If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have) > procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level the > manufacturer has decided. In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least in the automotive world below first tier. In the automotive world, QS9000 is strictly a CYA for the first tier customer so that when a problem occurs, they have the smoking gun in the supplier's own documentation, or have proof that the supplier's documentation was falsified (good product went out, bad product was recieved at the customer - how could that be?) - the latter is often the case because the customer continued to take mandated cost cuts from the supplier (in what they pay per supplied wigdet) while requiring more and more bull**** quality documentation (as opposed to genuine quality documentation) that the supplier could no longer afford to hire the people to implement because of the cost cuts. The supplier's only remaining choice is to shut down (because all of their customers are automotive and require the same bullsh** system) or set up a streamline system of faking the documentation. (Remember Firestone tires on Ford Explorers?) In the same way, JIT gets *******ized. The first tier customer mandates that inventory control is JIT for them and down thru all tiers of the supply chain. In reality, that just means that the supplier hides a reserve stock so that when the inevitable sh** happens in the supply chain, they can continue to ship product and save the custmor's a**. The customer knows about this, but realizes that it keeps them out of hot water, so a lot of winking goes on. But it's the corporate religion, so know one dares speak up against it or change it. > I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty. > > I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit > of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap > tyre may wear out quicker. > > I certainly can't afford to buy cheap. As the saying goes: If you want economy, you have to pay for it. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ISO9000 is a marketing tool. Having ISO9000 merely means that you have met
the prescribed criteria: you have a quality manual, you have procedures that document what you do, an accredited body has audited your facility to ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do with the real quality of products. Many organizations will not deal with suppliers that are not ISO certified; that's their motivation to get it. It's a joke. I've audited more suppliers than I can remember. The first thing I do is politely accept a copy of their certification, thank them for it, put it among the papers I have collected and get on to really auditing their processes. The best feature it provides for me is confirmation that they should (at least in theory) have their processes documented. Ken "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message ... > ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have) > procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level the > manufacturer has decided. > > I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty. > > I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit > of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap > tyre may wear out quicker. > > I certainly can't afford to buy cheap. > > DAS > > For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling > --- > > > wrote in message > ups.com... > [...] > > E mark, Dot and ISO certified. > [...] > > |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a particular
company is another matter.) And what is "real" quality? DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "KWS" > wrote in message ... [...] > ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do > with > the real quality of products. [...] > > > > "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message > ... >> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have) >> procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level >> the >> manufacturer has decided. >> >> I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty. >> >> I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that > bit >> of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a >> cheap >> tyre may wear out quicker. >> >> I certainly can't afford to buy cheap. >> >> DAS >> >> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling >> --- >> >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> [...] >> > E mark, Dot and ISO certified. >> [...] >> >> > > |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a particular > company is another matter.) > > And what is "real" quality? ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what is documented, and you document what you do. The content of the documents and the design of the product could be as bad as you can imagine - as long as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000 compliant. ISO 9000 compliance means you will have more information at hand to go back and figure out what happened if something doesn't go right. (And that is the basis of quality improvement). On developing a new product, ISO 9000 plays a much smaller role in product quality - taking a back seat to good design. While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000 is mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers when the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good product is a mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to me. I still rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to everything rolling on them. Dave |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
1) I did not say ISO 9000 plays a role in "good" quality other than
reproducing it. The purpose of having the procedures in place is to ensure that processes are repeated. Of course if companies ignore their own procedures that's their look-out. Documentation is the basis of an ability to reproduce something. If you have no guideline of how to do something, how can you ensure that each batch/product is the same? If you just copy what you last did, howb you do you stop "creep"? As you may know, when a business first starts writing SOPs (standard operating procedures) for getting the quality system registered under 9000, the SOPs should reflect actual practice, but I am sure a lot write what they think they should be. SOPs have to be updated regularly to take into account changes in practice. 2) It also has to be understood that if I as a client approve a sample product (at whatever level of quality), whether it is a tyre or a chemical or whatever, then I expect it to remain at that quality until there is an authorised change. IIRC 9002 does not cover the development process whereas 9001 does. ISO 9001 itself has nothing to do with the design of a new product, just with the process of getting there. At the end of the day you as a customer can select any criteria you like for deciding on a supplier. I don't think anything I have written precludes that. I bet, though, that "good brand names" employ good, documented procedures to guarantee consistency. This is not a place to start: http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "David Geesaman" > wrote in message ... > Dori A Schmetterling wrote: >> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a >> particular company is another matter.) >> >> And what is "real" quality? > > ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what is > documented, and you document what you do. The content of the documents > and the design of the product could be as bad as you can imagine - as long > as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000 compliant. ISO 9000 > compliance means you will have more information at hand to go back and > figure out what happened if something doesn't go right. (And that is the > basis of quality improvement). On developing a new product, ISO 9000 > plays a much smaller role in product quality - taking a back seat to good > design. > While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork > that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000 is > mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers when > the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good product is a > mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to me. I still > rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to everything > rolling on them. > > Dave |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Oops: Not a bad place to start...
