Quality and rose-colored glasses?

O.K. For those of us who have no idea what in the world you’re talking about, what is an ISO 9000 certification? Is that some kind of porno site rating or even better some sort of rating from a can’t miss stock picking bulletin board.

-Mike

Read Dilbert!

Think of it as a company getting a doctorate in their manufacturing process. Now imagine how much value the rest of put in those who piled higher and deeper(Phd).

I’m involved in manufacturing as well and it’s considered a huge joke, except by upper managment, who want to flaunt it around at their meetings.

O.K. For those of us who have no idea what in the world you’re talking about, what is an ISO 9000 certification? Is that some kind of porno site rating or even better some sort of rating from a can’t miss stock picking bulletin board.

-Mike

Think of it as a company getting a doctorate in their manufacturing process. Now imagine how much value the rest of put in those who piled higher and deeper(Phd).

I’m involved in manufacturing as well and it’s considered a huge joke, except by upper managment, who want to flaunt it around at their meetings.

I was at Cisco in the days when ISO 9000 was implemented. The concept sort of made sense if you squinted; it seemed to be primarily an exercise in documenting your processes, and avoiding version skew in your documentation. In reality it was a huge boondoggle that made tons of money for the ISO 9000 consultants and wasted the time and money of the victims. I couldn’t even begin to document my process for writing software (“um, it just sort of pours out until it’s done.”) so I made a point of working from home whenever the consultants were rummaging around.

The only reason Cisco bothered is that a large customer made it a procurement requirement and it seemed like others would follow suit. Luckily, the fad passed, and we didn’t have to go through this crap at Juniper.

ISO 9000 can be simply summarized as document what you do, and do what you document. It doesn’t say you have to do the right thing.

-Curt

ISO 9000 can be simply summarized as document what you do, and do what you document. It doesn’t say you have to do the right thing.

-Curt

We too are picking up our SR22 in 5 weeks. Your viewpoint was well said. I’m so pleased that Cirrus received the funding when they did…right before ours were started. With so many happy people at Cirrus the variance on ours should be tight. Good timimg eh? The human emotional state can do wonders for people at work.

Chris N122CG

I believe the case has been made exceedingly well for eliminating ISO9000 as a method of judging quality by the numerous posts in this thread. The Baldridge award is something you either win or don’t. So that doesn’t work either. Maybe you can suggest a way to accomplish the objective you have proposed.

Greg

I know your comment was laden with sarcasm to make a point, but let’s not get carried away. Using the facts that CD doesn’t have ISO9000 certification and has never received the Baldridge award in order to substantiate a claim that they have poor quality is not appropriate or fair.

Quite the contrary! My point is this: Since there is controversy about Cirrus’ quality, why not test that hypothesis against an objective standard? ISO 9000, if you believe in that, or the Baldridge Award process, or whatever.

Then we’d have a more realistic idea of how good Cirrus’ processes and QA are – without having to rely on anecdotal comments, comparisons with other manufacturers (who themselves may be bad), or inside scoop from “Jeff.”

Joe

The opinion that ISO 9000 is just so much BS has been asserted but, IMHO, a case has certainly not made.

All I’m saying is:

  1. Comparing Cirrus to other GA manufacturers can give a idea of relative but not absolute quality.

  2. Anecdotal evidence of Cirrus’ quality, or lack thereof, is just that. Interesting, but not convincing in itself.

  3. There are more sophisticated ways to measure manufacturing quality.

My comments are from an academic point of view. Whether you, Cirrus, or anyone else wants to pursue this, or how, is frankly of little concern to me.

Joe

I believe the case has been made exceedingly well for eliminating ISO9000 as a method of judging quality by the numerous posts in this thread. The Baldridge award is something you either win or don’t. So that doesn’t work either. Maybe you can suggest a way to accomplish the objective you have proposed.

Greg

I know your comment was laden with sarcasm to make a point, but let’s not get carried away. Using the facts that CD doesn’t have ISO9000 certification and has never received the Baldridge award in order to substantiate a claim that they have poor quality is not appropriate or fair.

Quite the contrary! My point is this: Since there is controversy about Cirrus’ quality, why not test that hypothesis against an objective standard? ISO 9000, if you believe in that, or the Baldridge Award process, or whatever.

