From what I've seen of the Draft for 9001:2008, it seems that there is a change where the Management Rep has to be Management...
I agree with Sidney that there is no real change in the requirements. The management rep is already required to be a member of management in the current version. The change in the draft now just says organization's management.

From what I've seen of the Draft for 9001:2008, it seems that there is a change where the Management Rep has to be Management. I am in a shop where the Senior QA guy is Mgt Rep because Management is one guy. How can this be made to work? Is the intent that in a small shop where there is a President and all the rest, no Mgt Rep can be appointed and the President has to assume responsibility for the QMS (of course, he did anyway). But what happens in all those shops where there is currently a Mgt Rep that is not Management? It seems to complicate things. Any comments on the intent of this change and how it might play out in terms of interpretation/application?:rolleyes:

In a small shop (organization), where there are no other managers, the top person should be the Management Representative. The reason for this requirement is that you need someone with decision making authority rather than a good willing individual.

Stijloor.

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1152

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the IAF (International Accreditation Forum) have agreed on an implementation plan to ensure a smooth transition of accredited certification to ISO 9001:2008, the latest version of the world's most widely used standard for quality management systems (QMS). The details of the plan are given in the joint communiqué by the two organizations which appears below.
Like all of ISO's more than 17 000 standards, ISO 9001 is periodically reviewed to ensure that it is maintained at the state of the art and a decision taken to confirm, withdraw or revise the document.
ISO 9001:2008, which is due to be published before the end of the year, will replace the year 2000 version of the standard which is implemented by both business and public sector organizations in 170 countries. Although certification is not a requirement of the standard, the QMS of about one million organizations have been audited and certified by independent certification bodies (also known in some countries as registration bodies) to ISO 9001:2000.
ISO 9001 certification is frequently used in both private and public sectors to increase confidence in the products and services provided by certified organizations, between partners in business-to-business relations, in the selection of suppliers in supply chains and in the right to tender for procurement contracts.
ISO is the developer and publisher of ISO 9001, but does not itself carry out auditing and certification. These services are performed independently of ISO by certification bodies. ISO does not control such bodies, but does develop voluntary International Standards to encourage good practice in their activities on a worldwide basis. For example, ISO/IEC 17021:2006 specifies the requirements for bodies providing auditing and certification of management systems.
Certification bodies that wish to provide further confidence in their services may apply to be "accredited" as competent by an IAF recognized national accreditation body. ISO/IEC 17011:2004 specifies the requirements for carrying out such accreditation. IAF is an international association whose membership includes the national accreditation bodies of 49 economies.
ISO technical committee ISO/TC 176, Quality management and quality assurance, which is responsible for the ISO 9000 family of standards, is preparing a number of support documents explaining what the differences are between ISO 9001:2008 and the year 2000 version, why and what they mean for users. Once approved, these documents will be posted on the ISO Web site – probably in October 2008.

Joint IAF-ISO communiqué



Implementation of accredited certification to ISO 9001:2008


ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the IAF (International Accreditation Forum) have agreed an implementation plan to ensure a smooth migration of accredited certification to ISO 9001:2008, after consultation with international groupings representing quality system or auditor certification bodies, and industry users of ISO 9001 certification services.

ISO 9001:2008 does not contain any new requirements


They have recognized that ISO 9001:2008 introduces no new requirements. ISO 9001:2008 only introduces clarifications to the existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000 based on eight years of experience of implementing the standard world wide with about one million certificates issued in 170 countries to date. It also introduces changes intended to improve consistency with ISO14001:2004
The agreed implementation plan in relation to accredited certification is therefore the following:

Accredited certification to the ISO 9001:2008 shall not be granted until the publication of ISO 9001:2008 as an International Standard.


Certification of conformity to ISO 9001:2008 and/or national equivalents shall only be issued after official publication of ISO 9001:2008 (which should take place before the end of 2008) and after a routine surveillance or recertification audit against ISO 9001:2008.

Validity of certifications to ISO 9001:2000


One year after publication of ISO 9001:2008 all accredited certifications issued (new certifications or recertifications) shall be to ISO 9001:2008.
Twenty four months after publication by ISO of ISO 9001:2008, any existing certification issued to ISO 9001:2000 shall not be valid.

FDIS ISO 9001:2008 is now out for ballot. The US TAG is voting on the US' position.

FDIS ISO 9001:2008 is not out for ballot. The US TAG is voting on the US' position.So, are you saying that, even though the ISO website lists the document in stage 50.20 which indicates out for ballot, they are lying? Or is this just another case of outdated information such as the the one you stated at CB's have 3 years to allow a client to transition.From today's press release we know that the transition of existing certificates must happen within 2 years from the date of release of ISO 9001:2008.

I got a copy of the FDIS today...

Available at ASQ - http://www.asq.org/quality-press/display-item/index.pl?item=T854E

I got a copy of the FDIS today...Me too. And the cover page states:
Voting begins on:
2008-08-07

Voting terminates on:
2008-10-07Have not had a chance to digest it yet. But the FDIS annex B contains a table with the "changes" between the 3rd and 4th editions of ISO 9001.

I hope the FDIS can be downloaded for free like what NSAI did for ISO 9001:2008 DIS.

:)

It would be nice if this can be downloaded here :)

WOW! Sorry! "not" should be "now" in my last post. Thanks for catching that.

WOW! Sorry! "not" should be "now" in my last post. Thanks for catching that.

Can you edit your post? I can do it if you wish...:cool:

Stijloor.

WOW! Sorry! "not" should be "now" in my last post. Thanks for catching that.

Can you edit your post? I can do it if you wish...:cool:

Stijloor.

I did it :)

Thanks for the edit!:)

I got a copy of the ANAB communication #129 this morning that talked about the certification to the 2008 version:

"Accredited certification to the ISO 9001:2008 shall not be granted until the publication of
ISO 9001:2008 as an International Standard.
Certification of conformity to ISO 9001:2008 and/or national equivalents shall only be issued
after official publication of ISO 9001:2008 (which should take place before the end of 2008) and
after a routine surveillance or recertification audit against ISO 9001:2008.
Validity of certifications to ISO 9001:2000
One year after publication of ISO 9001:2008 all accredited certifications issued (new
certifications or recertifications) shall be to ISO 9001:2008.
Twenty four months after publication by ISO of ISO 9001:2008, any existing certification issued
to ISO 9001:2000 shall not be valid.
ANAB note for emphasis: Certification to ISO 9001:2008 cannot be issued until after a
surveillance or recertification audit based on ISO 9001:2008, and the decision to issue a
certification is made following a CB’s normal practice including independent review
(ISO/IEC 17021:2006, 9.1.14 and 9.1.15)."

Hope this helps answer some of the questions that have been floating around about how to get certification to the new version....I noticed that as far as a release date, the letter only said :
"Like all of ISO’s more than 17,000 standards, ISO 9001 is periodically reviewed to ensure that it
is maintained at the state of the art. ISO 9001:2008, which is due to be published before the end
of the year, will replace the year 2000 version of the standard."