http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message ... [...] > http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm > > DAS > > For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling > --- > > "David Geesaman" > wrote in message > ... >> Dori A Schmetterling wrote: >>> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a >>> particular company is another matter.) >>> >>> And what is "real" quality? >> >> ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what is >> documented, and you document what you do. The content of the documents >> and the design of the product could be as bad as you can imagine - as >> long >> as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000 compliant. ISO 9000 >> compliance means you will have more information at hand to go back and >> figure out what happened if something doesn't go right. (And that is the >> basis of quality improvement). On developing a new product, ISO 9000 >> plays a much smaller role in product quality - taking a back seat to good >> design. >> While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork >> that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000 is >> mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers when >> the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good product is a >> mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to me. I still >> rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to everything >> rolling on them. >> >> Dave > > > |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dori A Schmetterling wrote: >I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit >of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap >tyre may wear out quicker. > >I certainly can't afford to buy cheap. Long ago, I had Firestone 500 tires, the company's premium tire at the time and top-rated by Consumer Reports. All 4 developed tread separation because of moisture introduced during the manufacturing process, and the 500s were subject to recall, federal investigation, and class action lawsuit. Firestone replaced them with their successor, the 721, but all 4 of mine failed the same way in 40,000 miles. I decided not to take another chance, so I replaced them with a cheap brand called "Empire," and those tires were fine for about 60,000 miles. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
KWS proclaimed:
> ISO9000 is a marketing tool. Having ISO9000 merely means that you have met > the prescribed criteria: you have a quality manual, you have procedures > that document what you do, an accredited body has audited your facility to > ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do with > the real quality of products. Many organizations will not deal with > suppliers that are not ISO certified; that's their motivation to get it. > It's a joke. It isn't just a joke, it is a cruel joke on anyone who actually believes ISO has a single thing to do with actual product quality. All it means is that you have document revision control for the documents you CLAIM to use in your processes. It says absolutely nothing about whether those processes should best be written on toilet paper. And yes, I have been trained as an ISO Auditor. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
larry moe 'n curly proclaimed:
> Bill Putney wrote: > > >>Having worked in industry in engineering and management in competitive >>situations, I've got to believe that there's a quite a bit of stretching >>of the specs. by the manufacturers, and there's probably very little if >>any meaningful enforcement for truth in specifications. > > > My father said that the radials he bought in the 1970s with treadwear > ratings of about 150 lasted about 35,000-40,000 miles, but today's > tires rated for 400 don't seem to last any longer. Apparently the > federal government stopped checking the test results around the time > Reagan became President. > If I recall correctly [and if not, am sure I'll be corrected], the tread wear rating is done by the manufacturer against their own designated "100 rating" tire. In other words, the ratings have not a lot of meaning within a brand and even less between brands from different source manufacturers--of which there really aren't that many left. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Michelin tires and their problems | RQ | Chrysler | 21 | June 20th 05 02:14 PM |
Radial bubble on tire alway impact damage | Danny Deger | General | 0 | February 7th 05 07:53 PM |
Interesting...Expired Tires | Patrick | Ford Mustang | 4 | November 10th 04 03:42 AM |
Tire pressure must be monitored on new models !!! | news | BMW | 2 | September 20th 04 10:24 PM |
Proper tire pressure for Firestone Indy 500 FireHawk - 74 Vette - Can anyone read? | Tom in Missouri | Corvette | 0 | August 10th 04 05:30 PM |