ISO 9000 ???
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too hot on the quality side, I know that Sloane Helicopters have got an ISO acreditation, not sure if it is 9000 or 9001.
As far as how it affects the shop floor, from what I understand it doesn't really. Much of the practical aspects are already covered by the CAA approval, it is the paperwork that changes and the systems in the office!
As far as how it affects the shop floor, from what I understand it doesn't really. Much of the practical aspects are already covered by the CAA approval, it is the paperwork that changes and the systems in the office!
ISO 9000 is basically a QA system which ensures repeatability and proper record of any process.
Virtually any aircraft operating, manufacturing or maintenance organisation is compliance with the principles of ISO9000, but rarely do they bother with the certification because they have other (JAA/CAA/FAA) paperwork which is more relevant.
It's come into dishonour somewhat because a lot of companies go to get it, with the minimum effort they can manage, purely because somebody's told them that they have to have that tick in the box. Treated thus, it's nothing but a nuisance. Treated properly, as a system to ensure good practice is maintained - it works extremely well. There are also a lot of very poor management consultants who hire themselves out as ISO9000 experts, and generally do rather more damage than good.
G
Virtually any aircraft operating, manufacturing or maintenance organisation is compliance with the principles of ISO9000, but rarely do they bother with the certification because they have other (JAA/CAA/FAA) paperwork which is more relevant.
It's come into dishonour somewhat because a lot of companies go to get it, with the minimum effort they can manage, purely because somebody's told them that they have to have that tick in the box. Treated thus, it's nothing but a nuisance. Treated properly, as a system to ensure good practice is maintained - it works extremely well. There are also a lot of very poor management consultants who hire themselves out as ISO9000 experts, and generally do rather more damage than good.
G
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many companies in aircraft engineering that have sought out ISO accreditation. They are forced into this paperwork trail by customers who want to see some form of assurance that they have a quality system. The problem is that an ISO approva is only as ggod as the body that audits and accredits the organisation. It is procedurally driven and therefore if the procedures are no good the system is no good.
Many companies believe that it is a point in time exercise. True quality contol, particularly with ISO and aviation reguilatory requirements is a mix of systems. Quality control, down to you guys at the sharp end. Quality asurance, the procedural system that should provide you with the tools (by that I mean support) to do the job efectively and properly. Quality audit, to verify the adequacy of both of the above.
The failure of any quality system is largely down to its lacklustre acceptance by senior and middle management, often exacerbated by the 'quality' of the quality staff that are appointed. A licensed engineer does not necessarily make a ggod quality engineer if he or she has had no training in quality.
Many companies believe that it is a point in time exercise. True quality contol, particularly with ISO and aviation reguilatory requirements is a mix of systems. Quality control, down to you guys at the sharp end. Quality asurance, the procedural system that should provide you with the tools (by that I mean support) to do the job efectively and properly. Quality audit, to verify the adequacy of both of the above.
The failure of any quality system is largely down to its lacklustre acceptance by senior and middle management, often exacerbated by the 'quality' of the quality staff that are appointed. A licensed engineer does not necessarily make a ggod quality engineer if he or she has had no training in quality.
Moderator
Unless I missed it somewhere in the commentary, we seem to have missed the prime aim of QA accreditation.
Originally the exercise sought to address the problems facing a purchaser who didn't have either the resources and/or clout to insist on an audit of a prospective supplier ie the purchaser was between a rock and a hard place and often was forced to take a punt on suppliers.
By having a reputable third party audit and accredit a supplier in isolation, such a prospective purchaser was supposed to gain some sort of comfort that the supplier would have half a chance of supplying G&S to suit the purchaser's needs.
Sadly the reality is that we have seen the growth of a cash cow QA industry and, somewhere in the midst of the waffle, the original goals were somehow lost in many companies.
As has been observed previously, for the reputable aviation enterprise, it is a relatively minor exercise in principle (although somewhat involved in the execution) to dot the i's and cross the t's sufficient to address the 9000 requirements. For most, unless customers (often military/government as these entities deal with a wide variety of suppliers) insist on such accreditation it may be determined that the cost and effort are not worth the often illusory gain.
Originally the exercise sought to address the problems facing a purchaser who didn't have either the resources and/or clout to insist on an audit of a prospective supplier ie the purchaser was between a rock and a hard place and often was forced to take a punt on suppliers.
By having a reputable third party audit and accredit a supplier in isolation, such a prospective purchaser was supposed to gain some sort of comfort that the supplier would have half a chance of supplying G&S to suit the purchaser's needs.
Sadly the reality is that we have seen the growth of a cash cow QA industry and, somewhere in the midst of the waffle, the original goals were somehow lost in many companies.
As has been observed previously, for the reputable aviation enterprise, it is a relatively minor exercise in principle (although somewhat involved in the execution) to dot the i's and cross the t's sufficient to address the 9000 requirements. For most, unless customers (often military/government as these entities deal with a wide variety of suppliers) insist on such accreditation it may be determined that the cost and effort are not worth the often illusory gain.
