Re: CE compliance testing in the UK
From: Clarence_A (no_at_No.com)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: OT: reaction to Iraqi elections"
- Previous message: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: keith: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Next in thread: Rich Grise: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: Rich Grise: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: keith: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:02:57 GMT
"keith" wrote
> Clarence_A wrote:
> > "keith" wrote
> >> Rich Grise wrote:
> >> > John Woodgate wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> It's government mandated stuff. Of course it's fluff.
> >> > I'm ISO9000 compliant, right now.
> >> I doubt it. DO you have the little certification sticker?
> > Perhaps I should send him one! NBD!
> >> > So, probably, are most of you.
> >> I am, but the way you talk here, I seriously doubt you are.
> >> > Certification is another matter - that's for the big-bucks
> > anal-retentive
> >> > bureaucrats.
> >> If you're not certified then you're not ISO 9K compliant.
End
> > of story.
> >> > Do what you say, say what you do, and meet the customer
spec.
> >> Nope. You'd better study some more.
> >> > That's pretty much it.
> >> Nope. There is much more fluff to it than simply meeting the
> > customer's
> >> spec. In fact that's not even a part of it.
> >> -- Keith
> >
> > I have been an ISO900 Auditor, and Rich has it right except
for
> > the need to pay the high fees for a certificate.
>
> Nope. When ISO first came out I was involved in getting the
processes
> documentation set up. In fact we were the first site certified
(first
> company too, I believe) and my processes were the ones used in
the
> certification audit. The result of the processes didn't have
high quality
> though, since the project had been canceled before the audit,
but audit it
> we did.
>
> > (And the regular
> > audits.) But you are not going to get any recognition for
doing
> > it right, the credit only comes from jumping through hoops for
a
> > price. The entire ISO program is a waste of time and money.
> > I have also written the documents for several companies, It is
not
> > at all difficult, just apply the common sense which is so rare
> > now- days!
>
> That's where he's wrong. I agree, it has nothing to do with
quality,
> rather setting up hoops and jumping through them. Sure, the ISO
9000
> process *can* be used to improve quality, but there is nothing
inherent in
> it that *does* produce product that is "defect free".
>
> > Follow a few sound rules, be honest and as Rich says:
>
> Proper quoting would be *so* much easier to read.
>
> > "I did a not inconsiderable amount of research into this
"ISO9000" stuff
> > not too long ago. It turns out, it's primarily bureaucratic
fluff. I'm
> > ISO9000 compliant, right now. So, probably, are most of you.
> > Certification is another matter - that's for the big-bucks
> > anal-retentive bureaucrats. Do what you say, say what you do,
and meet
> > the customer spec. That's pretty much it."
> >
> > If you disagree, publish the ISO Requirement Documents which
show what
> > you are disputing! (I have read the requirements, except for
the
> > payment of fees, it isn't in there!)
>
> GMAFB! The documents are all online for anyone who wants a
tranquilizer.
> Don't pull that "cite" crap. You can easily find it yourself.
Of course they are, but you don't even know where they are do you?
> Back to Rich; If he's not certified he's not "ISO 9000
compliant". End of
> story.
I hereby Certify "Rich Grise" to be ISO 9000 compliant, and that
he has met all requirements in HIS standards and procedures.
Clarence Albert, as Auditor!
-----------------------------
OKAY, Now he's certified!
I'll send a bill.... (:>)
> Add to that the fact that ISO has nothing to do with delivering
the
> customer what they want or need, or the quality of the
deliverables, in
> fact. All that's needed is a documented process, documentation
to show
> that the process is followed, and a measurement system that is
used to
> refine the process (and a pool of money to pay for the
certificate). ISO
> is about processes, not quality. You can make 100% crap and be
ISO
> certified in good standing. The auditors are tickled pink as
long as
> the crap process is followed (and they get their cut).
>
> The bottom line is that Rich is all wrong about ISO 9000. Well,
except
> the "fluff" part.
> --
> Keith
I know I did appreciate the $1,000 a day payment for doing an
audit. I was very PRO ISO9000 for that result! Followed all the
rules to the letter.
AFAICS that was the only result! I got paid!
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: OT: reaction to Iraqi elections"
- Previous message: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: keith: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Next in thread: Rich Grise: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: Rich Grise: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: keith: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
