Survey Results are Available

Good topic @Andy Nichols ...thanks for prompting.

My observations are bulleted below...
1- Surprised and pleased to see that 36.5% of respondents were " executive leadership"
2- Disappointed to see so much interest (1824 respondents out of...???....) that believe ISO 9001 should be broken into numerous "maturity" levels.
3- Encouraged to see that 62.8% claim that the management systems is used as part of daily activities (but discouraged it isn't much higher, that organizations aren't utilizing the QMS as the foundation of their operation)
4- Surprised and pleased that the "scale of 1~5" regarding positive impact of ISO9001 QMS rates so high in most categories.
5- It does not surprise me that "Context of the organization" causes the greatest confusion (if I am interpreting the confusing chart on page 9 correctly)

NOTE:
The quite "positive" results are encouraging but not necessarily consistent with what I see in the field (especially in regard to "executive leadership" and the reflected impact that ISO 9001 has on organizations.
The small overall % of respondents (8k out of 1M +) leads me to believe only "engaged" companies bothered to respond.



And of course, as the data shows, North Korea simply doesn't give a s***

Be well

 

Andy

An interesting question: "“Has your organization used a quality management system based on ISO 9001?" I would hope that few thinking organisations have based the design of their management system on 9001 - I always thought that 9001 was a means of certifying that an existing system met certain standards rather than being a way to design how you run the organisation.

And... I don't understand why the standard should need to be amended to cater for the "future concepts" if it has been written as a generic standard. Most if not all the concepts are covered either by "the contect of the organisation" or within the requirements of process management, which imply that factors influencing performance need to be assessed and managed.

 

Apparently, in page 8, many still believe ISO 9001 is about documentation. Consultants and certifying bodies contributed to this view of many organizations. For example: Many organizations have documented matrices about the categories of int/ext issues and needs/expectations of interested parties believing that these fulfill the statements in clauses 4.1 and 4.2. I've also seen matrices on how to control external providers, on what/when/who/how to communicate and how to acquire/access/make available organizational knowledge. Consultants teach these. CB auditors look for these.

Many (i.e. organizations, consultants and CB auditors) believe that if they can establish the connection of the matrices mentioned above for 4.1 and 4.2 with the RBT tool, particularly SWOT (another document), this fulfills the statements in 6.1. Many failed to understand that effective planning necessitates understanding of the context of the organization and needs and expectations of interested parties. So, because of the limited understanding that documents satisfy clauses 4 and 6, this contributed to the low % of applying clauses 4 and 6 with no difficulties (see page 9).

The categories in the survey question on the 2nd graph in page 8 should include Planning.

 

I certainly agree. Most top management have little or no idea about their QMS. I hope there's a question like "Please answer frankly: If you're the top management, how much do you know about your organization's QMS?".