Talk:ISO 9000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Unclear jargon 1.1 Re-vamping 2 Latest version 3 Start afresh 4 Criticism of Criticism 5 Standard and Registration are seperate 6 Origins 7 What is "world-class thinking"? 8 Removed Paragraph 9 IC9700 and IC9200 10 Reference texts 11 Contents 12 Spam links 13 Interesting fact! 14 Corrections 15 Stop the "whack-a-mole" edits! 16 Review of links 17 History section 18 Typographical errors

[edit] Unclear jargon

I read this article and still have no idea what ISO9000 is - this entire article is incomprehensible gobbledy-gook. --Kelt65 12:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's normal. Part of the problem, at least, is that one needs to be the stereotypical pin-headed bureaucrat to really understand all the circumlocution, puffery, self-justification and nonsense which comprise this vaunted global "standard". ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This page looks like it has been computer-translated into English. For example, "central electricity that generates the plate (Joined Kingdom)" looks like it should be "Central Electricity Generating Board (United Kingdom)". Unfortunately, I know nothing about ISO 9000, so maybe somebody who does could do a clean-up.

Tony.

The broken translation actually replaces far better original, see version around early 2005 stating In World War II, Britain had a serious problem with bombs going off in munitions factories, compared to the current In WWII, England had a serious problem with the bombs that came out of munitions plants.. A request for cleanup was added by 83.70.64.1 but this was quietly removed a minute later by user:199 under the guise Rv vandalism. This brings an entirely new meaning to the word vandalism. As I have demonstrated above this article is in real need of being tidied up. In order to avoid edit wars with and censoring by 199 I put up the reasoning and the request here.

user:199 admits on his own web pages that

I've created a new name as I don't want to bring up old arguments with several
unsavoury editors who are still contributing today. Time to start afresh!

[edit] Re-vamping

I did a lot of work to make the article more understandable and accessible. DavidMack 19:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest version

The article says: The latest version is [ISO 9001]:2000.

Isn't the latest version ISO 9001:2001? [1]

Latest version IS ISO 9001:2000 and not ISO 9001:2001. user:qualitytimes

[edit] Start afresh

Cut from intro:

overseeing the production of a product or service. It is not a standard for ensuring a product or service is of quality; rather, it attests to the process of production, and how it will be managed and reviewed

I'm a native speaker of English and an engineer, but I do not understand what the above verbiage is trying to say. It sounds like a mass of buzzwords to me.

What does "attests to the process of production" mean? And if I can't figure this out, how will our average reader figure it out?

I'm disappointed in the quality of writing I've seen in Wikipedia's category:Quality series. Uncle Ed 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a short article here, I made it a longer one, then someone else added responses to criticisms inline ("however it does not in fact suck if you were not EDUCATED STUPID!!!"), including calling John Seddon a bozo. The history page may help in cleaning this one up - David Gerard 11:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Criticism

The Criticism section is poor and POV.

Every criticism of ISO 9000 in this section is immediately countered with some kind of "but not if people do it right" comment. This mocks the criticisms. There are authorities that don't agree with the described benefits of ISO 9000. Their complaints should be listed fairly to maintain NPOV.

If no one comes up with a better plan, I'm going to remove the counter-comments.

--A D Monroe III 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. --A D Monroe III 17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard and Registration are seperate

There is a difference between the standard and registration to the standard that perhaps should be made clear in the text. For example the sentance below implies registration. It also does not have a neutral POV:

"It is widely accepted, although its high price and effort has led to many companies using alternatives such as IC9700, or IC9200, both of which are issued by the International Charter."

If there are no objections i am going to delete --Darrylv 00:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

I'm reasonably sure that ISO 9000 was not initially created by BS5750. I think it would be more accurate to say that BS5750 was the first quality system standard that brought 3rd party certification schemes. Or BS5750 was one of the predecessors of the ISO9000 family.

"ISO 9000 was created by the British Standards Institute as BS 5750. "

ISO 9000 was "created" by ISO TC 176, an international commitee.

--Darrylv 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is "world-class thinking"?

