The ISO9001 Audit

With the proliferation of companies claiming to conform to the requirements of this international Standard, we might well come to believe that product and service quality has reached its peak and every customer is satisfied with the performance of their ISO9000 registered supplier. On the other hand we could have simply misunderstood the purpose of this Standard and the registration process. Maybe the Standard isn't about quality of service or 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 possibility that the money could have been spent solving the cause of the problem rather than correcting 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?