ISO 9004:2009 Is Out and It Sure Looks Different

by Denise Robitaille

The new revision to ISO 9004 came off the press in the last quarter of 2009. It is significantly different from its predecessor. ISO 9004:2009 embodies the quality management principle relating to continual improvement. The technical experts made bold strides in their quest to address market needs by producing a standard that would help organizations maintain and improve their quality management systems over time. While that was the stated intent with the 2000 version, the fact is that the majority of users considered it a road map for implementing ISO 9001.

Individuals who were familiar with the 2000 version will have several questions. The first is: “Where’s 9001?” In ISO 9004:2000 the entire text of ISO 9001:2000 was embedded into the standard. The clauses, by and large, mirrored ISO 9001 and the structure was identical. Those who utilized ISO 9004 as a how-to guide for ISO 9001 had no trouble finding the relevant clauses. The only problem with that approach is that ISO 9004 was not intended to be a handbook on how to implement ISO 9001. It was intended, as the title plainly indicated, to provide “Guidelines for performance improvements.”

“Performance improvements” sounds like a great idea. Until you ask yourself the next question: “Why?” What is the value in improving performance? Within the answer lies the crux and purpose of both ISO 9001 and ISO 9004. That answer is found in ISO 9004’s new title—“Managing for the sustained success of an organization—A quality management approach.”

It’s not good enough to achieve ISO 9001, proudly displaying the coveted certificate on the wall. To conform to the requirements of ISO 9001, it’s important to maintain the quality management system that has been established. It’s important to consistently fulfil requirements found in multiple sub-clauses relating to establishing objectives (5.4.1), monitoring and measuring product and processes (8.4), reviewing changes that could affect the quality management system (5.6.3), and striving for continual improvement (8.5.1).

So ISO 9004:2009 is about what you do after you’ve established and implemented your quality management system to keep it going and to make sure both you and your customers continue to derive benefit from your organization. They get a reliable supplier and you get to stay in business. It also addresses one of the basic truisms of our universe: things change. Hence, the new ISO 9004, and particularly the annexes, is heavily weighted toward monitoring and periodically assessing so that you can respond to change.

The new version of ISO 9004 was structured to facilitate this quest. The sub-clauses flow from the organization’s environment, to strategic planning, through resource management to managing processes, to monitoring and analyzing, and ending up with improvement, innovation, and learning.

Think of it like this: “This is who we are. This is the big plan for the organization. This is what we have to work with. This is how we do things. This is how we figure out what’s working and what isn’t. And these are the things that will allow us to still be around tomorrow—this is how we plan for our future.” Any of these can, and probably, will change over time. How your organization handles those changes will determine your “… sustained success.”

Under the first sub-clause we look at who we are. We also look at stakeholders, or as the standard refers to them, “interested parties.” This concept is situated early on in the standard because interested parties are directly relevant to our organization now and in the future. You could say they are an element of our identity. Interested parties can be customers, stockholders, employees, suppliers, and society at large, just to name a few. Changes with any of these interested parties affect our organization.

The next sub-clause talks about strategy and policy. I think this is a great step forward. It illustrates the very tight bond that should exist between the real business of the business and the quality management system. For too long top management in many organizations has considered the quality management system, and its requirements for management review and management involvement, as an odious infringement on their sanctum sanctorum. Time is overdue to recognize that a good quality management system is in harmony with strategic goals and planning.

Consideration of resources is another key factor that often changes over time. Monitoring what resources currently exist and which will be impacted by changes such as turnover of personnel, slower cash flow, cost of fossil fuel, and scarcity of raw materials, sequels directly into the next section dealing with managing processes. It’s impossible for processes to remain consistent when support such as resources and infrastructure are changing.

You’ll note throughout the emphasis on monitoring. This is carried through to annexes that give you tips on how to assess your organization. Doing it once gives you a starting point. But the assessments, just like any other effective monitoring tool, needs to be utilized cyclically to achieve any real benefit. The annexes are a useful guide; but you can also devise your own methodology to assess your organization. Whatever method you use, make sure that your assessment reflects inter-dependencies and interrelations between various factors. The results should help you identify what needs to be enhanced, what needs to be discarded, and what needs to be improved.

Use ISO 9001 to build a great quality management system. Use ISO 9004 to maintain it and to help it to become even greater.

Tweet

Self-Discipline and Consistent Quality are Inseparable Twins.

Self-Discipline  and Consistent Quality are Inseparable Twins.

As a quality consultant, I often hear these words:

•  “You see our business is very different, will ISO 9001 work for us?”
•  “Will Six Sigma work in our country?”
•  “Lean management might work well for Japanese firms, but will these  tools work for us?”

My answer is “Yes, if the processes are performed right, the results are surely going to be right”. So, nature of the product or nature of the business or country in which we conduct the business is not a critical issue. The focus needs to be on performing the processes correctly.

