Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Sharky's picture
Sharky

Shark Tank

Now THAT'S a quality process!

This start-up company makes medical devices, and it's going through the ISO 9000 certification process, reports a pilot fish who's suffering through it.

"It's painful to document all the things we think we should be doing before they actually occur -- much like explaining to a toddler why he shouldn't touch the stove," fish says.

"As I was leafing through our three-inch binder of beginning work instructions, I noticed one of our WI footers had a QP."

Translation: In among the work instructions is a quality procedure -- or at least that's what fish assumes. But she quickly figures out that the line at the bottom of the page is just mistyped; the correct information is on the header at the top of the document.

So fish sends an e-mail to the guy in charge of the ISO work to let him know his people have put the wrong footer on the document.

And he responds -- with instructions for fish to send him a document change request to change the footer to the appropriate WI number.

Then, he says, he'll assign a tracking number and send the DCR to the document owners to approve the change.

And after the change is approved and made, then he can have them sign it in ink and replace the copy in fish's binder.

"A week's process for someone's lack of attention to detail!" sighs fish.

"The amazing part is that the ISO guy seems to have this amazing combination of horrid 'speeling,' 'grammer' and 'speach.' I would gladly write up a process for that!"

Sharky's quality-control process is well documented: You send me your true tale of IT life at sharky@computerworld.com, and I send you a stylish Shark shirt if I use it. Add your comments below, and read some great old tales in the Sharkives.

Now you can post your own stories of IT ridiculousness at Shark Bait. Join today and vent your IT frustrations to people who've been there, done that.



What People Are Saying

Heh. I worked at one company

Heh. I worked at one company that was all proud of their ISO certification, which was going to be renewed shortly after I was hired on. On the break room bulletin board, there was a nicely-written notice that stated, essentially, that "as long as the process states that life-jackets are to be made of concrete, ISO will be satisfied." (Very paraphrased, as it's been ten-plus years since I saw it...)

Oddly enough, the week the ISO audit ran, that notice disappeared... but damned if I don't still remember it.

The next company I worked for had a different standard, also independently audited by an outside agency, that was, if anything, more important - and significantly harder to attain. But yes, the rabbinical organisation did judge that our operation was kosher.

We shall not speak of my current employer, except to state that I suspect their ISO certification has, as its basis, liberal applications of strong drink... there's no legitimate way we should be passing, as best I can tell.

Standard Mode of Operation

This poor fish fell victim to the standard mode of operation for some people in Corporate America. It doesn't matter if it is ISO, SOX, or simply internal processes, some people will simply use the system to shield them from ever taking ownership of an issue. The specific tactics use here by the ISO project manager were "Make whoever identifies the issue be the owner of the issue" and "Make someone else do something before I do anything". Fish should have politely and tactfully told the ISO project manager that ISO was their project and that they should contact the owner of the WI to provide a correction.

ISO 9666

When we first had ISO inflicted on us we had a stanard mantra when asked exactly what ISO is - Our response was "A United Nations conspiracy to cripple American Businesses by burying them in paperwork"
I could say that line in my sleep. I probably did....

ISO Agony

All limericks aside... I was involved in the ISO 9000 etc implementation of my company. After a lot of hard work as well as cost in time & money as far as I could tell all it gave us was the ISO 9000 etc on our letterheads & business cards. No one could prove it actually helped our business, we certainly spent a lot on it.
After 3 years we dropped it......
It did create a couple of ISO internal auditors who went on to better jobs!

Well, really ....

I think that is the point.

The whole idea of the ISO "conspiracy" is to allow an organization to say they are compliant with some sort of "standard". This then allows potential buyers, customers whatever to give them "extra points" in deciding whether or not to use them.

What gets me, is that these "standards" are not really standards at all as I know them. They do not specify minimum requirements for the logic or operability of anything. They only document what your process is. If that process is flawed, then let the buyer beware.

I think in this day and age, you see most companies forgoing the actual certification in favor of using the framework to tighten up their processes.

The key is here that if you follow one of thse standards, you at least have a starting point for measuring your process, and process of process development (if that makes any sense).

SOX was intended this way also. As a broad outline of what should be occuring and the degree to which key controls or processes should be documented. Unfortunately it quickly morphed into something far more odious.

Having worked with clients on SOX projects for some years, I can say that once year 1 is over, and a post mortem done, saner minds quickly prevail, and the scope of "required controls" is scaled back to match a more sensible universe.

Most companies that use these approaches wind up with stronger process control and more secure and tracable change management control at the very least.

But the point is well made that these all cost a great deal and often do nothing more than generate Auditors who quickly jump ship for greener pastures!

Just my $0.02 as always, YMMV

The best laid plans...

>SOX was intended this way also. As a broad outline of what should be occuring and the degree to which key controls or processes should be documented. Unfortunately it quickly morphed into something far more odious.

Doesn't it always work that way with most "good intention" laws passed by congress? They always change into something unforeseen. I mean, at the end of the day, was SOX really necessary, or did it just add to the cost of doing business?

ISO, SOX, the so-called "bailout", etc. I can't think of better arguments for limited government!

OMG!

No way...TheComputerLady was the Fish working on a project for JIM and got her story published!

ISO 10K

Fish needs to upgrade his time-displacement equipment. The older stuff used to be painful to use; horrible headache, nausea, and constipation. I worked on our ISO 10000 project and it almost wasn't worth flashing-forward in order to see what happens and then flashing-back to document it. But it was a requirement to be certified. It was a horrible 6 weeks that day.

PORCEDURES ARE THERE FROR A REESON

WHAT DEOS THIS GUY HAVE A PORBELM WITH RULEWS WITHUOT RULES THRER WOULD BE ANTARKY BUT I ARGEE THAT ANYONE WHO CNAT SPELL ASND USE BASTIC GRAMEMER SHUOLD BE GIVEN MENAIL LABOR OTHRERWISE WHERE WOULD WE GET OUR EGNINEERS

Jim (No Longer) the Boss

Does this mean JIM is stepping down as the BOSS to do meany-al labor? Much as that last entry was brilliant, I won't miss his patter.