Then we’d have a more realistic idea of how good Cirrus’ processes and QA are – without having to rely on anecdotal comments, comparisons with other manufacturers (who themselves may be bad), or inside scoop from “Jeff.”

Joe

The opinion that ISO 9000 is just so much BS has been asserted but, IMHO, a case has certainly not made.

All I’m saying is:

  1. Comparing Cirrus to other GA manufacturers can give a idea of relative but not absolute quality.

Ah, this would be wonderful, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, we still live in a ‘caveat emptor’ world and the quality of information you are seeking is rarely found on any product manufactured today.

  1. Anecdotal evidence of Cirrus’ quality, or lack thereof, is just that. Interesting, but not convincing in itself.

No disagreement here.

  1. There are more sophisticated ways to measure manufacturing quality.

Absolutely. ISO9000 helps you with that. It does not tell management how to change processes to improve quality. It is also implemented differently by each (aircraft) manufacturer. Each manufacturer picks the metrics they want to use to measure quality, so there is no consistency among the manufacturers.

My comments are from an academic point of view. Whether you, Cirrus, or anyone else wants to pursue this, or how, is frankly of little concern to me.

Most who have not worked in manufacturing and lived ‘quality’ every day are misinformed about the role of quality assurance. It can be summed up pretty much in three words, ‘minimization of variance’. It is up to management to determine how much variance will be accepted.
To illustrate, I once owned a glider trailer that was manufactured in Europe and had some off-brand European tires on it when it arrived here. One day, my crew was pulling the trailer to another airport, where I had landed, and one of those tires just came apart. It was replaced with the spare and 10 miles later, the other tire came apart in the same way. Both tires had been checked the night before for proper air pressure. We did not find any punctures. They were just low quality tires. I estimated the tires had about 5,000 miles on them and they both failed within 10 miles of each other. Now THAT is tight quality control. This company made a sorry tire, and did a fine job of it.

The point of all this is to say that every product manufactured, and indeed every aircraft you have ever flown, was a compromise between variance and cost. There are no perfect products or manufacturers. If Cirrus demands less variance, which they will continue to do as processes get more controlled, defects will go down. However, pushing the acceptable variances down too fast will prevent anyone from being able to afford it.

This forum puts a spotlight on every defect reported. I will take delivery in only about five weeks, and I read each and every sqwuak (did I spell that right?) report with great interest, wondering if ‘that will be a problem on my plane’.

Well , I am expecting a few things to come up. But the real test of a company’s commitment is what happens when a warranty report shows up in the field. If the company bends over backwards to fix the problem, it tells me they are committed to providing a quality product to their customers. I have not seen a single post complaining about CD’s response to warranty claims. I can assure you, CD monitors warranty expenses closely and is aware that it can cost 10 times as much to fix a mistake in the field as in the factory. I am sure they are aware there is an immediate cost associated with unacceptable quality levels.

Finally, everybody involved with manufacturing knows the old saying ‘You can’t inspect quality into a _______’. Insert whatever you want. In this case, airplane. Quality, or minimized variance, comes from tight processes and the desire in the hearts and minds of the people turning the wrenches to build the best with a management that facilitates those desires efficiently.

Well, this went on a lot longer than originally intended. Your points are will taken, and the debate with someone who has obviously thought about this a great deal has been enlightening.

Greg

I believe the case has been made exceedingly well for eliminating ISO9000 as a method of judging quality by the numerous posts in this thread. The Baldridge award is something you either win or don’t. So that doesn’t work either. Maybe you can suggest a way to accomplish the objective you have proposed.

Greg

I know your comment was laden with sarcasm to make a point, but let’s not get carried away. Using the facts that CD doesn’t have ISO9000 certification and has never received the Baldridge award in order to substantiate a claim that they have poor quality is not appropriate or fair.

Quite the contrary! My point is this: Since there is controversy about Cirrus’ quality, why not test that hypothesis against an objective standard? ISO 9000, if you believe in that, or the Baldridge Award process, or whatever.

Then we’d have a more realistic idea of how good Cirrus’ processes and QA are – without having to rely on anecdotal comments, comparisons with other manufacturers (who themselves may be bad), or inside scoop from “Jeff.”

Joe

Fair enough. Thanks.

Joe