Lets consider a simple example. I have to reach office daily at 8.30 am. I know that to reach at 8.30 am, without stressful driving, I must leave my house at 7.45 am. Then, doing my process right would mean that I must wake up at 6.45 am so that I can leave my house at 7.45 am. If I want to spend 30 minutes on reading the newspaper before leaving for office, then I must wake up at 6.15 am. And, if I have to wake up early I must sleep early. (If I sleep late, I get up late, I leave my house late and there is every chance that I will reach my office late).

Another example would be of a student who is a top-performer in school. It is generally seen that such a student continues to perform well in higher studies, irrespective of whether he pursues a career in engineering or management or accountancy. Why is it so? This is because he has developed certain practices (or way of doing things) which ensure that he continues to achieve good performance till the end of is studies.

ISO 9001 or Six Sigma or Lean Management are all methodologies that help us to improve processes and standardize the ‘way of doing things’. Once we standardize a process then if we keep repeating it in the same manner, we are should get the same (consistent) results again and again. But why does this not always happen this way? Why do mistakes still occur? Does the fault lie with the ISO 9001 system or with Six Sigma or with the tools of Lean Management?

Not really! All these systems / methodologies work on building preventions in the processes and there is a definite logic in the way they work. Then where does the problem lie? Repeated studies show that the problem does not lie in finding solutions to preventing problems, nor is it really difficult to find ways to improve processes. The problem lies in sustaining the improvement.

In other words establishing a new system or improving a process is not the challenge. The real challenge lies in sustaining the improved system / process. For this reason we bring in Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and audits. But still, we observe non-compliance during the audits. Why does this happen?

In most cases where a set of procedures has been established, it is seen that mistakes occur mainly because “someone overlooked a step in the procedure”. Even the “best system or ideal process” could end up in mistakes if people performing the process do not adhere to the SOPs. We all understand that it is unsafe to talk on the mobile phone while driving. We also know that many car accidents do occur due to the driver speaking on the mobile phone, yet we overlook the procedure (and maybe even the law)!

If we have to sustain the performance of improved / standardized processes, what is needed most is “self-discipline”. The self-discipline that helps us to overcome the urge to adopt a short-cut in our work and the self-discipline to stick to doing things as defined in the SOP.

It is a proven fact that out of a thousand principles for success, the one quality that helps an individual to succeed is the habit of self-discipline. The same is true for organizations. Organizations run and sustain on the basis of self-discipline.

Often the cultural or political climate around us discourages us from being self-disciplined. People tend to think “when everyone else is indisciplined, why should I follow discipline?” “Everyone throws litter around, so why shouldn't I?” But, if everyone in an organization or in a country starts thinking this way where will we reach? And what is the use of standardizing processes / systems if we do not possess the self-discipline to follow them?

Toyota has been a rare example of an automobile company that made profit consistently for 50 years!! Then what has gone wrong with Toyota now? Why did they have to announce a large number of recalls?

In the words of their CEO Mr. Akio Toyoda, “Toyota's priority has traditionally been the following: First; Safety, Second; Quality, and Third; Volume. These priorities became confused, and we were not able to stop, think, and make improvements as much as we were able to before…….. We pursued growth over the speed at which we were able to develop our people and our organization, and we should sincerely be mindful of that. I regret that this has resulted in the safety issues described in the recalls we face today”.

Toyoda may express regret but the question is where did Toyota go wrong as an organization? They were very small when they started. They strictly followed the “14 Toyota Principles” for 50 years and went on to be known as the world’s best car company. But in the quest for fast results their managers and dealer network seem to have ignored some of the time-tested principles like ‘long-term philosophy’, ‘stopping to fix problems’, and ‘do not let problems remain hidden”.  The price Toyota had to pay for this ‘lack of self-discipline’ in following their established principles is anybody’s guess.

At times, I have seen people working in large reputed organizations operating under beliefs like “I am a knowledge worker, all these rules / SOPs are not meant for people like me” or  “I am a senior person, these rules / SOPs are meant for the juniors”. Also there are instances, when a senior manager suggests that “we bend the rule, just in this case”. What these persons overlook is that juniors usually consider the seniors and the knowledge workers as “role models” and they very soon copy what they learn from the role models.

For example, our office / factory procedure requires that my bag is checked while entering or leaving the premises. Then I may be the CEO or the Managing Director or the Security Officer, I must stop and get my bag checked. This kind of example-setting (and respect for procedures) demonstrated by the seniors goes a long way in conveying the message to everyone else in the organization. 

It would therefore be evident that if our organization desires to deliver consistent performance on an on-going basis, the managers must create a culture for strict adherence to procedures and a strong sense of self-discipline. If Toyota could fail after 50 years of consistent performance, this could happen to any one of us!

The Japanese have referred to self-discipline as the “Fifth S” in the 5-S habits of good housekeeping. But when it comes to ensuring consistency in quality, we can say that self-discipline is the “First S” and it applies to each and every member of the organization. If we wish to achieve consistent / sustained performance over a long period of time, the foremost requirement is to create a culture of self-discipline throughout the organization.

Tweet