Any news about the new version ?:)

I think Next Revisions to ISO 9001 - 2008 Addendum - 2010 Revision (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13399) has the most recent information. It's a bit far out yet.

The Design Specification for the ISO 9001:2008(?) amendment is attached.

I had a look at the design brief - not convinced anything will come of it - it seems to be a fiddler's charter.

A lot of the brief comes from the User Feedback survey that has been running - has anyone taken part or is it just the usual vocal minority involved on this important standard?

Hello Paul:

What is a "fiddler's charter?"

Thank you, Dirk

Hello Paul:

What is a "fiddler's charter?"

Thank you, Dirk
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.

Many thanks for your kind attention.

Let's see if the usual folks will mess around again ...:tg:

Can we make bets about the number of necessary written procedures will the new version of the standard will ask?
As we went from 18 in 1987, to 6 in 1994, my bet is zero...:rolleyes:

I am going to put all of my money on 6. I am going to bet that the next version of ISO 9001 will require 6 documented procedures since the Design Speciification for ISO 9001:2000 is for an Amendment where the impact is to be limited and no requirements should change.

From the Design Specification:

The following requirements shall apply to the amendment process:

· The model and process approach shall be maintained as defined in ISO 9001:2000 (see Sections 6.0 Model and 7.0 Structure).
· The amended standard shall remain generic and be applicable to all sizes and types of organization operating in any sector.
· The compatibility with ISO 14001:2004 shall be maintained and be enhanced, if possible.
· The consistency between ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 shall be maintained (see Section 5.0).
· The changes shall be restricted so that the impact of the amendment on the users is limited, and also that changes will only be introduced where there are clear benefits to users.
· The ISO 9001:2000 support package should be used to assist the writers in identifying issues for clarification.
· Drafts of the amended standard shall be subjected to verification against the design specification, and to validation by users


Regards,

Dirk

I had a look at the design brief - not convinced anything will come of it - it seems to be a fiddler's charter. A lot of the brief comes from the User Feedback survey that has been running - has anyone taken part or is it just the usual vocal minority involved on this important standard?

Hey Covers....we sure complain a lot about ISO!

So, let's just take over! He who shows up wins.

Anyone want to get it on? I probably have about a 30% chance of getting my company to sponsor me...but 3 to 5 Covers showing up to the ISO meetings could change everything.

My ISO 9000 doesn't have the word Quality in it...

Hello Caster:

I will meet you at the Dallas meeting in March. I already attend. One
thing we could have all done is respond to the User Feedback survey.

Regards,

Dirk

STANDARDS GROUP MEETING
March 19 – 23, 2006
Dallas, TX

HOTEL INFORMATION
Hilton Dallas/ Park Cities
5954 Luther Lane
Dallas, TX 75225
Reservation Phone: 214-368-0400
Guest Fax: 214-369-9571

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE (12/20–Revised)

MONDAY March 20, 2006
7:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Membership/ Marketing Team
10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Opening Plenary TAG to TC207
1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. ISO 22002 International TAG meeting
1:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. US TAG to ISO/TC 207 ST1
2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. ASQ Standards Committee
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Members Training

TUESDAY March 21, 2006
7:00 a.m. – 7:55 a.m. WG/TG/ST Leadership Training
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. TAG 207/Sub-TAG2 on Environmental Auditing
8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. US TAG to ISO/TC 69 SC/Z1 Statistics
8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. ISO 22002 International TAG meeting
9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. US TAG to ISO/TC 207 ST1
10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. US TAG to TC 207 WG6
11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Closing Plenary TAG to TC207
3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. ASQ Standards Group Council
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Members Training
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Standards Group Reception

WEDNESDAY March 22, 2006
7:00 a.m. – 7:55 a.m. WG/TG/ST Leadership Training
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Z1 QM EMJTG 19011
8:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. US TAG to ISO/TC 176
8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. ISO 22002 International TAG meeting
10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. TAG 176 SC3 TGs
11:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. TAG 176 TG 9001/4

THURSDAY March 23, 2006
8:00 a.m. – 3:00p.m. US TAG to ISO/TC 176

How can ISO9000 be published before ISO9001? :biglaugh:

Also see these discussion threads:

When will the next major revision of ISO 9001:2000 come out? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=10465)
Next Revisions to ISO 9001 - 2008 Addendum - 2010 Revision (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13399)
Will ISO 9001 be modified in 2008? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12112)

The Design Specification for the ISO 9001:2008(?) amendment is attached.I got my hands in the WD (Working Draft) version of the ISO 9001:2008, dated 2006-03-02. The "changes" are so minor compared to the 2000 Edition that makes you wonder the need for all the TC 176 SC2 and TAGs meetings.....:notme:

The meetings give 'em all neat places to visit out of the main stream of things.

