I have seen implementations where the company owner refused to take any part of the process - top management did only what they had to (like holding management review meetings which the owner did not attend). One specific company (of several) I have in mind I worked with closely. They did the implementation and registration because a customer required them to. ISO has done nothing for the business other than to be a yearly expense and to satisfy one 3rd tier automotive customer. How is this so? At best, ISO 9K is no more than good business sense. The company was well run before it was ISO. As the owner said, I need this for what? He termed it for what it is to him - a new 'cost of doing business'. Nothing less than another tax.
Another is a supplier of transportation services to Ford. Ford required ISO 9K so they did it. But, as the owner wryly observed, Ford needs ISO one hell of a lot more than they do - and he is right. The Ford plant they service is QS-9000 (now IATF 16949) (well, there was a threat to take their cert away in 2000 so there was a crash compliance program). The owner of that trucking company also refused to be part of the ISO process. Top management there also does only what is required to keep their certificate. But again, the company is well run to begin with. To them ISO is common sense. They do very little differently than they did before registration. To them it is simply a new tax - a cost of doing business in today’s world.
>> You could bet your house on the statement "never, ever has
>> there been an implementation of any quality system without
>> top management's full support". - >> - >> Many champions of change have tried, and been fired for their
>> insubordination.
Nonsense. Many implementations do, in fact, succeed without the 'full' support of top management. Change your statement to read "...without some support from top management..." and I'll agree. Also see the Project Kickoff slide herein.
