The Truth About Sales and Quality

ISO 9001 and other quality initiatives can improve your processes, but can they also improve your sales?

When a quality management system (QMS) is implemented, results are evident immediately: reduction in warranty cost, reduction in rework, reduction in scrap, higher profit margins, etc. Would you agree that ISO 9001 and other quality initiatives such as lean, Six Sigma, and 5S can significantly improve any company’s processes—if requirements are correctly implemented? Why, if you know that a good quality management system improves your processes, are you reluctant to include all company processes in this system? Why would most companies barely include sales on any quality initiatives? If and only if you apply the same ISO quality standards and quality concepts to the entire sales process, inside and outside sales, you stand to see significant improvements.

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

!

Great article, Miriam. May I add a Dilbertism? Salespeople should be aware of what their company is capable of, and ideally be able to answer prospects' questions in real time, or at least have a pipeline to the people who can supply the correct answer.

Unrelated to the above: I once "spec"ed 3 optical comparators - the most expensive was nearly twice the price of the least expensive with no major variation in functionality among the 3. I asked the rep for the expensive brand why I should purchase his, and was prepared to make the case to my management if his answer made sense, but all he could say was essentially "Our comparators are best because we say they are". I didn't buy his product. The lesson here is for Sales and Product Design to align to determine what constitutes value.

Can you suggest further reading on your topic?

Sales Reps and Quality

Thank you for reading the article Dave. Your example is indeed a good testimony of process lacking. I do have a good book to recommend. Please send me your email directly at miriam@mireauxms.com.

More on registration/certification/accreditation

Hi Dave,
Unfortunately, I think I agree with you.

I don't know what happens in the UK these days, I'm a migrant downunder. In this part of the world, certifiers pay peanuts for auditors and allow ridiculously little amounts of time on certification auditing. And the accreditation system misses it.

I also know that for the first 15 years at least, nearly all the world's certificates were issued to ISO 9002 (ie ISO 9001 without the design/development requirements) when ISO 9001 was always the default in the commercial sector (after all, the only thing you really want to know about any supplier is their products and services have been designed to meet your needs and continually upgraded accordingly and under control). And the accreditation system missed it. So it’s never been good, in my view.

As for your point about only the supplier and the customer being relevant, I sympathise with that one too. I remember that the whole idea back in early 1980s was to set up a system whereby multiple audits were replaced by accredited certification on the basis of properly trained and credible auditors and auditing processes. This got lost, of course, in the battle for margins and certification market share. And the accreditation system missed this one too.

Also, if you view the ISO Survey, you’ll see over successive years that the mature markets with the highest certifications per capita, such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand are in decline, so maybe it’s coming home to roost.

The current supply of registration/certification has had its day, not because of the standard itself, but because the whole business and its parasitic accreditation system has allowed it to become that way.

I am a real fan of ISO 9001, have been since I did my Lead Assessor course in 1984. What’s missing now is the underpinning of the variety that supports type testing in product certification. I think we need TC 176 to come up with the minimum requirements that have to met to demonstrate conformity with ISO 9001's 224 individual requirements. Then claims to comply will become transparent.

So, my message to TC 176 is this. Stop gilding the lily. Start a brave new world. Work on the type tests that show implementation is effective. The time has come for you to protect your patch; get into damage control mode. Over the last 25 years the world’s certifier/registrars and the accreditation systems that live off them have let you down.

Cheers
Ian

Sales Process Engineering reference

Hi Dave and Miriam,

I just came across this.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_process_engineering .....very interesting.

Cheers

Ian

Mmmm, what do these registrars think they're playing at?

Hi Miriam,
Good article but I'm amazed by the implication.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but ISO 9001 is and always has been a purchasing standard; it was developed in the 1960s by NATO AC 250 for that very purpose. So the sales process is and always has been right at its core. In the good old days before TC 176 defocused its gaze by trying to make ISO 9001 more than it ever could be, clause 4.3 placed a very clear specification on ensuring that the sales pitch was right. Those of us who learned our craft in the 1980s in the maelstrom of the UK National Quality Campaign learned very quickly that the antithesis of an effective quality system was the sales jockey who said, "the answer's yes, what's the question?" And we raised issues when it became evident that quality systems didn't take heed. Indeed I still raise issues these days against the requirements in ISO 9001/7.2 if there is even the slightest evidence that the organization is committing to supply when it is unable to show me it has both the capability and capacity to deliver in full, on time, in specification (DIFOTIS) and on budget. As I say, that consideration is the very genesis of ISO 9001 and its predecessors.. And woe betide any organization claiming to meet ISO 9001. 4.1 a), b) and c) if the sales process isn't clearly identified, properly sequenced and interrelated to resource management, purchasing and design control to name just three. It's the reputational and commercial viability risks that are predominant here, both of them clearly within the scope of the quality policy and objectives that can reasonably be expected to come up against clauses 5.3 and 5,4..

The implication in your article is that registrars are no longer concerning themselves with this most fundamental of conformity points. The fact has always been that ISO 9001 is the minimum for ensuring that sales orders are delivered, so leaving out the sales process in an implementation audit is negligent; simple as that.

Once again I'm forced to conclude that quality system certification is not safe in the hands of the current crop of registrars or the accreditation agencies that purport to validate them. More effective auditing, less pecking away at poorly configured laptops, that's what we need from registrars....

Maybe it's time for us professionals to come up with a better alternative. Maybe we should start by doubling the time allowed and doubling the fees. Then only the clients who understand the benefits will remain, because the dullards won't be bothered. At that point ISO 9001 will mean something once more.

All the very best.

Ian

Registrars

Ian,

Good points all; do Brits take ISO 9001 compliance seriously? IMHO, registration's a joke here in the colonies. Companies want the certificate and the heck with operational excellence. But I wouldn't try to fix the system, I would eliminate it. The standard is fine - but only 2 parties can assess a supplier's performance: the supplier and the customer. Registrar auditors can't be expected to assess the dynamic issues that drive success - issues which sometimes can't be shoehorned into a checklist. The entire registration system should be scrapped without replacement.

> Besides, ISO 9001 puts a burden on a supplier but puts no burden on its customers. Many companies succeed despite their customers, not because of them. Industry would be better served if ISO 9001 was a guide on how the customer-supplier interface were properly managed, with neither side being given an advantage.

Conforming to the Intent

I enjoyed reading everyone's comments. So much can always be said about so many organizations. I recognize that part of my example could very well be interpreted as inside sales for a company. However true outside sales -the processes that happen before a customer order is received- are usually left out of the loop. I have seen greatness using the ISO 9001 standard, therefore I believe every process in the organization can benefit from it. Regardless of the quality of their audits, a company who is matured and committed to their quality management system and applies the concepts as intended, is set to gain significant value, specially if they apply that to all their processes. Thanks all!