Folks,

The FDIS is out, all 36 pages of it! ;)

IAF also published the transition dates already.

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1152

/S.

Hi Sandra,

Thanks! Is there any chance that you could share it with us?:bigwave:

Regards,
tony s

Hi Sandra,

Thanks! Is there any chance that you could share it with us?:bigwave:

Regards,
tony s

The FDIS is copyright material.

Stijloor.

Folks,

I didn't got my copy that way, but after some search at Google this morning I just found out that if you leave a comment here http://qualiblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/extra-extra-finalmente-chegou-o-fdis/#comments and also your email address (which will not be visible to the public, but just be stated in the comments form you fill for the blog owner to see) the FDIS will be forward to you.

I believe you can leave the comment in English, but for those of you who are perfeccionist and would like to try Portuguese (as the blog owner is Brazilian) you can write something like: "Agradeço o envio da norma. Cumprimentos." - it means "The forward of the standard will be appreciated. Regards."

/S.

Hi Sandra,

I got it! All 36 pages of it.:agree1:

Thanks for your info and the generous person who provided me the ISO/FDIS 9001:2008 including the ISO/CD3 9004.

Obrigado muito! (...hope this is the correct translation...)

:thanx:

Obrigado muito! (...hope this is the correct translation...)

:thanx:

Very close ! Muito Obrigado would be correct....

Even considering that ISO standards are in fact copyright protected documents, I downloaded the FDIS version from the Brazilian blog Sandra mentioned.
As discussed before, in my opinion at least ISO 9001 standard should be free specially in the final version IS!

Muito obrigado Sandra!
:)

Hi everyone,
This site provides a lot of information with regard to the changes of ISO9001:2008.
http://www.whittingtonassociates.com/v2/newsletter/current_issue.shtml#article3
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Raffy

I believe that the best source to compare the upcoming revision with the existing one is table B1, available in Annex B of the FDIS document.

Any news about the new version ?:)

I read somewhere that it has to be revised after every five years, but I don't know why it is taking longer?
Still in year 2008 nothing is certain! :confused:

I read somewhere that it has to be revised after every five years, but I don't know why it is taking longer?
Still in year 2008 nothing is certain! :confused:

Getting a bunch of smart people to agree on something is close to impossible...:sarcasm:

Although I believe we're getting close to the final product. :applause:

Stijloor.

Getting a bunch of smart people to agree on something is close to impossible...:sarcasm:

I disagree. :tg:

I'll see what I can squeeze outta my UL auditors this week. Today is the first day of our 4-day renewal ISO 9001 audit. :cool:

I disagree. :tg:

Excellent point!

Stijloor.

If I do not change "statutory requirements" to "statutory and regulatory requirements" as it is specified in ISO 9001:2008; Or, if I fail to re-write section 4.2.3 to conform with 9001:2008 wording - can I be written-up for nonconforming documentation? I mean, they are saying the requirements haven't changed and are practices conform with the requirements - anyone?:confused:

If I do not change "statutory requirements" to "statutory and regulatory requirements" as it is specified in ISO 9001:2008; Or, if I fail to re-write section 4.2.3 to conform with 9001:2008 wording - can I be written-up for nonconforming documentation? I mean, they are saying the requirements haven't changed and are practices conform with the requirements - anyone?:confused:There is no requirement that you have to regurgitate each and every requirement of the standard. What a waste that would be.
When ISO, IAF and even ANAB state that the revised document contains no new requirements, people should take that at face value and relax. If you believe that an auditor would be that picky, there is something really wrong in that relationship.

We were told today that the changes are "clarifications" only. Something about the old std not translating well for other languages, hence the clarification changes.

That would be easiest ISO 9001 version to Swallow!
:nopity:

That would be easiest ISO 9001 version to Swallow!
:nopity:

The changes from 87 version to 94 version were also easy to swallow...
:)

NSAI have this on their website.


The amendment has a very small impact on most users as, besides editorial changes, there are three areas to look at –

Outsourcing New notes help define outsourced processes and controls. Organisations should check that the have all their outsourced processes identified and that suitable controls are in place to support quality.
Management Representative The Management Representative now has to be a member of the organisation’s management. This means that the person has to be employed by the organisation (could be on contract), has to have the required authority and has to be shown on the organisation chart.
Customer Supplied Product This now includes personal data. If your organisation holds information such as credit card numbers or addresses, it now has to demonstrate that suitable data protection protocols are in place.
I had completely missed the significance of the reference to personal data in relation to customer supplied product. Some organisations may find themselves facing questions from auditors which they would hav regarded previously as outside the scope of ISO 9001.

NSAI have this on their website.

Management Representative The Management Representative now has to be a member of the organisation’s management. This means that the person has to be employed by the organisation (could be on contract), has to have the required authority and has to be shown on the organisation chart.
How is that different from the current document, which stipulates:Top management shall appoint a member of management...There is NO change. The piece about having to be shown in the organizational chart is debatable, too.

How is that different from the current document, which stipulates:There is NO change. The piece about having to be shown in the organizational chart is debatable, too.

Yes--it's always been open to circular definition, and still is. If a CEO creates a policy that says, "The MR is, by definition, a member of management," it can be anyone so long as the responsibility/authority requirements are met.

How is that different from the current document, which stipulates:There is NO change. The piece about having to be shown in the organizational chart is debatable, too.

I agree. I thought that, as I was copying a bit of information, I might as well copy the whole piece.

My point related to the third paragraph on personal data.
My apologies if its been discussed here before but theres a lot of info to get through on this site and I haven't spotted it.

I agree. I thought that, as I was copying a bit of information, I might as well copy the whole piece.

My point related to the third paragraph on personal data.
My apologies if its been discussed here before but theres a lot of info to get through on this site and I haven't spotted it.

I am not aware of a previous discussion on personal property.

I can understand why personal property would fall under Customer Furnished. I think that could be a little out of scope. But in my opinion, the intent is to protect Customer Information (intellectual property).

I am not aware of a previous discussion on personal property.

I can understand why personal property would fall under Customer Furnished. I think that could be a little out of scope. But in my opinion, the intent is to protect Customer Information (intellectual property).

Taken from the DIS, so not the latest document:

NOTE Customer property can include intellectual property and personal data.

It is more than just intellectual property.

My apologies if its been discussed here before but theres a lot of info to get through on this site and I haven't spotted it.No need to apologize. Your participation and contribution is most welcomed.
And we love to beat a dead horse http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/026.gif(metaphorically speaking) here, at The Cove.

Taken from the DIS, so not the latest document:

NOTE Customer property can include intellectual property and personal data.

It is more than just intellectual property.
That's still the wording in the FDIS. I believe they took a cue from the medical device standard:
NOTE Customer property can include intellectual property or confidential health information.

Should'nt it be tomorrow the date for release the IS of ISO 9001:2008?
:rolleyes:

Today is 31st Oct., any news about ISO9001:2008?

Today is 31st Oct., any news about ISO9001:2008?

It's now due for publication before the end of 2008.

