You make valid points about ISO. I've been able to know everything about my business up to now, but I think I'm at the point where I need to seriously consider splashing out on ISO accreditation ... It's all getting too big for one person to be the reference point.

Why??

If the 'system' in use is too complex, then the system is wrong. It's surprising how inflexible systems 'complying to ISO' can be.

and why do you need someone to come along, read your quality manual and such like then tell you if you are compliant?

A common jibe aimed at consultants is:

Lend me your watch, i'll tell you what time it is, then i'll sell the watch back to you.

I just think quality & consistancy are sometimes confused, with regard to iso.

Exactly

cubit.

Do you run iso at work then?

Why??

If the 'system' in use is too complex, then the system is wrong.

What I would really like to do is spend a day or 2 at the office of another company to see how they run their organisation. I may be doing everything right, but there's always that feeling that maybe I'm missing out on something ....... Any takers?

What I would really like to do is spend a day or 2 at the office of another company to see how they run their organisation. I may be doing everything right, but there's always that feeling that maybe I'm missing out on something ....... Any takers?

One possible 'issue', if thats the right word, is the inspectorate.

As i see it, many companies adopt a system based on the guidelines suggested by the said inspectorate.

The generic guidelines are simply that, generic guidelines.

It's surprising how quickly they become perceived defacto standards, as if carved in tablets of stone.

The outcome being that many companies may be trying to comply to a system that may not be correct for them, but is one the Inspector is comfortable with.

id welcome you to our place ag, infact id even make the tea and coffee. However i think id need to security screen you so i think you can only visit ssaib firms.

Regarding systems and procedures.

Who on here considers their system to be:

Reactive.

ProActive

Generative

whilst realising this is some kind of trap im gonna run right into it.

Id say our procedures are all 3 but id also say that in parts they are also calculative

whilst realising this is some kind of trap im gonna run right into it.

Id say our procedures are all 3 but id also say that in parts they are also calculative

James, you cynic.

I would they are 2. Whilst you may try and aim for 3, others (ACPO, NSI, etc) will often be 1. Complying with the procedures. rules, regs of said agencies therefore constricts you.

i have to disgaree with that as you know cubit

i have to disgaree with that as you know cubit

I knew you would.