO 9000 company.
The part of the company I worked for decided to try TQM, that means we generated a lot of paperwork, but when it came to spending any money we lost interest.
Not at all - provided your work instructions lay down that your production method should be totally chaotic with a complete lack of quality control then provided that you can produce traceable documentation to prove that this is how a paricular product was indeed produced then you are totally compliant!
In fact the concept of "total quality" means that application of strict controls to a process that you have defined as not requiring them is non-compliant.
The public can be terribly conned by companies claiming ISO 9000 accreditation - it doesn't guarantee good quality products but only well documented and monitored production methods. If a company makes sausages from crap ingredients then ISO 9000 means that they will always be able to prove that the ingredients really were crap!
either TQM or ISO 9000, properly implemented, could be a good thing. In the company I worked for, it was nonsense, there was no real commitment to it. It was just window dressing. The vendor I spoke of did happen to be in England. they had lost interest in the product, had realized that there was no profit in supporting it. What they promised for support within a week would take over a year to be realized. I can't really blame them for not wanting to support the product, but they should not have promised to fix it, and they should not have sent out bad stuff. the people I worked directly with were all good people, conscientious, but had other commitments as well.
I'm one of those people who would be a cynic if only I could keep up.
I assumed so and my comments were also somewhat flippant! However - as your follow-up confirms - there is a serious side to both our comments!
The point is that ISO 9000 ONLY guarantees traceability of documentation. However in the case of your defective equipment, if the vendor truly had been complying with ISO 9000 then he would be able to supply documentation defining the processes for assembly and testing of the items, records showing when and by whom the items were manufacured and tested and the actual results of testing. Since clearly there was a problem, these records should have made it straightforward to determine where the problem had occured. Either someone was not complying with work instructions or else the processes in place were not adequate. Of course there is always the possibility of deliberate falsification of records but that is a dangerous thing to do since any indication of this practice picked up in a quality audit would result in loss of the company's ISO 9000 accreditation.
The usual problem with TQM and ISO 9000 is that untrained quality managers go overboard and insist that everything must be done to the highest possible standards rather than perfectly documented at the level of quality appropriate to the job in hand - so that you don't try to control the process for building a lawnmower at the level appropriate for a life-support machine! The result is a totally unworkable system at a crippling cost and the company starts from a position of serious non-compliance. The TQM documentation should document the way that you are actually carrying out your business - if you are working efficiently and to the appropriate standard of quality then no further action should be necessary. If your processes are inefficient or of unsatisfactory quality then action needs to be taken anyway, irrespective of ISO 9000 - a properly implemented TQM system, on the basis of a sound and sensible assessment, will almost always result in higher efficiency and lower costs.
I remember an example of inappropriate quality management in a project developing mid-IR LEDs in collaboration with a company developing a gas detector. All the partner was interested in was whether one batch of devices was significantly better than any previous ones, in which case he would test them in his prototype system - the absolute output power was irrelevant. The level of calibration insisted upon by our quality management added absolutely nothing to the quality of our devices but seriously reduced the amount of work we could afford to carry out - totally pissing off our partner! A proper quality assessment would have defined all the processes at a level appropriate to the specifications required by the customer, greatly improving our efficiency. Unfortunately I suspect that this sort of failure to properly appreciate what ISO 9000 really means is very common in British industry.
"David Lee" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@eclipse.net.uk...
Isn't that how B-Liar & Co (a subsidary of AlistairMcLies) got the Hutton Report through?
I've always been of the opinion the the title should be; - "Consistency" rather than 'Quality'. Consistency, of product/process, is what is guarenteed by the 'standards'.
Indeed: a sewage works can be ISO 900, et seq. qualified and proudly fly its flag - alongside its 'investors in People' [or at least their byproducts]!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.