Harry,

Wow!
And I thought the value (to the customer) of HONEST ISO 9000 was dubious.

No cheers!
DaveT

----- Original Message -----
From: Harry F. Schiestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 1:57 AM
Subject: ShopTalk: Inexpensive shafts / ISO registration


> Hi Dave and Burgess
> For a lot of companies ISO registration is not worth the paper it's
written
> on.
> Just got back from Georgia, USA where I assessed a QS-9000 / ISO-9002
> company.
> It got registered about 2 months ago and we found 66 opportunities for
> improvement,
> 35 Non-conformances, and 9 Major Non-conformances > and we were easy on
> them.
> Calibration of gauges was changed to appear to registrar that they were
not
> due yet.
> Several parts they shipped had a history over 6 months of 90% out of
> specification shipped.
> Their quality mgr. couldn't argue an interpretation so he said they were
> "registered", and
> I damn near laughed out loud.  One of their major depts/processes was
> missing all documents.
> In many cases, I'm sorry to say, 3rd party registration is a bought and
paid
> for relationship.
> Many companies have people writing procedures and conducting audits and
> fewer or no
> people reducing variation and waste (or actively improving process and
> product quality).
> ISO is no guarantee of level of outgoing product quality.  And no, I
haven't
> tried the Monarks.
> In other words, BUYER BEWARE !!!
> Harry F. Schiestel, CQA (Cert. Qtly Auditor and National Qlty Examiner)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:owner-shoptalk@;mail.msen.com]On Behalf Of Dave Tutelman
> Sent: October 11, 2002 5:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Inexpensive stepless steel shafts
>
>
> Burgess,
> We're 100% in agreement On ISO 9000. And I understand your "maybe".
>
> And no, I haven't tried the Monarks.
>
> But I have tried the Patriots, and wonder why nobody has mentioned them in
> this thread. They aren't as inexpensive as the others, but they aren't as
> expensive as the Rifles, either. In my limited experience with the
Patriots,
> they are remarkably similar to the Balistik -- which I believe was the
> intent. And I like the Balistik, so I like the Patriot as well.
>
> Cheers!
> DaveT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Burgess Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:19 PM
> Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Inexpensive stepless steel shafts
>
>
> > At 03:48 PM 10/11/2002, DaveT wrote:
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Burgess Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:16 PM
> > >
> > > > Have you tried the Tru Power Stepless from Monark?  They mention
> ISO9002
> > > > compliance on their site.  Maybe the tolerances are better than the
> Eltas.
> > >
> > >I have always been somewhere between skeptical and hysterical when it
> comes
> > >to ISO 9000 compliance. ISO 9000 was intended to assure quality, but
all
> it
> > >does is assure adherence to some process -- whatever the manufacturer
> > >decides is his/her process.
> >
> > I choose my words pretty carefully.  You'll note that I did say "maybe"
> > which implies "maybe not" as well.
> >
> > >I've exaggerated and simplified, but only a trifle. I've worked for
> ISO-9000
> > >and non-9000 organizations. The ISO organizations certainly had a lot
> more
> > >formality in their process. Sometimes that led to better quality, and
> > >occasionally to worse quality. The correlation was not really strong.
> >
> > Having gone through the ISO certification process 7 times in the last 9
> > years, I can vouch for what you say wrt quality.
> >
> > It seems to me that, from a 'grunt in the trenches' pov, ISO cert is
> > primarily a system of *greatly* increasing the burden of the
documentation
> > process, and making sure everyone knows the correct catch phrases to
> parrot
> > when the ISO auditor comes by for a snap (wink,wink) inspection.
> >
> > Obladee, obladah...
> >
> > So, has anyone tried those Monark shafts?
> >
> > Burgess
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to