Thoughts triggered by today's experiences and observations
The weather is sunny today, and I'm extremely happy. In this pleasant atmosphere, I read a collection of discussions about the "special processes" in the ISO9000 standards. I thought it would just be a regular knowledge acquisition, but unexpectedly, it made me engage in in - depth thinking about the understanding and application of the standards.
In this discussion session, dozens of people engaged in a fierce debate lasting for dozens of days, focusing solely on the issue of the confirmation of "special processes". The perspectives of the discussion were diverse. Some started from the standard provisions and analyzed the meaning of each word and sentence; some combined with practical applications to discuss the specific manifestations and confirmation methods of "special processes" in different industries and enterprises; others shared various situations related to "special processes" encountered during the auditing process based on their auditing experience. However, after such a long - term debate, no conclusion that could convince everyone was finally reached.
Reflections on the debate over standard annotations
The term "special process" is merely a note on the definition of a process in the ISO 9000 standard. However, even such a note can trigger such intense and long - lasting debates. This makes me can't help but think that if it were about the specific requirement provisions in the standard, wouldn't the debates "turn the world upside down"? This makes me deeply feel the spirit of hair - splitting and nit - picking among quality workers when dealing with the standard.
Coincidentally, in another forum, I also saw a debate about the definitions of "rework" and "repair", and this debate actually lasted for as long as a year. Everyone held their own views on the accurate meanings of these two words and refused to give in to each other. On the one hand, I deeply admire the attitude of quality workers, which is so rigorous that it's almost obsessive. On the other hand, I began to think about whether this approach is really reasonable.
Views on the understanding and implementation of standards
As we all know, standards are well - known for their concise wording. Since readers have different knowledge backgrounds, work experiences and ways of thinking, it is inevitable that they will have different understandings of the standards. However, I believe that in the process of understanding and implementing standards, we should break free from the limitations of the words and not just get entangled in the meanings of words and phrases. Instead, we should give more consideration to the substantial requirements of the standards and think about how to effectively apply the standards to actual work, so as to truly improve the enterprise's quality management level, rather than spending a great deal of time and energy on scrutinizing the words.
Of course, some people may raise doubts: If one doesn't have a clear understanding of the standards, how can one talk about implementation? I don't object to a thorough understanding of the standards. After all, only by accurately understanding the requirements of the standards can one implement them better. However, I oppose the practice of over - analyzing the standards. People argue endlessly over a single word or sentence while ignoring the core purpose of the standards.
Misunderstandings and Correct Directions in Quality Management
From the situation of recent second - party audits by several foreign manufacturers, I've found that our quality management seems to have entered two dead ends. On the one hand, there is an over - emphasis on certification. Many enterprises regard obtaining certification as the ultimate goal, while ignoring the actual operating effect of the quality management system. On the other hand, there is an excessive reliance on statistical tools. It is thought that as long as advanced statistical tools are used, all quality problems can be solved, but the core aspects of quality management such as quality planning, quality control, and continuous improvement are neglected.
Today, whether it is second-party certification or third-party certification abroad, the audit methods have gradually changed. They are no longer limited to clause-by-clause audits and no longer get entangled in the accuracy of words. Instead, they pay more attention to the effectiveness of the system operation, the improvement of enterprise performance, and continuous improvement. This is the so-called performance audit.
From the perspective of performance review, the definitions and distinctions between "rework" and "repair" are actually not that important. What matters is whether the enterprise has conducted statistical analysis on the situations of rework and repair, whether it has identified the problems exposed in the production process through such analysis, and whether it has taken effective improvement measures. Similarly, the definition of "special processes" is not the key point either. The key lies in whether the enterprise can identify the "key processes" that play a crucial role in forming the product quality characteristics and implement effective control over these key processes. Because even if a certain process is special, if its impact on product quality is negligible, then accurately defining such a "special process" has little practical significance. We should put more effort into aspects that can truly improve the quality and performance of the enterprise.