The meetings give 'em all neat places to visit out of the main stream of things.A few years ago when the TC 176 met in San Francisco, DNV sponsored a dinner. I had a chance to rub shoulders with some of the TC 176 Big Kahunas and one of them confided that ISO is really an acronym for International Sightseeing Organization....http://elsmar.com/gif/buba.gif

Hello Randy and Sidney:

You guys are absolutely right on the sightseeing thing. The meeting in Dallas in the spring was awesome. It was in a suburb. I got to see a drug store and a couple of resturants. It was gorgeous. I got to see these tourist attractions in the evening after the meetings.

In a couple of weeks I get to see Washignton DC. I hear DC is awesome in the middle of August. Hot and humid.

Maybe the sight seeing is done at the international meetings?

I haven't been to one TAG meeting that gave me the impression that the location was chosen for tourism and sightseeing. Maybe I am missing something?

Regards,

Dirk

In a couple of weeks I get to see Washignton DC. I hear DC is awesome in the middle of August. Hot and humid.
I was there last week. While you're sightseeing, don't forget to check out the traffic on I-66, the outer loop, and every other road in the area. It's great how the locals keep the speed down to give tourists the opportunity to look at the scenery at a leisurely pace.

I got my hands in the WD (Working Draft) version of the ISO 9001:2008, dated 2006-03-02. The "changes" are so minor compared to the 2000 Edition that makes you wonder the need for all the TC 176 SC2 and TAGs meetings.....:notme:

Sidney please post the a link to the draft or add as an attachment.

Thanks!!!

Sidney please post the a link to the draft or add as an attachment.

Thanks!!!Sorry, but the document is copyrighted. Can not be distributed here.

Apparently, the 4th Edition of ISO 9001 will not be released in 2008 anymore. Looks like summer of 2009 is the likely target for the amendment, which, by design, was supposed only to "clarify" the requirements of the current 3rd Edition.

The delay has (allegedly) been decided during the last meeting in Ireland.

Apparently, the 4th Edition of ISO 9001 will not be released in 2008 anymore. Looks like summer of 2009 is the likely target for the amendment, which, by design, was supposed only to "clarify" the requirements of the current 3rd Edition.

The delay has (allegedly) been decided during the last meeting in Ireland.

As I'm understanding the several threads on this topic...

2008 (or 2009 now) is an amendment
where a full revision should be released in 2010

is that the gist of it or am I off base here?

As I'm understanding the several threads on this topic...

2008 (or 2009 now) is an amendment
where a full revision should be released in 2010

is that the gist of it or am I off base here?There will be no 2010 revision. 2009 is now the target date for the amendment to be released. Based on the design specification (already posted), the next Edition of ISO 9001 should only bring MINOR clarifications to the document. No earth-shattering, ground breaking (e.g. process based QMS), radical changes. TC 176 learned (?) a lesson with the response to the changes in 2000. Worldwide procrastination by certified organizations to make the move from the 1994 to the 2000 Edition. A lot of negative feedback. Could it be simply resistance to change? They really don't want to rock the ISO9000 boat twice in a row....http://www.flashplayer.com/forum/images/smilies/swoon.gif

After the 2009 Edition, 2014 is the likely target for the 5th Edition of ISO 9001.

PS. Based on my understanding, there are some TC 176 members that would like to see more substantial changes to ISO 9001:2009. And they are fighting to make changes to the document that go beyond the design specification stipulation.

Attached is the TC176 communique' giving us an update of the discussions concerning the revision to ISO 9001 and 9004.

Also see: When will the new ISO 9001 version will be issued? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=20204)

and

Next Revisions to ISO 9001 - 2008 Addendum - 2010 Revision (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13399)

I received an information of ASQ that today 16th of February we could get free the CD1 version of ISO 9001:2009.
This was the information:

“The draft standards are not yet available for download. We expect to post the document February 16, 2007. To receive e-mail notification that the draft PDF is ready, please fill out the request form.”

I filled the “requested form” and I’m still waiting...
Does anyone have received any further information?
Thanks!

The CD ISO 9001:2009 draft is now avialiable thru ASQ for download. Pls. share with us. Thanks.

I’ve already made de download of both CD1 versions and even considering this a preliminary stage of the standards development, we may reach easily to some conclusions.
ISO 9001 will have minor, but important changes. For example one I approve is in requirements 8.5.2 f) / 8.5.3 f) it was added “reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective/preventive action taken.
ISO 9004 is completely new, is no longer following the same index as ISO 9001and it seems very useful!

Here's the link to download the draft versions from ASQ:

http://www.asq.org/quality-press/display-item/index.pl?item=T843E

I believe you have to be logged in as a member to complete the checkout process...