I seem to understand all the words, but when put together they lose their meaning. Can anyone with a better command of the English language enlighten me as to the meaning of this phrase? Shinobu 10:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's management-speak for "innovation" - coming up with new ideas. FiggyBee 13:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Should we change it then? Isn't it better to write down "innovation" when you mean "innovation"? Shinobu 08:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Paragraph

I removed the following para from 'History'. It doesn't seem to fit into that section of the article, and also seems rather POV.

This, and similar problems in the nuclear/power industries over the following decades, were signs
of rapid technological advance in manufacturing. Advances in science were pushed into manufacturing
too fast to be properly managed. Furthermore, managers were seen as too often basing decisions on
paper reports rather than on understanding what was happening on the factory floor.

FiggyBee 13:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IC9700 and IC9200

Forgive me if I'm breaking any protocols here. I am quite new to Wikipedia but familiar with ISO 9000.

I'd like to challenge:

1) the statement that "high costs and difficulties with implementation have led to many companies using alternatives such as IC9700 or IC9200".

2) The claim (in the Wikipedia article for IC9200) that it is a popular program.

I base this challenge on my having asked several colleagues who are well-placed in the ISO 9000 scene, none of whom have heard of these programs nor of ICharter. I apologise in advance if they (or I) are merely ignorant of the facts. I have contacted ICharter to draw their attention to these comments. Jim Wade 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edit. I'm also involved with iso9000 and had never heard of them so calling them popular may be an overstatement.. --Darrylv 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Jim Wade 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference texts

Anyone know of any good reference texts? I'd like to give a specific example but it is probably "Original Research". I had years of product-management experience in one aspect of ISO 9001, the engineering/product-development cycle. Where I worked I was one of two original designers of their product-design/engineering "milestone" process that we used and the company still uses, very successfully. These are a series of "milestones" that you first define and have to adhere to.

The ISO 9001 process had a huge number of "pieces" that affected all levels of the organization, top to bottom ... everything -- purchasing, manufacturing, engineering, production, quality-control, returned-goods, shipping, service, in-house repair.... Every business-process that affected the quality of goods and services to the customer had to be written into "procedures", available on-line to all employees, and the employees were expected to know and to follow them. Then internal auditors-- all sorts of unexpected folks from the shop floor, for instance -- would be trained to go around and do audits e.g. of the product-design process, or a business-process (order-entry, purchasing, service). When they found problems the process was "pink slipped" and solutions were required of the managers. Each product team (there were three or four) had weekly quality meetings where the auditors would present their findings. This was on top of normal quality reports. Then, once a year, external audits were performed by ISO 9001 folks from Canadian Standards Association (and I believe they were certified by some ISO process themselves).

What's interesting about ISO 9000 is: I'm not sure the internal auditing and quality-meetings were specifically required by ISO 9000 or the company used it to fulfill the broader ISO quality-to-customer requirements. The base documents are remarkably scant/thin/broad/non-specific. The sort of expertise to set up an ISO 9001 process is why ISO 9000 consultants cost lots of money. But basically the rule is: if you write it into a procedure, and the external auditors agree it fulfills the ISO quality requirements of the level you choose (9001, 2 or 3), you have to follow the procedure. And you're tested on it.

I have no idea how one would go about putting experience such as mine into an encyclopedia article. It would probably be considered Original Research, anyways. The problem is: ISO 9000 is a huge topic. If anyone knows of any books like "ISO 9001 for Dummies" they would help the Wiki readers by referencing them on the article page. That quest is what sent me here -- I wanted to give a correspondent a reference re "the engineering product design cycle".wvbaileyWvbailey 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contents

Added the 6 "key procedures" that the standard requires. Discordian 20:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam links

So, there are lots of "external links", most probably selling services related to ISO 9000, and are effectively spam. What guidelines should we set up for removing them? Only purely informational sites that don't sell anything? Stevage 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam Links comment from Marc T Smith - ISO 9001 and the ISO 9000 series of standards is in the quality assurance arena which I am very versed in. I have gone through a fair number of quality related articles here, as well as articles unrelated to quality, and if you make the rule that only sites that do not sell anything ("only purely informational sites") will be allowed, there will be one heck of a lot of links dropped. Examples: The iSixSigma.com (which has more flashing advertisements than Broadway in NYC) and the Elsmar.com sites are two sites which are technically commercial sites, but which have excellent free resources. Considering all the commercial links one finds as one browses Wikipdia pages there are many commercial sites referenced. I would hope you will consistently apply rules across Wikipedia. 15:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a link to Oxebridge? It's a company advertising its wares. I thought commercial links were not allowed. (Anonymous)

I removed a couple of spam links and labeled a couple of others that provided good information but were commercial sources.