The 2008 version is in a state of 'under publication' according to the official site (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486).

It's now due for publication before the end of 2008.

The 2008 version is in a state of 'under publication' according to the official site (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486).

Building excitement and expectation for the Holiday Season...:tg:

Stijloor.

Latest information I have is 15th November is the publication date but even that may be delayed as one country has an objection in. :rolleyes:

Can anyone object to the objection? Based on the need to stop beating around the bush and get the thing published...............????:lmao::biglaugh:

Any news about the new version ?:)

Why the panic? ISO/TC176 says it has no new requirements. Would you believe that people are being asked to pay anywhere from $29 to $160 for webinars on the ISO 9001:2008 differences? ISO could have issued a free addendum by now.:mad:

Would you believe that people are being asked to pay anywhere from $29 to $160 for webinars on the ISO 9001:2008 differences? Actually, the lower number is $0.00. I've run several webinars on the topic this year. All of them were free of charge. Talk about value....:tg:

Interestingly, the ISO website has deleted the "target release date" for the 4th Edition of ISO 9001. So, according to Paul, we will have to wait another couple of weeks.

As a side note, the cover page (see attached) of the Final draft of AS9100 Rev. C has a statement to the effect that
Standards organizations releasing the 9100 standard must assure that actual publication of their version of the 9100 standard NOT occur until after the release of ISO 9001:2008

but even that may be delayed as one country has an objection in. Looks like ISO (although ISO 9001 certified) don't follow their own established processes (http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/how_are_standards_developed.htm):
The final phase comprises the formal approval of the resulting draft International Standard (the acceptance criteria stipulate approval by two-thirds of the ISO members that have participated actively in the standards development process, and approval by 75% of all members that vote), following which the agreed text is published as an ISO International Standard. If they allowed the delay of a standard publication, due to a single country objection, certainly people would hijack the process....

Why the panic? ISO/TC176 says it has no new requirements. Would you believe that people are being asked to pay anywhere from $29 to $160 for webinars on the ISO 9001:2008 differences? ISO could have issued a free addendum by now.:mad: Ah, business. That's the beauty of this forum. People get to find out that they will be paying $$$$ for a new version which is little more than one with typos corrected. I won't go into the webinar or 'training' programs.... If people want to waste money, that's up to them.

Ah, business. That's the beauty of this forum. People get to find out that they will be paying $$$$ for a new version which is little more than one with typos corrected. I won't go into the webinar or 'training' programs.... If people want to waste money, that's up to them.

Interesting point regarding training courses. A company I do a lot of training for had decided not to offer an update course due to the minimal changes but they are being asked regularly by clients to provide a course!

I wonder whether there is a point that they never really understood the year 2000 changes and they see this as an opportunity to clarify some points.

Probably, Colpart. I also assume that they also want to be 'reassured'.

Today is 31st Oct., any news about ISO9001:2008?I emailed Mr. David Zimmerman, who is the secretary of the TC 176, asking for an update.

You may want to look at a Christopher Paris posting on the ASQ public discussion boards:

Title: ASQ Mailing Stokes Fear to Sell ISO 9001:2008 Books (http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/thread.jspa?threadID=7606&tstart=0&forumID=18)

You may want to look at a Christopher Paris posting on the ASQ public discussion boardsPlease note this gentleman is not welcomed here: Chris Paris of Oxebridge - Waging a Personal war (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8692&highlight=Paris) At one point, if memory serves me, Marc had asked us not to link or refer to any of his material.

He seems to have mellowed out a bit in the past few years, but I have no problem if a moderator (or Marc) chooses to delete these three posts.

Good old Chris, quite refreshing to see his viewpoint...........maybe next I could be revisited by the malaria I contracted years ago.;)

Please note this gentleman is not welcomed here: Chris Paris of Oxebridge - Waging a Personal war (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8692&highlight=Paris) At one point, if memory serves me, Marc had asked us not to link or refer to any of his material.That was long ago forgotten and hasn't been an issue for years. I had forgotten about it.

Why the panic? ISO/TC176 says it has no new requirements. Would you believe that people are being asked to pay anywhere from $29 to $160 for webinars on the ISO 9001:2008 differences? ISO could have issued a free addendum by now.:mad:

I don't know if it's been said before, but Annex B of the FDIS is titled "Changes between ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008" and is comprehensive, as far as I can tell.

I emailed Mr. David Zimmerman, who is the secretary of the TC 176, asking for an update.According to Mr. Zimmerman's reply, the new ISO 9001 will be released November 16th.

According to Mr. Zimmerman's reply, the new ISO 9001 will be released November 16th.

Thanks for the information. :thanx:

Thanks for the information. :thanx:

Hello,

in Germany the standard will be available on 30.12.2008 this is the date given by the offical distributor beuth here.

If it is earlier available in english, Lucky you.

Regards,

TamTom

If it delayed beyond the 16th November, BSI will have problems. They are already booking workshops on the new standard for the 19th November.

If it delayed beyond the 16th November, BSI will have problems. They are already booking workshops on the new standard for the 19th November.

Workshops? What? How long could these workshops be? For an organisation promoting excellence, it doesn't half like to waste resource. I have read the table in the FDIS and this tells me all I need to know, which isn't a lot.

I was at an Industry Forum (SMMT) seminar recently and they covered the changes in one presentation slide - "Not a lot" springs to mind!

In Hong Kong yesterday, I heard it will be released on Nov 15 - is there any official date ?

I've just been offered a training course to allow me to understand the changes, here's the syllabus:

12:30 Introductions and objectives
12.45 Why change? - a review of the change process
13.00 Details of the changes
14.00 Coffee
14.15 Group exercises on the changes
15.00 Exercise review
16.00 ISO 9004 and the changes
16.10 How will certification bodies manage the changes?
16.20 Questions and answers
16:30 Summary and close The course will provide 4 hours of CPD and a certificate will be issued confirming that fact. Simple handouts will be supplied e.g. copies of the slides and exercises.

It only costs £90.

They forgot to point out that I could catch up with my sleep between 13:00 and 14:00 and do the Times crossword between 15:00 and 16:00. :sarcasm:

I really, really must try and curb these cynical tendencies.:(

They forgot to point out that I could catch up with my sleep between 13:00 and 14:00 and do the Times crossword between 15:00 and 16:00. :sarcasm:Of course, tyker we are dealing with an extraordinary intellect in your case. If only the whole of the 'ISO' population was so blessed ... ;)
Having just done a couple of update seminars recently I can only say some people got a lot of value out of it and, when challenged, there were a few who admitted that their current systems weren't fully compliant with 9k2k. Part of the purpose of the seminar.

I really, really must try and curb these cynical tendencies.:(What and lose the tyker we all know and love ... say it isn't so, Joe.

Workshops? What? How long could these workshops be? For an organisation promoting excellence, it doesn't half like to waste resource. I have read the table in the FDIS and this tells me all I need to know, which isn't a lot.As above. Some people still need the help. If all the transition of accreditation to 17021 is to have any value whatsoever then there needs to be a general raising of the game by CBs and, if my rough estimates are any good approximately 40% of certified organizations will have some significant work to do to become 9k2k compliant (and thereby meet 9k2008.

