Quality assurance, according to the Standard, is a way of managing that prevents
non-conformance and thus “assures quality”. This is what makes
ISO 9000 different from other standards: it is a management standard, not a product standard. It goes beyond product standardisation: it is standardising not what is made but how it is made. To use standards to dictate and control how organisations work was to extend the role of standards to new territory. To take such a step we might have firstly established that any such requirements worked — that they resulted in ways of working which improved performance.
Yet the plausibility of this Standard, and the fact that those who had an interest in maintaining it were (and still are) leading opinion, prevented such enquiries. In simple terms the Standard asks managers to say what they do, do what they say and prove it to a third party.
ISO 9000 (1994) paragraph 1: “The requirements specified are aimed primarily at achieving customer satisfaction by preventing non-conformity at all stages from design through servicing.”
To put it another way, the Standard asserts that preventing non-conformance achieves customer satisfaction. But does it? Of course it matters to customers that a product works. But there is no guarantee that the Standard will ensure even that. Furthermore, customers take a total view of an organisation — how easy it is to do business with — in respect of all things of importance to each and every customer.
ISO 9000 requires managers to “establish and maintain a documented quality system as a means of ensuring that product conforms to specified requirements”. Loosely translated this is “say what you do”. Management is supposed to “define and document its policy for quality . . . including its commitment to quality”.
What management would not declare its commitment to quality? But would they know what it means? Would they argue (as they should) that quality management is a different and better way to do business, or would they believe that ISO 9000 will take care of quality? The Standard encourages managers to think of “quality” and “business as usual” as separate and distinct. It helps managers avoid the revelation that quality means a wholly different view of management. Instead, the organisation “shall appoint a management representative who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have defined authority and responsibility” [for ISO 9000]. At a practical level this means only one executive might decide he or she had better learn a thing or two about quality. However, would being responsible for ISO 9000 lead to learning about quality or simply enforcing the ISO 9000 regime in an organisation?
Key to the regime is auditing. The Standard requires organisations to conduct internal quality audits to “verify whether quality activities comply with planned arrangements”. This can be loosely translated as “do you do as you say?” and the purpose of the audit is to see that you do. It was not until the 1994 review that the words were changed to “quality activities and related results”. It was a Standard which was rooted in the philosophy of inspection: fifteen years after its initial promulgation the promoters sought to extend the focus to results. But results or improvements assessed by what means? Inspection. By the time the Standard was adopted world-wide, quality thinking had moved a long way from the philosophy of inspection. It is now understood, at least by a few, that quality is achieved through managing the organisation as a system and using measures which enable managers to improve flow and reduce variation (which we explore in chapters 5 and 7). The defenders argue that there is nothing stopping a company having ISO 9000 and implementing methods for managing flow and reducing variation, but where are such companies? Few of the companies we researched, formally and informally, knew anything about this thinking. The Standard does not talk about it; moreover, the Standard effectively discourages managers from learning about it by representing quality in a different way.
According to ISO 8402 (quality vocabulary), quality is:
“The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.”
Everything we have learned about
ISO 9000 suggests that the people who created this definition were thinking about the things which need to be controlled, those things which “bear on its ability . . .”. The builders of the Standard assumed that customer needs would be listed in contractual agreements between the supplier and customer. ISO 9000 has a “make” logic — procedures for “how you do what you do” — and a “control” logic — check to see that it is done. It is a relic of the era when contractual agreements were perceived to be an important device for regulating the behaviour of suppliers. In these ways,
ISO 9000 encouraged “planning for quality”.
Planning for quality sounds plausible, but it assumes many things: that the plan is the right plan, that it is feasible, that people will “do it”, that performance will improve. It is an approach which, paradoxically, leads to poor decisions. Planners of quality systems, guided by ISO 9000, start with a view of how the world should be as framed by the Standard. Understanding how an organisation is working, rather than how someone thinks it should, is a far better place from which to start change of any kind.