I will be making a presentation about the ISO 9001 and 9004:2009 documents to the Silicon Valley ISO Users Group, March 20th. (https://www.asq-silicon-valley.org/iso-grp/index.html)

Hiya, it seems that to become the ASQ member, we need to pay. ANyone here downloaded a copy? Maybe you can uploaded and share with us here.

Thank you

The download is free, you just need to follow the steps as though you were going to buy it. There is no cost.

Yea, i know the download is FREE but before we can download anything from ASQ, we need to register as a member first, am i right?

To be ASQ member we need to pay, rite?

Please help... Thanks..

You can register as a customer without paying anything, just put in your details and you can logon with your email address and password.:)

Yea, i am downloading it right now... Hehehe.. :) Many thanks for your help. You guys are great! :)

Well, I've had chance to browse the content of CD 1 and think they have done a decent job, given that the remit was to clarify points rather than add or take away content.

I particularly like that it has clarified the fact that statutory and regulatory requirements are those relating to the product - (0.1 General) and not every requirement existing. I also like the statement that a single document may contain the requirements for 1 or more procedures.

I am not sure why the definition of supplier - organisation - customer has been removed though.

Overall, I would have liked to have seen more changes but I can live with those being proposed. At least the transition for organisations should be pretty painless and - more importantly - inexpensive.

Agree with Colin. The draft looks like a general clean up job.

I haven't been over it with my CB but it looks like a "no extra time - assess during routine visit" type process.

Looks like I won't be able to sell my consultancy services on the back of this change, either! :lol:

I believe the supplier - organization - customer bit is being taken out becaue this was a significant clarification from the 1994 version to the 2001 version. Now that those items are defined in ISO 9001:2005, there is less of a need to define them in ISO 9001:2009.

I am not defending this action. I wish they would leave the description of those terms in the standard. I think it is very helpful.

Regards,

Dirk

BSI will be holding a webinar on the proposed changes on 17 April 2007.
Details on:
www.bsi-uk.com/Webinars07/index.xalter
I'm not sure if this only works in the UK.

BSI will be holding a webinar on the proposed changes on 17 April 2007.
Details on:
www.bsi-uk.com/Webinars07/index.xalter (http://www.bsi-uk.com/Webinars07/index.xalter)
I'm not sure if this only works in the UK.I will be holding a webinar on the 19th of April at 1 PM CDT. (http://readycommconf.com/dnv/register.php?event=270)

As a member of the US TAG, I find this discussion to be very amusing. Where do some of you get your information?

ISO 9000:2005 has already been released.

ISO 9001:2009 will be revised to include clarifications ONLY -- mainly from the already published interpretations. This standard is still at the CD stage, so it's a little early for webinars.

ISO 9004:200X is being completely re-written. Lord knows when there will be international agreement on it. In February, the US TAG approved a version drafted by Jack West and myself. This will be submitted to SG 2 of T/C 176.

All but 1 or 2 CBs do not participate on the TAG, so any information from a CB auditor should be taken with a grain of salt.

As a member of the US TAG, I find this discussion to be very amusing. Welcome aboard, Bear41. Glad you find us so amusing.
Where do some of you get your information? Here, mainly.

We rely on the quality of the posts and jump on those that give inaccurate information.

ISO 9000:2005 has already been released.

ISO 9001:2009 will be revised to include clarifications ONLY -- mainly from the already published interpretations. This standard is still at the CD stage, so it's a little early for webinars. Why not start early on? As far as I am concerned the earlier we, as consultants, auditors, implementers, get to understand any implications the better so as not to be caught by surprise. Mostly we get information through a forum like this but if the kind contributers point at webinars they are holding then I am grateful.

ISO 9004:200X is being completely re-written. Lord knows when there will be international agreement on it. In February, the US TAG approved a version drafted by Jack West and myself. This will be submitted to SG 2 of T/C 176. Perhaps you can add some real value to your contribution by posting what "You and Jack" think ISO 9004 should be.

All but 1 or 2 CBs do not participate on the TAG, so any information from a CB auditor should be taken with a grain of salt.Many CBs are active through their standards committees. I take your point about some CB auditors but some others are quite knowledgeable (and amusing!).

Some people are so easily amused.

I'm sure we all appreciate Bear41 letting us know that ISO 9000 was reissued a couple of years ago. I must get round to buying a copy some year.

Most of us are concerned about 9001 which will have knock on effects on TS16949 and others.
This thread is mainly about the 2009 revisions. I've expressed concern elsewhere on this forum that the revisions to the standard seem to be more of a money grabbing exercise by the standards bodies than a value adding exercise for their customers. Perhaps Bear41 could share with us the benefits perceived by the authors which would justify relieving us of our hard earned £ $ etc for the correction of the ambiguities created in 2000. If the changes really are so trivial, will they be published as a free of charge correction or amendment?