I was at an Industry Forum (SMMT) seminar recently and they covered the changes in one presentation slide - "Not a lot" springs to mind!Now it may be that the automotive industry is a long way ahead of all other industries but my guess (from memory of working in it) is that they have the same problems and a significant proportion of companies are not ISO compliant.


Here is the text of a letter in this month's Quality World in response to an article on the changes - there may be something of value amongst the usual drivel.

Firstly I enjoyed the article on ISO 9001, I thought it balanced, thought and debate provoking. Some input from those contributing to its content deserves critical review, however.

John Hele’s view that the 9001 / 2 / 3 series was ‘hopeless’ looks like an attempt to rewrite history from a perspective of 20:20 hindsight. 9001 followed the lead of BS 5750 and its AQAP predecessors in offering tailored standards based on scope of activity this was probably only through habit but the series wasn’t the dog’s dinner portrayed. You only have to search the many fora and bulletin boards out there to see people debate the ‘brave new world’ of a single standard allowing an organization to determine and claim exclusions to standard requirements. There is no consensus as to what is a justifiable exclusion and what is not.

I also don’t accept Mr. Hele’s view that the structure of earlier editions of 9001 made quality management systems difficult to implement. My experience of those times is that there were those who could effectively apply the standard and those that struggled. I also believe that, for those with the right attitude to preventive and corrective action, the continual improvement aim of 9001 / 2 / 3 was used to deliver an effective management system.

The move through 87, 94 and 00 editions of 9001 is a reflection of users’ changing approaches to quality over time. It is true the year 2000 edition ‘revolution’ now provides more flexibility for users but recent experience with dealing with quality professionals and working in a certification environment is that few organizations have taken advantage of the changes or have really grasped those eight quality management principles, in particular the process approach. This 2008 amendment provides another opportunity to look again at our quality management systems without pressures of certification transition deadlines to embrace those ‘new’ requirements from 2000.

John Seddon’s comments were entirely predictable but still deserve a response. His assertion of market coercion ignores the initial demand from industry for a standard as a means of demonstrating capability and quality assurance (as described in the article) and also the flexibility the standard offers to users in how to satisfy requirements. The comment that really tickled me, however, was: ‘if people didn’t buy it, it wouldn’t have taken off’. Is this in the same way that the Model T Ford and the iPod wouldn’t have been successes if they hadn’t sold well?

In Mr Stanger’s piece I didn’t agree that 9001 is at fault for not being the chosen vehicle for accreditation of laboratories, test houses or indeed certification bodies. I do believe, however, he has a valid point. Conformity assessment bodies have chosen to plough their own furrow and develop separate standards (the ISO IEC 17000 series) rather than take a sector scheme approach based on the core standard for management of quality – ISO 9001. I also agree with Mr Stanger that it has created confusion in the market place and that there are few that understand what exactly accreditation is.


A shotgun approach I appreciate but it was in response to a wide ranging article. :notme:

John Seddon’s comments were entirely predictable but still deserve a response. His assertion of market coercion ignores the initial demand from industry for a standard as a means of demonstrating capability and quality assurance (as described in the article) and also the flexibility the standard offers to users in how to satisfy requirements. The comment that really tickled me, however, was: ‘if people didn’t buy it, it wouldn’t have taken off’. Is this in the same way that the Model T Ford and the iPod wouldn’t have been successes if they hadn’t sold well?

Can I nominate that for quote of the month on the forum?

In case you guys haven't seen it, there is a free video from ISO (no copyright issues re: sharing) about the 9000 series. It is currently only available for download in FLV format:

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1174

They had links to a hi-res version, but they weren't working and were removed soon after I visited :(

I'll start another thread to see if anyone has a copy.

I've just been offered a training course to allow me to understand the changes, here's the syllabus:

12:30 Introductions and objectives
12.45 Why change? - a review of the change process
13.00 Details of the changes
14.00 Coffee
14.15 Group exercises on the changes
15.00 Exercise review
16.00 ISO 9004 and the changes
16.10 How will certification bodies manage the changes?
16.20 Questions and answers
16:30 Summary and close The course will provide 4 hours of CPD and a certificate will be issued confirming that fact. Simple handouts will be supplied e.g. copies of the slides and exercises.

It only costs £90.

They forgot to point out that I could catch up with my sleep between 13:00 and 14:00 and do the Times crossword between 15:00 and 16:00. :sarcasm:

I really, really must try and curb these cynical tendencies.:(

Why the concern? the company are clearly laying out the content of the course so you know what is in it and everyone has a free choice as to whether they attend or not. No-one is saying that you won't succeed if you don't attend a course. Clearly some people don't need the training but others feel they want to participate.

As Paul suggested, perhaps people may see this as an opportunity to amend their systems and do what they probably should have done in 2000 but never got around to it.

Hi,

90$, wow lucky you, so far I only find 400Eur, for the far very small changes, a 1 day training for 400 Eur.

And here in Germany the courses will be also in advance the offical release.

I read that the new 9001 booklet will contain a table which show the differences, for me this will be enough.

Regards,

Tamara

Thanks, Dirk. I should have explained myself better. I believe it is a "fiddler's charter" because the design brief speaks about no significant changes but plenty of examples of wishing to "align with iso 14001.2004" and ensuring definitions are correct - sounds like hours of work for the committee with precious little change to the standard.

A fiddler's charter is a licence to play around with, in this case, the standard.

Is fiddler's charter an official term?

Why the concern? the company are clearly laying out the content of the course so you know what is in it and everyone has a free choice as to whether they attend or not. No-one is saying that you won't succeed if you don't attend a course. Clearly some people don't need the training but others feel they want to participate.

As Paul suggested, perhaps people may see this as an opportunity to amend their systems and do what they probably should have done in 2000 but never got around to it.

My concern is that people who are not aware of the absence of change will believe that they need this training and will buy a copy of the new standard. They will be wasting their money.

My version of the course would be:
14:00 Hello, give me £90, have a cup of coffee.
14:05 The new standard was created to make money for the standards bodies and this course was designed to allow us to jump on the bandwagon.
14:07 There are no changes in requirements at all and you need do nothing.
14:08 The certification bodies will issue you a shiny new certificate after their next visit.
14:09 If you didn't understand ISO 9001:2000 you won't understand the 2008 version either. Would you like to buy a better course?
14:10 Goodbye

OK, I know I'm a cynic, but this standard and all the hangers on are perpetrating a con trick against industry and at a time when the spare cash just isn't there to waste.

If an organization hasn't grasped the principles laid down in the 2000 edition, thats a different issue and courses like this aren't the solution.

It makes really no sense to attend any training about the “new” standard!
To do this “new” standard, TC 176 should have made the standard in 2005/6 as it was supposed to be done!
:rolleyes:

It makes really no sense to attend any training about the “new” standard!
To do this “new” standard, TC 176 should have made the standard in 2005/6 as it was supposed to be done!
:rolleyes:

Revenue generator.....:frust:for some...

