ISO 9000 not only fails for the same banality that have made companies and certification bodies also lack a sound basis indicating that the management model that is suitable sets.
No model is suitable for all organizations and for all environments. Follow a model as an imposition without knowing its purpose is counterproductive. What is important is to understand the basis of quality, continuous improvement, why then build leadership for each organization the best way to get excellent management. The opposite is restrictive, artificial and inevitably leads to costly formal structures to simulate the company adpta a particular model, creating the first case of its breach. The model is not important but a company can improve day to day management.
rule is breached itself is its most relevant for many of the certified companies. The fact that multiple certification bodies are competing for market share, casts doubt on their independence when to be strict with that, so after all, are their customers and for the auditing and certification process is often a step in seeking the least difficulty possible. Thus, who can judge these agencies to relax their rigor? Is your reason for rigor or the business benefit? Is the model most appropriate private entities? Its own accreditation and certification bodies is a bureaucratic fallacy.
Moreover, the main virtue of ISO 9000 is the very fact it is an agreed international standard and used in over 200 countries. Rarely has such a broad consensus. But to be many in the consensus also implies restrictions and involve multiple conflicting interests that must be agreed to concessions to the rigor. Consensus does not always guarantee a solid foundation, but simply indicates that they are accepted or tolerated. Then prevailing market criteria rather than organizational optimization.
existing standards and models are formed by a set of elements that, even assuming that each of them individually were optimal, does not guarantee whole model is correct. Systemic lack of understanding, namely the proper interrelation of its parts, they lack the human element, the importance of behavior and the ability to interpret statistical data, targets and indicators. They lack
Management make sense of the creative, the real leadership and knowledge generation.
The rule is limited to a set of requirements agreed but disjointed and given as good without justification.
Thus, the ISO 9000 standard place excessive emphasis on the existence of documents and records evidencing rules to follow and the actual compliance. EFQM and turn MB developments valued in excess in a time without statistical significance of supposed results of improvement. Not consider that the indicators are never reality, but part of it. This contradicts the very foundation of continuous improvement, as Deming said "The most important data we need to run a business are unknown or unknowable ..." and what Ackoff said on the objectives and indicators "Managers who do not know how to measure what they want for their organizations, just wanting what they can measure "real tragedy in many of our current business organizations where reality and good work is being supplanted by charts colorists of dubious meaning.
The standard itself provides the solution to your deadbeat that is nothing to "create" the necessary records in time to pass an audit. With EFQM and MB know how to write a memoir is as much or more weight even have a proper company. Both would be if the company were fictitious, except for the top. Good deal for consultants. Little value for business.
such key aspects and commonly accepted as the "management review", in my opinion so fundamental that without it, the rest is meaningless, are often resolved without than management is aware of the way they have completed a review records to simulate a purely formal or non-existent. The way these companies are managed in which quality is delegated by the Directorate as something alien to it is what W. Edwards Deming exposed as an obstacle and a fallacy "The assumption that a president can waive their obligation to lead the quality improvement is a complete fallacy," or even more when he says "These obligations can not be delegated. Support is not enough: it must act ... "
The emphasis is therefore in the wrong place, as Deming made clear to us that" Most of the problems and possibilities for improvement are the responsibility of Management in the following proportions: a) 94% belong to the System (Management responsibility), 6% are attributable to special causes [operational]. " Failure to deal with this fact disqualifies standards and rules, since restricted the true sense of improving the control of human and operational errors, leaving aside the most significant organizational system errors (systemic).
This is related to the serious mistake of thinking that quality problems relate to a particular department, rather than correspond to those who must solve real problems. These standards and models delve into this serious error distorting the functions of these departments to supervisors become mere compliance. Eventually these departments become the guide and an indispensable partner in the audit process and drafting of reports.
modern parents Shewhart and Deming quality were followed by many statisticians, who developed statistical techniques and formulas for assessing systemic, fundamental tools for quality improvement. None of these tools is part of the management models we are analyzing.
Process management that appeared in the latest versions of ISO 9000 and also appears in the EFQM model and MB, no other part of the systemic approach necessary and indispensable. As I said Russell Ackoff and Deming later collected the sum of the best components do not constitute an optimal set "... if Montaser the best parts of various vehicles to make a new one, the result would not be even a vehicle" or "if all parts of an organization are optimized individually, the organization will not achieve its optimal situation, however if the organization as a whole is optimized, its parts will not. "
ISO 9000 or EFQM not allow for the fact that the optimization of processes or areas as separate units is contrary to optimize the whole. The optimization of the set gives a great responsibility to the leadership of senior management. What really helps improve an organization is its capacity for innovation and continuous improvement of the organizational system. There
a valid model for all companies, but each company must build a flexible model that adapts to your changing needs. The only requirement for all models is to use every tool at its disposal to continuous improvement, involving the four dimensions of Deming, systemic assessment, understanding of the variability, knowledge creation and the human factor. Everything else
is superfluous and complicate things.
0 comments:
Post a Comment