ISO 9001:2009 will be revised to include clarifications ONLY -- mainly from the already published interpretations. This standard is still at the CD stage, so it's a little early for webinars.When I start my webinar, I will let people know that some protest it:tg: . As some have already asked. The Design Specification (which I posted here at the Cove) for the ISO 9001:20089 calls for clarifications only. So, why is it that it takes so many TC and TAG meetings to reach consensus on minor clarifications? Further, at the second to the last meeting in Ireland, the French and New Zealand delegation made a point that, following the ISO TC 176 pace, we would have to wait until 2020 to see (possibly) real changes to the ISO 9001 document. In other words, the Standard would have been "untouched" for 2 decades. Can you inform us what was decided in the Busan meeting about that motion?

And, please, do keep us informed. That is the spirit of this Forum. I am glad you found it.

Hello Bear41:

Do you tell your customers that their converstations are "amusing?" Please clarify what is amusing so I can be amused too.

The users of management system standards (Cove members included) are customers of the TAG. In this forum, you are writing to your customers.

If users of management system standards are mis-informed, then I assume that you are concerned about the ISO/TAG methods for supporting awareness and competency of the users. Or is it a problem with the users and not the process of providing information?

Is it wrong for users of quality management systems to learn about the process and content of a standard change? If so, why did the ASQ / US Standards Group post the CD of 9001 to the public? Do you think the general public should not be aware of potential clarifications to 9001?

How does your posting support the Principles of Consensus that the US TAG is expected to follow?

Thank you,

Dirk

Can you inform us what was decided in the Busan meeting about that motion? The answer to my question is available in the attached document. That means, unless there is a change in the way the TC 176 operates, after the 2009 issuance of the ISO 9001 amendment, the TC 176 will start deliberating on the fifth edition of ISO 9001 around 2014. So, it could be 2020 before we see an ISO 9001 with changes compared to the 2000 Edition. I am not saying it is good or bad. Just a statement of a fact.

The TC 176 Strategic Plan 2010 Horizon document can be downloaded. (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/6069930/N896_Communique_for_ISO_TC_176_Meeting_Busan_Korea_Nov_2006.pdf?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=6069930)

....So, it could be 2020 before we see an ISO 9001 with changes compared to the 2000 Edition.

That said, some of us will be dead, or at least retired, by 2020.... :notme:

That’s precisely what I said today at the office. As ISO 9001:2009 is going to be almost like 2K version, we are not going to have to study any new version of ISO 9001...
That’s going to be younger people job...:whip:

I removed my posting.

Any news??
Of course :cool:
Today we have one new information from ISO
Current status of new version of ISO 9001 - CD approved for registration as DIS (stage date: 2007-06-15, publication target date: 2008-10-31)

Any news??
Of course :cool:
Today we have one new information from ISO
Current status of new version of ISO 9001 - CD approved for registration as DIS (stage date: 2007-06-15, publication target date: 2008-10-31):confused:Thanks for the news, but do you have a source for it? My understanding is that TC 176 was deliberating on CD2, not the DIS version. Also, the 2008 publication target conflicts with previous announcements that it would not be until 2009 for the release of ISO 9001 fourth Edition. I did not see anything in the ISO nor the TC176 websites.

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=46486&scopelist=PROGRAMME

This is the new status of ISO9001 project. Yesterday status was: 30.00 - "Committee draft (CD) registered", today status is 30.99 - "CD approved for registration as DIS". It is probably the effect of ISO TC 176 meeting 11-15.06.2007.
I don't know what mean "Publication target date: 2008-10-31"

So, how is this possible when at ASQ they say version CD2 is going to be released in September and the standard is going to be published only on mid 2009?
Is ISO working harder and fast than they predicted?
:notme:

Is ISO working harder and fast than they predicted?That is unlikely. Maybe the TC176 just came to their senses that the "changes" to ISO 9001 are so minuscule that they really don't need prolonged deliberations. Who knows? There might be some common sense at work...

On a related note, I see that 9004:2009 status is 30.92, CD referred back to Working Group.

Publication target date for ISO 9001: 2008-10-31
Publication target date for ISO 9004: 2009-08-31
Interesting. Is it possible that ISO 9001 will be published 1 year earlier then ISO 9004?

Is it possible that ISO 9001 will be published 1 year earlier then ISO 9004?Yes. Remember that ISO 9000 was amended in 2005! There is no stipulation that 9001 and 9004 must be revised simultaneously. What surprises me is the fact that none of this is being announced anywhere. Looks like The Cove is doing some investigative reporting, a la 60 Minutes. :tg:

Good going, Peters.:agree1:

Now we have "official" confirmation that the TC176 decided to skip the CD2 step and the document has now been staged as DIS. We are now back to 2008 as the target date for release of ISO 9001, Fourth Edition.

