🚀 go-pugleaf

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 19 Jun 1994 13:34:07 GMT
From: Con Gregg <congregg@iol.ie>
To: bit-listserv-quality@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: ISO9000 new version (fwd)

Daniel Ritsma (ritsma@yu1.yu.edu) wrote:
: ---------- Forwarded message ----------
: Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 14:00:52 -0400 (EDT)
: From:BRADSTRATTON@delphi.com
: To: QUALITY@pucc.Princeton.EDU
: Subject: Re: ISO9000 new version (fwd)

Following up Bob Bamford's follow-up to my follow-up on this thread.

Bob,
I don't think we are in conflict. You are looking at what should happen
when ISO9000 is instituted in the spirit that is intended. I am looking
at what has happened under circumstances where quality has not
necessarily been the main motivating factor.

I think, however, that this illustrates one of the problems with specifying
generic quality systems - that it is very difficult to explicitly include
everything that is required for a complete system.

Just a few comments on your comments:
* It is quite feasible to deliver mediocre quality in conformance with
standards if you set your standards at an undemanding level, or if
they fail to address factors that customers find important.
* It is quite feasible (and it happens!) for managers to go through the
motions of reviews etc. without addressing quality issues effectively.
* ISO9000 is important to market access in many European product markets,
and until it ceases to be (which is not at present forseeable), there
will be companies whose main motivation in qualifying relates to
marketing. This will be the case even if it is no longer a
differentiating factor. In fact, in many product markets it _is_ no longer
a differentiating factor.
* Sorry for the imprecise language about "the rulebook". What I meant
referred to blind implementation of the ISO standards without regard for
the spirit of quality improvement.

Best of luck.

Con Gregg