To Iso Or Not To Iso......

[DirectFS]

It seems that ISO9001 is a topic that polarises opinion. In the "Starting a new business" thread, there's a good spread of views for and against.

Those that recall the "good ol days" of BS5750 - Total Quality Management, if you will - will also recall that the most common saying about it was "c##p in, c##p out".

And that's kind of the point of the management system - it is supposed to document *your* business, and reflect the way *your* business is run. Too many firms go after ISO, then figure that they can't do something because it isn't in the manual, or that they can't get somewhere because the manual says different.

This is where ISO fails, or at least where there is no understanding of it - it is a living system - it isn't a one off. It is meant to be adapted as your business changes - in other words, if you decide to do something a different way, or if you implement a new process, then change the manual - just make sure your change approval process is easy to use.

The cons of an ISO system are in a marginally increased direct overhead, time in maintenance of the system, need to adhere to doing things a certain way (the way you documented you would do them), training for anyone in your business who impacts the system (almost all staff), policing the system (you need to make sure it is adhered to), and, of course, analysis of the system. Don't forget too, initial outlay.

The pros, however, can be immeasurable: standardised ways of doing things (everything, almost), shorter learning and training phases - everyone learns the same thing once, reduction in other overhead areas due to increases in efficiency, an auditable trail should anything go wrong (customers are fickle, in case you didn't realise!), a professional approach to working tasks, opening of potential avenues of business, less chance of mistakes creeping in (and an easier way to find them if they should), and not least, the ability to know WHAT to change when omething stops working, or doesn't actually suit.

It has to be said, (and having been involved in very many companies undertaking ISO accreditation, I can, with conviction), that many businesses opting to take the ISO route do so in the wrong way. There has to be a desire to implement something that is to the benefit of the business, you need to devote time to involvement in its development - a consultant *can* design a system for you, but let's face it - how often has that consultant run *your* business? - and you need to want it to succeed.

Personally, and from experience again, I would suggest that implementing ISO in a postive way provides a platform from which a business can scale up relatively effortlessly - without a lot of "growing pains" - because its modular, because you know WHAT needs changing - and which brings dividends in efficiency professionalism, and overall reduced overhead. However, I am happy also to caveat this.

If your business deals in low volume, low value orders - say, a small one man installer of a range of intruder alarms, or a pure subcontractor, there's probably very little to be gained by implementing 9001. If you have plans to grow, to take on staff, or to chase larger orders, local authority orders, many commercial orders, or high value orders, I would suggest you design your business from the ground up with ISO in place - or get there as quickly as you practically can, with involvement. ISO9001 is NOT fit and forget - and like we always tell our customer base, needs good maintenance in place.

Bill.

[Guest RJBsec]

I would preface my comments by saying that I believe ISO to be beneficial to the medium to large company, especially one with branches in other areas.

That having been said I have been in business for over 20 years and never had or tried to get ISO.

When BS5750 first came out there was a sudden spate of, "you've got to have BS5750 to get work from us", so much so that BSI brought out a memorandum that stated that the concept was wrong and that anyone able to demonstrate a QA procedure should be acceptable even if not having ISO - eventually it all died down, probably because everyone realised that for certain companies it was pointless.

I remember 'Security Installer' (I think) discussing the pointlessness of it in many instances and concluding with a cartoon showing a sole trader fitting a system and then going back with a magnifying glass - the caption read, "It's brilliant, I couldn't have done it better if I had done it myself!"

As I said in the other post, I have successfully obtained work for domestic, commercial, industrial, local authority and general public sector, (NHS etc) and not having ISO has never caused me a problem - neither have I had the additional cost in money and time that ISO would have imposed on me.

As a consumer over the past 20 odd years it has been my experience that ISO has not improved the quality of the products I use, in fact there have been periods when I believe that quality has nose-dived - was it because more attention was being paid to paper than product? I don't know but it has not been a coincidence IMO.

Another thread here brought comments about getting faulty goods back, I have experienced this many times, even the very same equipment that I had returned - where was ISO in these cases? How many here have actually completed or seen paperwork for faulty goods, either from/by manufacturer or distributor?

My view? Think very carefully before committing yourself to ISO, ask yourself if you will really benefit, if you want the additional cost and time and of course, is it going to make your company any more profitable - you might be surprised at the conclusion you reach.