DavidMack 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed a commercial link and it was put back again. The link was to *ISO 9001 explained by Centre for ISO9000— from Centre for ISO9000 This is a consultant's website with only a small amount of useful information. The site obviously exists primarily to sell products or services, contrary to Wikipedia:External links. The link exists mainly to promote the website, and may contravene the requirement to "avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent." DavidMack 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam link was put back again. Special:Contributions/217.45.209.217 is making a career of keeping certain links alive. I put a spam warning on his talk page. DavidMack 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting fact!

Stumbled upon the following interesting fact while searching for ISO9000 information. Can we mention it somewhere in the article?

Shaastra, the annual science and technology festival of the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India is the first student managed event in the world to earn the ISO 9001:2000 certification. 155.69.5.234 12:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

An earlier version states "ISO 9000 ... [pertains] to how a product is produced, rather than how it is designed." This is not true. To comply with ISO 9001:2000 a company must document and monitor any design and development activities as well as production.

I changed one section title from Contents of ISO 9000 to Contents of ISO 9001 -- hope that was correct.

DavidMack 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the "whack-a-mole" edits!

I want the user who keeps inserting this link stopped. It's getting really annoying. They never even bother to post an edit summary; the link just keeps reappearing. Enough already! +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See bottom of section on spam links above. DavidMack 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of links

Below are some comments on links that have at various times been placed in the article. I think the best way to deal suspected spam is to improve the article so that the spam links become unnecessary, while still referencing commercial websites where appropriate. I'll be working on this article during Feb 2007.

• www.iso9000.co.uk: The stated purpose is "to help you to produce your own ISO 9001 system without spending a fortune in doing so." The site provides a helpful overview mixed with recommendations to call in the consultants. For example, the page on "making your own system" includes the advice
  • "get lots of feedback from the people using the system, at all levels."
  • "Use our services to review your system and advise you..."
• www.simplyquality.org. Stated purpose: "Dedicated to helping organizations understand and implement ... ISO 9000." The top half of the web page has some practical FAQs about ISO 9000. Lower down there are some links to papers and online resources. The rest of the page and website lists books and services for sale.
• www.iso9000council.org. Stated purpose: "Information and Advice to facilitate your ISO 9000 Implementation" The home page has some practical summaries and advice on ISO 9000. The "resources" page lists service providers. The "About us" page is dead.
• www.oxebridge.com/downloads.asp Stated purpose: "Free Guidance Documents." A page of PDF downoads that are not of central importance to the topic ISO 9000, e.g. "How to Ensure a Fair Registration Audit." Website by a provider of ISO 9001 implementation services.
• www.driso.co.uk/resources/resources.html "Educational Articles." A collection of practical, short articles on ISO 9000 by a provider of consultant services.

DavidMack 18:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add another one for consideration that's previously been in the article:

• http://elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24 the ISO 9001 sub-forum of the larger Elsmar.com forums - hosted by a provider of consultant services. — Zaui (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• http://www.hdmgmt.co.uk/gam.html is blatant spam. "H.D. Management has worked with many blue-chip finance houses over the past 10 years." etc. DavidMack 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I found the following to be much better than the ISO site list, which is just a list of links to sites that contain lists:

• ISO 9000 Registration Bodies by country

However, someone has deleted it and replaced it with the former. I think that some editors should remember that official site content is not always the best or most appropriate content.

Thanks for your input, and please make the changes you see appropriate. — DavidMack 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I deleted the history section after I found that it was copied and pasted from http://www.proquis.com/page.asp?page=163. We need a new, rewritten section.

DavidMack 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typographical errors

I corrected a few typographical errors and also deleted a statement that simply said 'It's over 9000', which had no meaning whatsoever.

The article needs a good proof read.

Beefy_SAFC 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)