Stijloor.

My concern is that people who are not aware of the absence of change will believe that they need this training and will buy a copy of the new standard. They will be wasting their money.




I would expectmy certified clients to buy at least one copy of the new standard, and read it, and absorb the clarifications. I think you are overdoing it on that.

However, training is not required if they already have a good system. However, we trainers will continue to provide training on ISO. Now we will train to the new version is the only difference.

I would expectmy certified clients to buy at least one copy of the new standard, and read it, and absorb the clarifications. I think you are overdoing it on that.

However, training is not required if they already have a good system. However, we trainers will continue to provide training on ISO. Now we will train to the new version is the only difference.

Overdoing it! Me? :(

I'm sure most organizations working to ISO 9001 will buy a copy of the new standard.

However, I think I have enough information about the changes to justify not investing my employer's cash in a copy although I'm expecting a constructive discussion with our external auditor on the finer points of the document control requirements and how they apply to this standard.

Clearly, ISO 9001 training courses need to be updted to reference the new standard. It's those created to teach only the changes I have difficulty with.

Overdoing it! Me? :(

I'm sure most organizations working to ISO 9001 will buy a copy of the new standard.

However, I think I have enough information about the changes to justify not investing my employer's cash in a copy although I'm expecting a constructive discussion with our external auditor on the finer points of the document control requirements and how they apply to this standard.

Clearly, ISO 9001 training courses need to be updted to reference the new standard. It's those created to teach only the changes I have difficulty with.


I think it is reasonable to expect a company which is maintaining ISO certification to buy one copy of the new standard, even if the changes are minimal. I realize the economy is tough right now, but $40 is not going to chnage your world...?

I think it is reasonable to expect a company which is maintaining ISO certification to buy one copy of the new standard, even if the changes are minimal. I realize the economy is tough right now, but $40 is not going to chnage your world...?

The question isn't whether it's reasonable to expect companies to buy a copy of the amended standard, but whether it was reasonable to force the issue by publishing a new edition that is, in practical terms, no different from its predecessor.

I think it is reasonable to expect a company which is maintaining ISO certification to buy one copy of the new standard, even if the changes are minimal. I realize the economy is tough right now, but $40 is not going to chnage your world...?

In this case I'm going to be unreasonable.

Anyway, BSI charges £70 (US$110) for the present version and I doubt if the price will go down.

However, I think I have enough information about the changes to justify not investing my employer's cash in a copy although I'm expecting a constructive discussion with our external auditor on the finer points of the document control requirements and how they apply to this standard. constructive discussion?:biglaugh:

Indeed it would be interesting to hear from the registered organizations that decide not to purchase a copy of the 4th edition of ISO 9001, based on ISO's own declaration that the amended document brings no new requirements. And from external auditors who might decide to write them up, based on control of external origin documents.

A brave soul could approach the TC 176 and ask for an official interpretation (http://www.tc176.org/pdf/interp_guideline.pdf) on this. The question to be asked (so it can be answered in a yes/no fashion) is:
Are currently certified organizations (to ISO 9001:2000) required to obtain a copy of ISO 9001:2008 in order to transition it's certificate?

Background for the question. ISO announced (http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1152)that the amended document brings no new requirements. My organization sees no need to purchase the new document.

My concern is that people who are not aware of the absence of change will believe that they need this training and will buy a copy of the new standard. They will be wasting their money.

My version of the course would be:
14:00 Hello, give me £90, have a cup of coffee.
14:05 The new standard was created to make money for the standards bodies and this course was designed to allow us to jump on the bandwagon.
14:07 There are no changes in requirements at all and you need do nothing.
14:08 The certification bodies will issue you a shiny new certificate after their next visit.
14:09 If you didn't understand ISO 9001:2000 you won't understand the 2008 version either. Would you like to buy a better course?
14:10 Goodbye

OK, I know I'm a cynic, but this standard and all the hangers on are perpetrating a con trick against industry and at a time when the spare cash just isn't there to waste.

If an organization hasn't grasped the principles laid down in the 2000 edition, thats a different issue and courses like this aren't the solution.

I take your point, any training course should make it very clear that there are no new requirements, just amendments to the existing ones and you are right, if they didn't get it first time around, a half day course won't solve the problem.

As I understand it though, people are actually asking for these update courses so any training organisation is going to yes aren't they?

As I understand it though, people are actually asking for these update courses so any training organisation is going to yes aren't they?

I agree, and think you're being a bit overly cynical, Tyker. I don't see a problem with an organisation offering a course - they've clearly laid out the contents. A couple of my contacts in CBs (credible people) said they've had demand for such courses. I'd prefer to credit other people with the same intelligence and sense as we claim for ourselves. ie, let them decide whether they need it and whether it has value for them.

I don't think in this case a course (let alone a whole day) is necessary - but that's me. And yes, I'd give that advice to my clients. But I won't judge what other people need nor castigate an organisation for offering a course in a free market.

If you're worried about the cost, buy an electronic copy in Australia (after all, it's an International Standard).

Our $ makes that a very cheap alternative against the USD, Euro etc. :(

I don't think you're right about the number of procedures, but to steal a line from Shakespeare this revision will be "Much Ado About Nothing." The drafts so far have minor changes. Most registrars are being very forthright in saying retraining won't be required - I believe TS 176 has said the same but don't quote me on that - yet you already see the 29.95 heads up sessions from consulting companies. From what I've seen, the changes are very minor and unless you're brain dead you ought to be able to figure out the meaning.

When we were prepping for 9001:2000, I was with a major consulting firm (now I'm in the REAL WORLD) - and I taught classes all through the different drafts. The early drafts were great - I had hope!! It seriously got watered down over the course of the drafts and even after the DIS. So everyone, hang tight - Cheers:cool:

They are asking for training out of lack of understanding - tell them there is no substantial change and not to waste their money! That's our job. I wouldn't take a dime from a client who asked for retraining on this. I am sure you won't either

The question isn't whether it's reasonable to expect companies to buy a copy of the amended standard, but whether it was reasonable to force the issue by publishing a new edition that is, in practical terms, no different from its predecessor.

Far be it from me to cause trouble :bigwave: but I'm hearing the same thing from everyone here. We are the customers of this committee. We are users of this standard. Now the same old committee members will push this out with no value add, then tour the consulting circuit or write a book and make a bundle. I had to co-present with a couple of these guys, and I was quite frankly embarrassed (Mark censor me if you must but it's the truth!). TC 176 should do a better job of screening their committee members.

So what do we learn from this? Do we start a grass-roots effort to stop the nonsense with TC 176 and drive real improvement? How many hours were spent on this revision which says NOTHING??? Sorry - a little fired up. Quit smoking recently - :whip:

I take your point, any training course should make it very clear that there are no new requirements, just amendments to the existing ones and you are right, if they didn't get it first time around, a half day course won't solve the problem.

As I understand it though, people are actually asking for these update courses so any training organisation is going to yes aren't they?