This link (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/138402/755901/1069636/Activities.html?nodeid=3554104&vernum=0)provides additional information.

After lengthy deliberations, it was agreed that the work on the amendment to ISO 9001:2000 had reached the point of maturity where it should advance to the Draft International Standard stage, and should not be circulated as a second Committee Draft (CD).

In contrast, the work on revising ISO 9004:2000 is proving to be a more difficult task, involving a complete re-writing of the standard to address "Managing for sustainable success – a quality management approach". Many ideas and approaches are being proposed and discussed, and it is taking a little longer to mature. As a result, it was agreed that a second CD of ISO 9004 will be issued for review and comment, and then after incorporating these comments a 3rd CD will be issued for ballot.

These pragmatic decisions were based on the progress of the work; however they have one major consequence, which is the two standards will no longer follow concurrent development paths. The next edition of ISO 9001 is expected to achieve publication around October 2008, whereas the next edition of ISO 9004 is not expected until August 2009.

As ISO 9001 seems to be ready almost one year that ISO 9004, there goes the “consistent pair” stated in 0.3 of ISO 9001:2000...
:notme:

As ISO 9001 seems to be ready almost one year that ISO 9004, there goes the “consistent pair” stated in 0.3 of ISO 9001:2000...Just because they are scheduled to be published one year apart, it does not mean they would be inconsistent, but I believe that ISO TC 176 will start to de-emphasize the "consistent pair" aspect between 9001 and 9004. Clearly they want to make 9004 a maturity-model type document and I believe that the gap between 9001 and 9004 will increase significantly. Remember that 9004 will no longer contain the text of 9001, if the 9004 CD1 document is a reliable indicator of the 9004:2009 final product.

I am still confuse here... DOes this mean that the new version of ISO 9001 is ISO 9001: 2008?

I am still confuse here... DOes this mean that the new version of ISO 9001 is ISO 9001: 2008?
Publication 'Target' Dates:

ISO 9001: 2008-10-31
ISO 9004: 2009-08-31

Just been on the BSI site. They seem to have a later date. Here (http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Current-work/ProjectLine-Search-Results/?pg=1&projectid=00049599&searchkey=natcomXeqXQS/1)

Based on ISO site

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=46486&scopelist=PROGRAMME

So who is right?

So who is right?
2008 ISO:argue:BSI 2009
I placed my bet.

So who is right?

Sidney is right, you can bet your money anywhere you like. There is no right or wrong, the standard will be published when it is ready.

The point of my post was that there is a difference of opinion. :mg:

Perhaps a case of glass half full, glass half empty?

Is it possible to get a draft6 DIS of 9001:2008? If so, can you tell me where?

GMAC49

You guys are GREAT! Thanks for the updated information... :agree1:

Aiks... Which source is more reliable? As a ISO consultant firm, we need to have the first hand information in order to brief our customer...

I was so certain to tell my boss that the new revision is 2008, now they come out two different oppinion.. Yickes... Heheheh... :o

The news from the ISO TC 176 are very fresh. There is no reason to question the 2008 date as the correct one. The conflicting information in the BSi website is probably due to lack of prompt updating.

The news from the ISO TC 176 are very fresh. There is no reason to question the 2008 date as the correct one. The conflicting information in the BSi website is probably due to lack of prompt updating.
I'm not going to get into an argument about which is the more reliable source of a best guess. :lol:

What is not in question is how up to date the two sites are. ISO states 2007-06-15 as the stage date and BSI states 2007.06.26. Since the BSI committee shadows ISO it is not surprising their stage date is later - the only surprising thing is the difference in estimated publication. I will try and find out from my contact.

... Since the BSI committee shadows ISO it is not surprising their stage date is later - the only surprising thing is the difference in estimated publication. I will try and find out from my contact. Just had confirmation from BSI the ISO date is correct and Sidney was right - the different estimates are because the web content is out of date (although it has been updated with the stage date! :bonk: )

For those who could not attend my webinar on the upcoming changes to the ISO 9001:2008 Standard, the presentation can be viewed via this link (http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/svianna-10516-upcoming-changes-iso-9001-2008-standard-9004-revision-9001and-business-finance-ppt-powerpoint/). Please note that you have a full screen view option, which makes for much easier reading of the text.

From 2007-08-18 new status of ISO 9004. It's Status 30.20 - CD study/ballot initiated.
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=41014&scopelist=PROGRAMME

Thanks Sidney, Great prezzo - thanks also for the tip about full-screen which makes it much easier.

