Balanced scorecard/ISO widely used in industry?

Qualmx, I'm not sure what you mean by defining metrics "based in what is requested by the ISO Clauses". I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand why you take this approach. Does ISO actually require specific metrics?

Where have you seen this need to include metrics focusing on Finance?

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that when you read QUALITY Management System, you should replace that first word with BUSINESS. When you get down to basics, ISO 9001 is really about having the ability to provide the Customer with what they want, when they want it - specs, price, time, functionality, etc. In order to do this, a BUSINESS should consider the organizational needs beyond production and the "quality department". This could include considering things like:

• Being able to pay employees
• Contingency plans in case of natural disasters and/or emergencies
• Back-up of information technology (i.e., data, software, e-records, etc.)
• ...and so on...

Essentially, if the company isn't operational (in every sense), this may adversely impact the ability to meet the Customer's needs.

Why add a BSC to an ISO system? Instead, why not integrate ISO within a business culture that includes information-based decision making?

 

I am similarly confused. A balanced score card is one way of meeting the need for quality objectives of a QMS compliant with ISO 9001, and nothing much more, IMHO. I'm not sure a BSC HAS a "methodology".

 

I'm not sure that's a universal truth. I know organizations who do it because it's an effective management tool, not because a customer requires it.

 

Semantics.

I don't call internal audits "internal audits" where I work because the current culture associates the word 'audit' as scary and punitive. We use the word "assessment" because it sounds more friendly and approachable. But the overall intent, approach, format, etc., is the same...audit or assessment, same thing where I work.

BSC - Metrics/Objectives Matrix - Planning and Strategy Matrix - That Place Where We Put Data and See How We're Doing ... Essentially, we're all speaking the same term and have the same intentions with it in this current thread.

Let's try to stay on topic for the sake of the Qualmx, the original poster.

 

I applaud your idea to have one system. Many of us here have taken similar approaches with our organizations.

However, it really isn't Business + Quality.

How about viewing the formula as:

Business = Quality + Environment + Safety + .... other standards or accepted industry practices (including Finance)

At my previous organization, we developed a Business Management System. It included the requirements for:

• ISO 9001
• ISO 14001
• OHSAS 18001
• ISRS (also safety)
• Sarbanes-Oxley
• GBS (these were internal organizational requirements promoting global standardization and a global organizational culture)

How did we do this?

Simply put, we defined who we were...what we did...why we did it...and then we made all of those standards listed above, fit us. We did not change who we were to meet them. If there were gaps, however, we developed processes to address those opportunities.

It sounds like the organization you are currently at has the beginnings of a management system that could conform to the requirements of ISO 9001. Awesome! How it decides to identify, review and action (if required) key metrics...that should be a decision based on what the organization needs, not ISO.