Yes, I agree.:agree1:

I agree, and think you're being a bit overly cynical, Tyker. I don't see a problem with an organisation offering a course - they've clearly laid out the contents. A couple of my contacts in CBs (credible people) said they've had demand for such courses. I'd prefer to credit other people with the same intelligence and sense as we claim for ourselves. ie, let them decide whether they need it and whether it has value for them.

I don't think in this case a course (let alone a whole day) is necessary - but that's me. And yes, I'd give that advice to my clients. But I won't judge what other people need nor castigate an organisation for offering a course in a free market.

Overly cynical is me, unfortunately.:(

I don't agree that the syllabus clearly sets out that there are no real changes to train.

Where I do agree with both you and Colpart is that training providers will answer a demand from the market place, but what's the root cause of that demand?

Is it a lack of effective communication concerning the absence of change in ISO 9001?

Is it that the 2008 standard should never have been created, just treated as a minor amendment to the 2000 version?

Is it that some are genuinely concerned that they never implemented the 2000 changes properly and want a second go? (Some of the comments from Colpart and Paul Simpson might support that view). If so, other courses would be more appropriate.

I've tried to give up cynicism but TC 176 makes it difficult.:frust:

The question isn't whether it's reasonable to expect companies to buy a copy of the amended standard, but whether it was reasonable to force the issue by publishing a new edition that is, in practical terms, no different from its predecessor.


Oh, I agree with the general premise that the clarifications could have been handled with an advisory. However, that would cut into ISO's income form a new standard which I assume is used to support their continued operations.

My comment was directed toward Tyker's comment about not buying a copy of the new standard. I think that is unreasonable for a certified company. One copy at least should be acquired by all.

PS: I like the new quote in your profile...

My comment was directed toward Tyker's comment about not buying a copy of the new standard. I think that is unreasonable for a certified company. One copy at least should be acquired by all.

...

Sadly, I think most companies will buy a copy.

However, I have the year 2000 standard and have fully implemented its requirements, I have the FDIS, I have lots of other info on the changes.

Clearly you believe it would be a good thing for me to have a copy of the new standard but if you were my external auditor, would you issue a nonconformity if I didn't have it?

Sadly, I think most companies will buy a copy.

However, I have the year 2000 standard and have fully implemented its requirements, I have the FDIS, I have lots of other info on the changes.

Clearly you believe it would be a good thing for me to have a copy of the new standard but if you were my external auditor, would you issue a nonconformity if I didn't have it?

Your argument is that the information you have will allow you to meet the requirements. Yes, it probably could, if it is not defined as a controlled document in your QMS.

My argument is you are going to a lot of trouble to save $40. What are you communicating to your management and personnel about your "commitment" toward ISO and continual improvement. What are you inferring as to the value and importance of it? How do you think new people and new auditors will feel about a company too cheap to drop $40?

I could go on, but you get the gist of my view. I don't think an established company has to buy 50 copies and send people to upgrade training. But ISO moves on and I think you need to also.

Whether I would write an NC depends on how effective your implementation is, but I would put it at better than 50% chance.

Your argument is that the information you have will allow you to meet the requirements. Yes, it probably could, if it is not defined as a controlled document in your QMS.

My argument is you are going to a lot of trouble to save $40. What are you communicating to your management and personnel about your "commitment" toward ISO and continual improvement. What are you inferring as to the value and importance of it? How do you think new people and new auditors will feel about a company too cheap to drop $40?

I could go on, but you get the gist of my view. I don't think an established company has to buy 50 copies and send people to upgrade training. But ISO moves on and I think you need to also.

Whether I would write an NC depends on how effective your implementation is, but I would put it at better than 50% chance.

Do you normally ask to see the auditee's copy of the standard? I don't want to go off on a tangent here because there's there's another discussion thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=29331) dedicated to the topic, but I'm curious.

would you issue a nonconformity if I didn't have it?Note that one of the "clarifications" brought by ISO 9001:2008 has to do with the control of external origin documents:
f) to ensure that documents of external origin determined by the organization to be necessary for the planning and operation of the quality management system are identified and their distribution controlled, and
Based on all the official and public information related to ISO 9001:2008, I believe one can make a case that they don't need a copy.

Your argument is that the information you have will allow you to meet the requirements. Yes, it probably could, if it is not defined as a controlled document in your QMS.

My argument is you are going to a lot of trouble to save $40. What are you communicating to your management and personnel about your "commitment" toward ISO and continual improvement. What are you inferring as to the value and importance of it? How do you think new people and new auditors will feel about a company too cheap to drop $40?

I could go on, but you get the gist of my view. I don't think an established company has to buy 50 copies and send people to upgrade training. But ISO moves on and I think you need to also.

Whether I would write an NC depends on how effective your implementation is, but I would put it at better than 50% chance.


ISO 9001 is a controlled document in my system and its status will be correctly identified. It just won't be the latest edition. If other people in the organization used it, it could be a concern but I'm the only one who ever needs to.

What does it say about my company?
We're a bunch of cheapskates, perhaps.
Or just possibly we're doing our best to avoid waste and keeping our unnecessary costs down for our customer's benefit. We spend money when we can demonstrate a clear need and nobody in this organization would dare question my commitment.

Its not the amount of money I object to, its spending anything at all on this change and I'm not going to a lot of trouble, I'm not doing anything at all other than maintaining an awareness of the situation.

I don't know what the reaction of our audit body will be (which is why I am genuinely interested in your opinion), I'll find out at the next visit in mid-December.

In response to Jim's question. In my 3rd party auditing days, I did, on occasions, ask to see their copy of ISO 9001 when I was auditing the document control activity. It certainly wasn't a question that came up every visit.

In response to Jim's question. In my 3rd party auditing days, I did, on occasions, ask to see their copy of ISO 9001 when I was auditing the document control activity. It certainly wasn't a question that came up every visit.

The only time I can recall being asked by a third-party auditor was when an auditor didn't have his own copy with him and needed to use mine. :o

This could bite you if your customer requires your quality management system comply with the requirements of ISO 9001:2008. I have been asked by 2nd party auditors to produce a controlled copy of ISO 9001 standard based on his organizations requirements.

ISO 9001 is a controlled document in my system and its status will be correctly identified. It just won't be the latest edition. I would also like to add that ISO 9000, a NORMATIVE reference in ISO 9001, was re-issued in 2005. To the best of my knowledge, there was no Worldwide campaign forcing the users of ISO 9001 to get a copy of ISO 9000:2005. Why? Because the changes in that document were considered inconsequential. A "legal" precedent.

Your Honor, I rest my case.:tg:

Far be it from me to cause trouble :bigwave: but I'm hearing the same thing from everyone here. We are the customers of this committee. We are users of this standard. Now the same old committee members will push this out with no value add, then tour the consulting circuit or write a book and make a bundle. I had to co-present with a couple of these guys, and I was quite frankly embarrassed (Mark censor me if you must but it's the truth!). TC 176 should do a better job of screening their committee members.
If I can copy - Far be it from me to cause trouble :bigwave: Not only are we the customers of the committee we also form it! You and I have National standards making bodies who put forward 'experts' to represent them (and their country) on the committee. So not only are we standards users we are the developers. If you want to influence your country's position find out who represents the USA. Failing that carry on contributing and the likes of me will take the (international) view to committee meetings - we're not all partisan!