ISO 9001:2008 in status 40.00
DIS Registered!
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486

You can buy ISO/DIS 9001 form ISO page
Cost CHF 64,00
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486
Stage 40.20 (DIS ballot initiated: 5 months)

It will be interesting to see if ASQ allows for the FREE download of the document, like they did with the Committee Draft 1 version. If ISO is selling it, I doubt ASQ will be so generous to forfeit revenue streaming from the document...

If it´s still not a standard, why should there be a cost for it?

I´ve always wondered and questioned why we have to pay for standards... in a way, these standards are the laws to which we need to abide by (make our products according to an API or ASME/ANSI standard, or structure our QMS according to an ISO standard...) these standards we should abide by and pay for....

I don´t have to buy the American Constitution or the Brazilian Civil Law to know that I should not kill anyone.... I can simply download it legally.

:confused:

Standards should be public domain.... I´m sure this has been discussed previously but needed to get it off my chest :mad:

It would be interesting to see the difference in pricing for the same standard in countries around the globe. I realise that 'cost of living' distorts things but it may be of interest.

It would be interesting to see the difference in pricing for the same standard in countries around the globe. I realise that 'cost of living' distorts things but it may be of interest.

Here in Brazil, ISO 9001:2000 costs the equivalent of about US$ 32,00...

It will be interesting to see if ASQ allows for the FREE download of the document, like they did with the Committee Draft 1 version. If ISO is selling it, I doubt ASQ will be so generous to forfeit revenue streaming from the document...


Sidney,

Don’t expect that!
I even wonder why they made CD1 free for members.
I’m an ASQ member since 96 and I don’t recall to seeing it happened before...
:rolleyes:
..........

ISO 9001:2000 costs here in Portugal 35 €.
As the Euro is rising up everyday, today it’s more or less 25 USD
http://www.ipq.pt/custompage.aspx?modid=0&pagid=1250&TPA=C&ncert=70397

"ISO 9001 and 9004 Updates
Originally slated for release on the same day, the ISO 9001 and 9004 quality standards are now scheduled to be released one month apart. The development of the ISO 9001 standard has been running ahead of schedule, which should allow for a July 2009 publish date. While it isn’t moving along as quickly, the ISO 9004 standard development is still on schedule to be released in August 2009"

ASQ Weekly. 03.10.2007

"ISO 9001 and 9004 Updates
Originally slated for release on the same day, the ISO 9001 and 9004 quality standards are now scheduled to be released one month apart. The development of the ISO 9001 standard has been running ahead of schedule, which should allow for a July 2009 publish date. While it isn’t moving along as quickly, the ISO 9004 standard development is still on schedule to be released in August 2009"

ASQ Weekly. 03.10.2007Antonio, you are disseminating bad information. Check the Is the caliber of ASQ employees going downhill? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=23948) thread. That information is W-R-O-N-G.

what is the frequency of ISO 9001 std version change?
5 year, 8 year, 10 year?:confused:

what is the frequency of ISO 9001 std version change?
5 year, 8 year, 10 year?:confused:

Have a look at one of the answers given to you (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=179488&postcount=7) in one of your previous post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=179475&postcount=6).

Dear Sidney,

I just posted what they sent me.
And I’m used to believe in what ASQ usually writes, and this is somehow different from the schedule of releasing of ISO 9001, I think I was nice to spread it.
I’m sorry for the bad information!
:(

It will be interesting to see if ASQ allows for the FREE download of the document, like they did with the Committee Draft 1 version. If ISO is selling it, I doubt ASQ will be so generous to forfeit revenue streaming from the document... From http://www.asq.org/quality-press/display-item/index.html?item=T852E&author=ISO/DIS%209001

ISO/DIS 9001: Quality management systems - Requirements

http://www.asq.org/cms_prd_consump/groups/public/documents/web_asset/imgbookestandards.jpg This document is not intended to be used for quality system design purposes. As a committee draft, the standard is only meant for review.

This International Standard specifies requirements for a quality management system where an organization:
a) needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product that meets customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and
b) aims to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of the system, including processes for continual improvement of the system and the assurance of conformity to customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.


PDF. File Size 274 KB. 29 pages. 2007 Item: T852E
Member Price: $50.00
List/Forum-Division Price: $50.00

From http://www.asq.org/quality-press/display-item/index.html?item=T852E&author=ISO/DIS%209001

Seems like they've come up with a good way to discourage input from the unwashed masses.

Seems like they've come up with a good way to discourage input from the unwashed masses.At this "late" stage, I doubt they (TC 176) want any additional input. Actually, I believe, they would like to curb any input that would signify any major re-thinking. As previously reported, during the TC 176 meeting in Ireland, in 2006, some voices (France and New Zealand delegations included) dissented from the path ISO 9001 4th Edition was taking, with basically no changes, compared to the 2000 version. That signifies that, we might have an ISO 9001 document, virtually unchanged for almost 2 decades, i.e., 2000-2018/20. By "solidifying" the draft into a DIS, you quash prolonged philosophical discussions about structural changes to the document. The process is extremely political.

