Zyra's front page //// concepts //// site index
More about ISO9002 / BS5750
Subsequent to the publication of the ISO9002 page, the following article was sent in by someone who has experience of ISO9002 / BS5750 first-hand, and in my opinion sheds light on the subject from an interesting perspective:
I've been involved (reluctantly)
in quality since 1992 but my real job is chemistry/computers. I
am the Operations Manager, IT Manager and general scape goat of a
small chemical company. Because of the consultants
recommendations (who was there for 2 days) a person had to be
appointed to be deputy quality manager (in a company with 6
people at the time). The problem is that I had absolutely no
control over the actions of the other people since it consisted
of three directors and two sons of directors (there are now three).
There were more chiefs than indians.
I agree with much of what you say in your article, that many
systems are there simply to satisfy the paperwork rather than aim
at real quality of service and quality of product.
I will give you a potted history of my experience with BS5750
both good and bad.
When I started working for the company (now my 13th year), there
were no systems. When I dispatched something I was given the
customers original purchase order and then I handed it back when
finished, we had to 'remember' when it was dispatched. When I
analysed a chemical, I showed the results to the technical
director since there were no specifications to compare against.
He would thoughtfully look down the list and say 'okay' or 'that's
a bit high'. I kept these analysis result in a small A6 note book
and made a dozen entries a month at most, now the computerised
system has over 150 entries per month.
Then from out the darkness the word was that anyone without BS5750
would not be able to trade. A 'consultant' (I use the term
instead of opportunist) was hired for a few days. He made
recommendations and handed over a generic manual designed for a
company 10times our size. For the next five years I spend
hundreds of hours both at home work pointless filling out pages
in triplicate and quadruplicate. Files upon files, cross-indexed
in so many pointless ways. Their only reason for existence was to
existing for someone to waste moments of their life day in day
out. They were never used (except at audit time), never referred
to and never of any use.
Then one day, I snapped. I was spending a full 8 hours at work
without breaks and then doing another 3/4 hours of work at night.
Enough was enough. I knew the company, I knew my job. I brought
out my machette and started hacking at the most offensive crap, I
came up with ways to get rid of systems that were pointless, dug
my heels and wouldn't let go. I computerised, learning Microsoft
Access and designing a computer system. Much of the work I had to
do was other peoples since I had no position but all the
responsibility. For example, purchase orders not filled in
properly causing incorrect deliveries which I then had to deal
with. Works orders not filled in properly leaving out essential
information simply because of laziness.
When my computer system came on-line it started with purchasing.
The screams of anguish were heard all over the site by the worst
offenders. The technophobes cried 'the sky is falling'. Over the
next three years I put in a system which handled everything from
purchase enquiries to final dispatch including stock control (stocks
as a paper system is pointless). Now, instead of spending hours
everyday I spend about 1hr per week on quality. Audits which were
a nightmare are a breeze. I have a two day audit by our biggest
customer in December and instead of doing the usual fretting and
worrying, I'm laid back. The system works. Why? It was designed
by someone who knows where to bend and where to use the steel
fist. If you can rely on someone to do their job then thats fine.
In my working environment, they can't. Not because they aren't
good workers but the management put too much on them. Bad working
conditions, lack of equipment, low pay and passing the buck. When
rushed, people overlook systems. When rushed they make mistakes.
As an example of the situation which may be mirrored elsewhere; I
took three weeks holiday in October to revise for my Open
University exam. Before that I was in charge of the technical
department and production on a day-to-day basis. When I came back
a message had been left with one of my colleagues that the bosses
son was now taking over. In the first three weeks of his reign,
there have been four serious customer complaints compared to 1
for the previous 14 months; production has dropped drastically
and other work has backed up. When the technical director called
me in (his father), he talked about systems being a problem (its
always systems when his son is involved). It's not that, it's
responsibility and the lack of it. Systems exist for a reason.
You cited the example of fire equipment being safety checked but
the staff not knowing what to do. Training is part of BS5750 and
obviously whoever was responsible for that system was looking at
the letter of the accreditation rather than its meaning.
Also, while creativity is worthwhile, some people aren't creative.
They need guidelines, they need a way of dealing with situations
since they either don't have enough knowledge or enough
confidence to carry out their assigned tasks; its better if they
can look down a list of options and be told what to do.
Don't get me wrong, I've had dealing with so called accredited
companies. With one complaint which lasted more than six months,
we complained bitterly that the material they were sending us was
failing specification. In the end, despite the fact we were right
their attitude was 'tough luck, no-one else is complaining'.
There are 'bad' companies out there who use BS5750 as a guise, BS5750
is not intrinsically bad, its the way its implemented. There are
companies that display the BSI logo and when you enquire, you
find that the sales office paper work is BSI accredited and not
the quality of the product.
Ultimately, I'm for 'systems' as opposed to chaos. It's made my
life easier, saved the company money and increased efficiency and
productivity. People know what's going on and my computerised
system has enough flexibility to cope with all situations but
enough iron so that the whole thing doesn't crumble. I took a
long while but we got there in the end.