Hmm as I understand it McDonalds food IS NOT the same everywhere in the world. McDonalds in India being one example. It seems like a quality manger should be aware of such things before making generalizations as prime examples.

Reference was made directly to a Big Mac.

In India (according to this McDonald's site), there is no Big Mac offered. A "Maharaja Mac" is offered instead, made with chicken in lieu of beef.

I believe the simile of the blog comment is correct enough to convey the point.

Actually the reference was "Why is it that McDonald's food is the same regardless where in the world...", not that a big mac was the same everywhere you go in the world. The reference wasn't directly to a big mac, but rather to McDonalds food, with the Big Mac and Fries being an example of that reference. Two things, first as you have shown you can not get a Big Mac everywhere in the world where there is a McDonalds even, and second, Mcdonalds food is not the same everywhere in the world. This is key because he starts out trying to demonstrate a standardization across the entire world for McDonalds, without individual customizations, which as you have demonstrated is not true.

Also, I tend to wonder when there are quality control errors in a deliverable produced by a Quality Manager, presented as Manger.

Fair enough.

I am too tired to split hairs that finely.

As a somewhat side note, if you've ever ordered a Big Mac outside the US, say in Puerto Rico (insert "throwing up" emote here), you'd know his statement doesn't come from first hand knowledge.

It would have been a hell of a marketing effort for ISO 9001 (and indirectly a quality manger to help facilitate a corporations ISO 9001 conformance) if he had used a less obvious example, such that everyone doesn't immediately recognize his blatant errors. working for a ISO 9001 certified corporation, I can tell you it is really just baoput paperwork and bureaucracy to create the appearance of a standard for consumers and clients (some clients actually require it). Most places only implement it explicitly on paper, just for the files. It is a good way to aid marketing efforts and uselessly kill a bunch of trees for most companies.

Standardization efforts are long running, and can touch all parts of the world.. just think of the continuing evolution of threaded fasteners.

I think that the OP is saying that written policies and procedures are major players in the standardization game.

Nothing is perfect, nor ever will be...

Recognition of this fundamental reality is why Quality efforts tend to be focused on Continuous Improvement.

Chris

As long as quality control improvement efforts are actually being conducted to improve quality control. More frequently what you are seeing is they are being conducted to improve marketing efforts with clients who are seekign some standards fopr quality in deliverables, and the actual people reasonable for implemtnation and enforcement are neglecting this since the implementation and enforcement are underfunded to stay price competitive with smaller leaner organizations that may not have the bureaucracy.

I have worked for 2 ISO Certified companies, currently for a ISO 9001 certified company. No one ever took the standards seriously except as an annoynace that they reference in marketing documents, and usually after the fact assigned admin assistants to take care of paperwork. I have been through two training programs for project management under ISO programs, half of the test questions were related to such intricate quality control questions as the name of the company for 10% of the grade, or which option should you not choose -take and ealy lunch and let the situation resolve itself (I remeber that one because it had me and a few of the guys rolling laughing). Quality control measurs only work if there is some enforcement, and you can not enforce them in engineering simply because the people who are at the top have become so engrained in their own processes and old that they refuse to change and you can not fire them or sanction them because they are responsible for managing the staff that produce deliverable and more importantly have all the contacts and relationships needed for the under the table marketing and business practices that bring a large portion of the work in (Clients many times would rather go with the devil they know rather than a unknown new player).

I feel your pain... absolutely true. sadly.

frankly, If he did not have anything to do with Mac's quality program. He should not be using it as a reference. Unless he actually did a background check on the reference story.

Its a case of Macs using its quality program investment for marketing.