If they (ASQ, ISO, etc...) allowed for free download of the DIS, they know that they would forfeit a significant income, because, historically, the DIS is very similar to the IS (International Standard), so people would not have to buy the 2008 Version of ISO 9001, once released. It is an economically-driven decision.

Is it the intention to go from DIS direct to IS without a FDIS?

Is it the intention to go from DIS direct to IS without a FDIS?No, I don't think so. The FDIS is still on the schedule. In this link (http://www.sjac.or.jp/jaqg/9100milestones_2009rephase.pdf), you can visualize how the development of AS9100 Rev. C was supposed to follow the TC 176 schedule for ISO 9001:2009 2008.

Antonio, you are disseminating bad information. Check the Is the caliber of ASQ employees going downhill? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=23948) thread. That information is W-R-O-N-G.

Sorry, Sidney. Did I miss something? Or are you saying ASQ is wrong? :lol:

Or are you saying ASQ is wrong? Hummm, let's see. http://www.ugoplayer.com//forum/images/smilies/confused2.gif

ISO 9001/DIS (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486) Target publication date: 2008-10-31
ISO/CD 9004 (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=41014) Target publication date: 2009-08-31

You do the math.

Hummm, let's see. http://www.ugoplayer.com//forum/images/smilies/confused2.gif

ISO 9001/DIS (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486) Target publication date: 2008-10-31
ISO/CD 9004 (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=41014) Target publication date: 2009-08-31

You do the math.

I can see my weak attempt at sarcasm has fallen down ....:tg:

I can see my weak attempt at sarcasm has fallen down ....I got it, but remember that hundreds of millions of future Covers might not realize the connection between the two threads. Further, the extremist faction of ASQ membership should have the evidence at hand, before they accuse me of blasphemy, heresy or something along those lines.

At this "late" stage, I doubt they (TC 176) want any additional input.
Had I thought about it for a second before blurting out a response I would have realized that. :bonk:

Is it the intention to go from DIS direct to IS without a FDIS?
Try reading that sentence aloud, 5 times, very quickly! ;)

I can see my weak attempt at sarcasm has fallen down ....:tg:


Paul, Paul, Paul! You should know by now that only folks with a large karma can get away with that and not the low karma folks like you and me.:sarcasm::lol:

I can see my weak attempt at sarcasm has fallen down ....:tg:

Maybe this new emoticon would have helped: :sarcasm:

:lol::lmao:

Maybe this new emoticon would have helped: :sarcasm:

:lol::lmao:

Oooh! Now that is one I can use.

Because, as you know all my posts are written with complete sincerity.
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Does an emoticon wear out with overuse?

Now all we need is the "tongue in cheek emoticon and I'm set! :lmao:

Does an emoticon wear out with overuse?
No, but, in my experience, sarcasm is one of those ingredients that should be used very carefully and parsimoniously. Sarcasm overdose is counterproductive and generally backfires.

No, but, in my experience, sarcasm is one of those ingredients that should be used very carefully and parsimoniously. Sarcasm overdose is counterproductive and generally backfires.

Agreed - but it is an art wielded (in general) with much more grace and subtly by the English, than our US cousins.

I've been searching for Alexi Sayle's skit from 'The Young Ones' but couldn't find it, so paraphrasing...

"I love sarcasm...yesturday this bloke walked up to me and said "Nice day in' it", but it wasn't. It was raining a little bit, see he was being sar--cars--tic...so I punched his ****ing head in"

I decided to go ahead and purchase the ISO 9001:2008 DIS document. Being an ASQ member, I thought of buying it via ASQ, for US$50.00, instead of shelling 64 CHF to Geneva. Well.....much to my surprise, ASQ does not allow the purchaser of the document to print it:mg:. Actually, the terms you are required to concur with are mind boggling <see below>. Too much dysfunction for me. ISO allows me to print one copy of the document, at least. So a fool parts with 64 CHF....