As for your other comments - I can't comment without you naming names (we've never shared a stage have we? :lol:). I for one have seen some committee representatives who I respect and have a lot of time for. ISO is a consensus process. We don't agree with all the decisions but abide by them.

So what do we learn from this? Do we start a grass-roots effort to stop the nonsense with TC 176 and drive real improvement? How many hours were spent on this revision which says NOTHING??? Sorry - a little fired up. Quit smoking recently - :whip:
Perhaps you could start a 'grass roots' to get people involved in ISO - if you have the time to spare for no pay!

As mentioned above ISO standards are a consensus process. There are many members of TC 176 who wanted more in the way of change but the majority prevails. Perhaps the minimal changes are an opportunity for those who haven't got their heads round the 2000 revision to make the changes to their quality approach.

Believe it or not some of us are critical of other covers approaches to quality management and compliance with ISO 9001.

Friends,

Can we please put this thing to bed? :tg:

Did William Shakespeare write: "Much ado about nothing?"

Stijloor.

Do you normally ask to see the auditee's copy of the standard? I don't want to go off on a tangent here because there's there's another discussion thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=29331) dedicated to the topic, but I'm curious.


Not usually. However, when there is an update, sometimes I ask. Usually, it is on the external document control list.

The real issue typically would arise when there is an issue with a new requirement. Imay ask them to review it in their copy of the standard to determine whether they were even aware of the requirement. It generally develops from there...

The goal is effective implementation, not the sale of books, of course.

Jim Q public here-

Just the mere fact that the Quality experts ( I honestly consider you folks experts) are in disagreement over to buy or not buy a copy of the standard tells me To run out and buy one as soon as possible cause now it is a potential "thing".

I could call my auditing company and ask them.

Conversation- Hello third party auditing body. Do I need to have a copy of the new standard?

Answer: yada yada yada, maybe, could be, all depends.

Wishful answer: Yes, and the reason why. No, and the reason why.

Friends,

Can we please put this thing to bed? :tg:

Did William Shakespeare write: "Much ado about nothing?"

Stijloor.Actually, Jan, I think this is a great discussion. And is not about nothing. Why should ISO and the TC 176 profit financially from spending a review cycle and releasing a product that does not significantly improve the previous generation? At least, they should have the courage to finish the sentence: ISO 9001:2008 has no new requirements and you are not obligated to get a copy if you (truly) complies with ISO 9001:2000.

This is not even a face lift.

Actually, Jan, I think this is a great discussion. And is not about nothing. Why should ISO and the TC 176 profit financially from spending a review cycle and releasing a product that does not significantly improve the previous generation? At least, they should have the courage to finish the sentence: ISO 9001:2008 has no new requirements and you are not obligated to get a copy if you (truly) complies with ISO 9001:2000.

This is not even a face lift.

I agree. Good points. I'll continue to watch...;)

Stijloor.

Do you normally ask to see the auditee's copy of the standard? I don't want to go off on a tangent here because there's there's another discussion thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=29331) dedicated to the topic, but I'm curious.
I would hope credible registrars will tell their clients no new training is required and provide their clients with the verbiage changes in an advisory. IMHO, since there are NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, why would you ding a company for this? At the end of the day, I expect VALUE from my registrar,. and if this is value, I'd be taking my business elsewhere. Don't tell me to waste money on a non-value added document just to prop up ECO 176. Arghhh - sorry to vent. Sometimes I miss the nicotine more than others. Reaching for a straw to chew on....Cheers

My argument is you are going to a lot of trouble to save $40. What are you communicating to your management and personnel about your "commitment" toward ISO and continual improvement. What are you inferring as to the value and importance of it? How do you think new people and new auditors will feel about a company too cheap to drop $40?
I'm sure I've written about this before but I have to say I believe Tyker is not talking about the actual practice but the principle. I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong. :D

The idea is not that anyone currently certified to 9k is not committed to the requirements - they have demonstrated that over the years - including having purchased a copy of the standard in the build up to the first system implementation / certification audit. The question is whether they should be required (please excuse the shouting) to spend more money for an amendment.

I have said elsewhere that I wouldn't insist on a copy of the 9k2008 standard being held. Actually there is nothing that says that a certified organization should hold a copy of the standard at all - unless it forms part of contractual terms.

We can't stop ourselves!!!

The question is whether they should be required (please excuse the shouting) to spend more money for an amendment.

I have said elsewhere that I wouldn't insist on a copy of the 9k2008 standard being held. You may not, but others will insist on it.

From this link (http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Quality/Quality-Products/BS-EN-ISO-9001-form-page/), you read: Customers will need the revised version of ISO 9001 in order to keep their certificates up to date.
I don't understand how a Standards Developing Body gets involved with Conformity Assessment policies....;)

You may not, but others will insist on it.

I don't understand how a Standards Developing Body gets involved with Conformity Assessment policies....;)

I'll pass the link to this thread to a contact - don't get me started on origins, though. I mean what has ship classification got to do with management systems? :D

I mean what has ship classification got to do with management systems? :DRule development for ship classification is a form of standardization.And a very successful one, by the way. We are approaching 200 years of the classification concept. But the classification folks don't tell their customers they must PURCHASE a copy of ISO 9001:2008 in order to keep their certs valid with the Certification Body side of the organization.

This is just to show that Standard Developers like to encroach on conformity assessment activities, because a standard which does not have a certification scheme associated with it, is destined to oblivion....such as ISO 9004, 10001, 10002, 10003, and all the others that comprise the documents under TC 176.

