With the increasing amount of companies claiming to adhere to the requirements of this global Standard, we may well begin to believe that product and service quality has reached new heights and each and every customer is satisfied with the performance of their ISO9000 registered supplier. On the other hand, we may have misunderstood the purpose of this Standard and the registration process itself. Maybe the Standard is not about the quality of service product.



The current (year 2000) version of ISO90001 is clearly focussed on the definition of a Quality Management System. This is by convention the mechanism by which an organisation defines and manages the quality of its output delivery. This current document is the latest in a series of ISO Standards devoted to the topic, and shortly to be replaced by a 2008 version - but not just yet. These Standards can trace their direct history back to the middle of the last century, these having antecedents with origins certainly back to the early 20th Century.

Originating within the manufacturing industry, and until comparatively recently predominantly focussed there, their original objective was to control the manufacturing processes so as to correct the errors endemic within the ethos of working class operatives. It was a 'given' that product (and now service) errors occurred due to the nature and attitudes of the workers employed. Seldom was it considered possible that errors and omissions - i.e. defects, could be related to the management or management methods employed within the industry. Standards were therefore developed with the sole purpose of identifying and correcting failings before they became a problem for the customer, or servicing the customer need for corrective action after delivery. E.g. warrantee. The current ISO 9000 philosophy is founded on the strategy Plan Do Check Act, and for Act we can reasonably say 'Fix' - although this isn't how Act is normally explained in the publicity blurb. Clearly this is an implied acknowledgement of potential failure, rather than a strategy to avoid failure.

For those who doubt this is correct, consider how often you have heard the expression - it must be a Monday morning or Friday afternoon product. Maybe partly in jest, but originating from the concept that workers generally don't care, and systems have to be devised to put right what they, the workers, do wrong.

As the years have gone by, the Standards have developed and their presentation has changed to a less prescriptive form, but underneath lies the same concept, that all work is prone to error, and management planning must recognise this and act accordingly. The possibility that work of any kind could routinely be carried out 'error free' has no position within this standard or any other.

This failure to recognise what is both a major weakness and an opportunity is not confined to Standards makers, but is endemic in much of industry and commerce. A major supplier of domestic kitchen fitments has recently conceded that they have increased the investment in their after sales service operation - in other words, in the rectification processes following a new installation. The likelihood that the money could have beeen spent on solving the cause of the glitch rather than rectfying it does not seem to have been considered. Is it any wonder that organisations continue to believe that the ISO Standards are useful only in the context of enhancing the marketing image of the company?

Earlier in the 20th Century the managers of quality systems became besotted with so-called statistical data gathering and presentation. Based on a lifetime of belief-reinforcing experience that compelled them to believe in the inevitability of error and failure in any work process, they persuaded their masters to support the concept of Acceptable Quality Level (AQL). This term, when used in a truly statistical situation, is a reliable method of predicting the quality of a batch through the examination of a smaller sample. As applied within industry it became justified for accepting the inferior in service delivery and product delivery. This then has developed into the League Table idiocy driven by government and their civil servants that contains the tacit acceptance of less than perfect work performance, so long as there are those whose performance is deemed inferior to the current product or service examination. League tables are a failure because they support the inevitability of failure. This is a failure to recognise the fact that the present situation arises from a historic perspective of work and culture, along with the absence of the realisation that it doesn't have to be like it is. To quote a 20th Century Guru - Philip Crosby, 'It costs no more to do the job right than it costs to do it wrong and then again'. Quality is Free!

So, as we look to the coming of yet another ISO Standard for a quality management system, what are the prospects of a turn-round in philosophy, and a drive for Error-Free working?

Don't hold your breath!

Copyright (c) 2008 Ed Bones