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1180


ISO today published ISO 9001:2008, the latest edition of the International Standard used by organizations in 175 countries as the framework for their quality management systems (QMS).
ISO 9001:2008, Quality management system – Requirements, is the fourth edition of the standard first published in 1987 and which has become the global benchmark for providing assurance about the ability to satisfy quality requirements and to enhance customer satisfaction in supplier-customer relationships.
ISO 9001:2008 contains no new requirements compared to the 2000 edition, which it replaces. It provides clarifications to the existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000 based on eight years’ experience of implementing the standard worldwide and introduces changes intended to improve consistency with the environmental management system standard, ISO 14001:2004.
All ISO standards – currently more than 17 400 – are periodically reviewed. Several factors combine to render a standard out of date, such as technological evolution, new methods and materials, new quality and safety requirements, or questions of interpretation and application. To take account of such factors and to ensure that ISO standards are maintained at the state of the art, ISO has a rule requiring them to be periodically reviewed and a decision taken to confirm, withdraw or revise the documents.
ISO/TC 176, which is responsible for the ISO 9000 family, unites expertise from 80 participating countries and 19 international or regional organizations, plus other technical committees. The review of ISO 9001 resulting in the 2008 edition was carried out by subcommittee SC 2 of ISO/TC 176.
This review has benefited from a number of inputs, including the following: a justification study against the criteria of ISO Guide 72:2001, Guidelines for the justification and development of management system standards; feedback from the ISO/TC 176 interpretations process; a two-year systematic review of ISO 9001:2000 within ISO/TC 176/SC2; a worldwide user survey carried out by ISO/TC 176/SC 2, and further data from national surveys.
ISO Secretary-General Alan Bryden commented: “The revised ISO 9001 results from a structured process giving weight to the needs of users and to the likely impacts and benefits of the revisions. ISO 9001:2008 is therefore the outcome of a rigorous examination confirming its fitness for use as the international benchmark for quality management.”
ISO/TC 176/SC 2 has also developed an introduction and support package (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/iso_9001_2008.htm) of documents explaining what the differences are between ISO 9001:2008 and the year 2000 version, why and what they mean for users. These documents are available on the ISO Web site.
Although certification of conformity to ISO 9001 is not a requirement of the standard, it is frequently used in both public and private sectors to increase confidence in the products and services provided by certified organizations, between partners in business-to-business relations, in the selection of suppliers in supply chains and in the right to tender for procurement contracts. Up to the end of December 2007, at least 951 486 ISO 9001:2000 certificates had been issued in 175 countries and economies.
ISO (which does not itself carry out certification) and the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) have agreed on an implementation plan (http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1152) to ensure a smooth transition of accredited certification to ISO 9001:2008. The details of the plan are given in a joint communiqué by the two organizations which is available on the ISO Web site.
ISO 9001:2008, Quality management system – Requirements, costs 114 Swiss francs and is available from ISO national member institutes (see the complete list (http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_members.htm) with contact details) and from ISO Central Secretariat through the ISO Store (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486) or by contacting the Marketing & Communication department (see right-hand column).

Its there finally :tg:

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1180

From www.iso.org:

The store is temporarily unavailable..

Guess I have to stand in line for my present...;)

Stijloor.

I agree. Good points. I'll continue to watch...;)

Stijloor.

Can I go home now? :lol:

Stijloor.

I don't understand how a Standards Developing Body gets involved with Conformity Assessment policies....;)Nicely dodged, Sidney. There is a general point here. Many CBs originate from standards bodies, some from ship classification, some trade associations others purely commercial bodies. Two questions:

Does it matter?
Is any one route better than another?


Rule development for ship classification is a form of standardization.And a very successful one, by the way. We are approaching 200 years of the classification concept. But the classification folks don't tell their customers they must PURCHASE a copy of ISO 9001:2008 in order to keep their certs valid with the Certification Body side of the organization.So what are DnV telling their certification customers? Is it material that there are 'Chinese walls' between the two parts of the business?

This is just to show that Standard Developers like to encroach on conformity assessment activities ....
Everyone who can wants to have their fingers in any pies where they feel they can get some benefit from influencing an outcome - standardization is not different - you have users, certifiers, standardizers, industry bodies and accreditors all trying to influence what goes in a particular standard and then trying to control how it is used. There are even national representatives out there who try to block international standardization efforts because they don't want it. My lips are sealed! :lol:

Plus ca change ...
... because a standard which does not have a certification scheme associated with it, is destined to oblivion....such as ISO 9004, 10001, 10002, 10003, and all the others that comprise the documents under TC 176.Again this has always been the case. Not all standards will directly recoup their development costs in standard sales.

The whole idea of standardization is to satisfy an 'industry' need in order to reduce costs going forward as people manufacture, operate to standards.

Now I'm not going to speak for the supporting guidance to 9001 like the ones you mentioned (that's another thread) but, even if they don't sell well there is an argument that they provide a lot of value.

If ship classification is such a wonderful experience in standardization, why do we have so many "standards" for shipbuilding, and not a one of them will recognize the others?:notme:

oops, sorry, one of my pet peeves, especially since one of the big names always gives us the same line..."our office here in the US is very understaffed, we don't know when we would be able to get back to you." Finally the customer asking us for that certification (maybe thinking that we were blowing smoke up their skirt?) called and asked, they got the same non-response. They waived the requirement in lieu of the shipbuilding certification we do have.

The store is temporarily unavailable.. Talk about planning of product realization, management of resources and preventive actions....:lmao:

Maybe they are trying to tell us you don't need a copy of the amended standard, after all something...:tg:

Talk about planning of product realization, management of resources and preventive actions....:lmao:

Maybe they are trying to tell us you don't need a copy of the amended standard, after all something...:tg:

I got in the store and purchased my copy.:agree1:

Stijloor.

:topic:If ship classification is such a wonderful experience in standardization, why do we have so many "standards" for shipbuilding, and not a one of them will recognize the others?There is hope (http://www.iacs.org.uk/publications/publications.aspx?pageid=4&sectionid=3)...especially since one of the big names always gives us the same line..."our office here in the US is very understaffed, we don't know when we would be able to get back to you." Finally the customer asking us for that certification (maybe thinking that we were blowing smoke up their skirt?) called and asked, they got the same non-response. They waived the requirement in lieu of the shipbuilding certification we do have.:mg: I wonder what would happen if that piece of information is brought up to the classification society headquarters....After all, most of the class societies are ISO 9001 certified. If I am not mistaken, it is a requirement (http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/explained/QSCS%20Reqs%20Iss%206%20public%20version.pdf) to be a member of IACS (http://www.iacs.org.uk/default.aspx).

The ISO 9000 FAQ (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/138402/755901/1069636/FAQs.html?nodeid=3554529&vernum=0) question # 67
67. My organisation fulfils the ISO 9001:2000 requirements. What do I need to do?

An organization who’s QMS fulfils the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 should check that they are following the clarifications introduced in the amended standard ISO 9001:2008.

ISO 9001:2008 has been developed in order to introduce clarifications to the existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000. It does not introduce additional requirements nor does it change the intent of the ISO 9001:2000 standard.
So, as long as an organization has a credible way to verify they are "following clarifications" :confused: introduced, they are covered....They don't need a copy of ISO 9001:2008. That is what ISO says....;)

Well, Sydney, I think that it would be a great thing if all the various shipbuilding certifications were accepted across the board. Just think what it would be like if there were a different ISO 9001 certification for each country.:mg: I can live with having stamps from various bodies, but the whole shipbuilding certification scheme....oh, wait, does scheme say it all?:notme:

Anyway, we've taken this off topic. Hopefully I'll be able to send a PO/check in next Monday for my 9001-2008.

In this case I'm going to be unreasonable.

Anyway, BSI charges £70 (US$110) for the present version and I doubt if the price will go down.

I hope nobody was misled by this post.
BSI has announced the price of the new version will be £80 (= US $120).

Thats inflation for you.:mg:

I hope nobody was misled by this post.
BSI has announced the price of the new version will be £80 (= US $120).

Thats inflation for you.:mg:

ASQ sent an announcement that they are charging $70 US for an electronic copy. The paper copy may be less, I did not see a price. The old one was $40.