END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

YOU CANNOT PRINT OR RETURN E-STANDARDS


IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY BEFORE DOWNLOADING OR COPYING TO YOUR COMPUTER ANY FILE(S) CONTAINED HEREWITH.
THE FILE(S) AND OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREWITH ARE COPYRIGHTED. BY DOWNLOADING ANY FILE PROVIDED HEREWITH TO YOUR COMPUTER, YOU ARE ACCEPTING AND AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, PRIOR TO DOWNLOADING OR COPYING ANY FILE(S) TO YOUR COMPUTER, YOU MUST DECLINE ACCESS TO SUCH MATERIALS.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE: Subject to the provisions contained herein and to the payment of all applicable fees, the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Quality Press grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to the materials contained herewith (the "Product"). Your licensed rights to the Product are limited to the following:
(a) This License Agreement does not convey to you an interest in or to the Product, but only a limited right of use revocable in accordance with the terms of this License Agreement.
(b) You may install one copy of the Product on, and permit access to it by, a single computer owned, leased or otherwise controlled by you. In the event that computer becomes dysfunctional, such that you are unable to access the Product, you may transfer the Product to another computer, provided that the Product is removed from the computer from which it is transferred and the use of the Product on the replacement computer otherwise complies with the terms of this Agreement. Neither concurrent use on two or more computers nor use in a local area network or other network is permitted. You shall not print, merge, adapt, translate, modify, rent, lease, sell, sublicense, assign or otherwise transfer any of the Product, or remove any proprietary notice or label appearing on any of the Product. You may copy the Product only for backup purposes.
(c) You acknowledge and agree that the Product is proprietary to the Copyright holder, ASQ Quality Press, identified on the front page of the Product, and is protected under U.S. copyright law and international copyright treaties. You further acknowledge and agree that all rights, title and interest in and to the Product, including all intellectual property rights, are and shall remain with ASQ.
(d) You shall provide ASQ or any designee of ASQ with all information necessary to assure compliance with the terms of this Agreement. In the event you are not in compliance with the terms of this Agreement through the actions of unrelated third parties, you shall use your best efforts to cooperate with ASQ and any of its designees to assure compliance.
2. LIMITED WARRANTY:
(a) ASQ warrants for your benefit alone that, unless disclosed in the Product to the contrary, ASQ can license the Product and all copyright and trademarks related thereto or therein.
(b) THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 2 CONSTITUTE THE ONLY WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCT AND ASQ MAKES NO OTHER REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (EITHER IN FACT OR BY OPERATION OF LAW) WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE PRODUCT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WITH RESPECT TO THE SUFFICIENCY, ACCURACY OR UTILIZATION OF, OR ANY INFORMATION OR OPINION CONTAINED OR REFLECTED IN, ANY OF THE PRODUCT. ASQ EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. NO OFFICER, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE, MEMBER, AGENT, REPRESENTATIVE OR PUBLISHER OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ANY MODIFICATION, EXTENSION, OR ADDITION TO THIS LIMITED WARRANTY.
3. INDEMNIFICATION: ASQ, any agent, representative, publisher or distributor of the Product, or any of their respective directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives or members (the "ASQ Indemnified Parties") shall have no liability for, and you shall defend, indemnify and hold each of the ASQ Indemnified Parties harmless from and against, any claim, loss, demand, liability, obligation and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) based upon or arising out of any injury or damage, or any product liability claim, including but not limited to, any personal or bodily injury or property damage, arising out of, pertaining to, or resulting in any way from, the use or possession of any of the Product by you and/or any of your directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents or contractors.
4. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY:
(a) You acknowledge that each of ASQ's obligations and liabilities with respect to the Product are exhaustively defined in this Agreement. You are responsible for the consequences of any use of any of the Product (whether or not such use was consistent with the license granted hereunder) created therefrom. Whether or not ASQ has been advised of their possibility, neither ASQ nor any of its representatives or agents, directors, officers, employees, or members, shall be liable, whether under contract, tort (including negligence) or otherwise, for any indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential loss, damage, cost or expense of any kind whatsoever and howsoever caused, that may be suffered by you or any of your directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives or contractors or any third party.
(b) If at any time an allegation of infringement of any rights of any third party is made, or in ASQ's opinion is likely to be made, with respect to any of the Product, ASQ may, at its option and at its own expense (i) obtain for you the right to continue using the Product, (ii) modify or replace the Product or any portion thereof so as to avoid any such claim of infringements, or (iii) refund to you the License Fee. ASQ shall have no liability to you if any claim of infringement would have been avoided except for your refusal to use any modified or replacement Product supplied or offered to be supplied pursuant to this Section 4(b) or to otherwise cease using the Product. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, and except as set forth in Section 4(b) hereof, ASQ's liability to you for damages pursuant to this Section 4(b), if any, shall not exceed the amounts of the License Fee paid by you for the Product subject to any such claim.
(c) Section 4(b) state the entire liability of ASQ with respect to the infringement or alleged infringement of any third party rights of any kind whatsoever by any of the Product.
5. TERMINATION: This Agreement may be terminated immediately by ASQ upon breach of any provision of this Agreement by you. Upon any termination of this Agreement, you shall immediately discontinue the use of the Product and shall within ten (10) days either return file(s) on diskette(s), if any, to ASQ or certify in writing to ASQ that the Product has been deleted from your computer and is eliminated from your premises.
6. GOVERNING LAW; ATTORNEY'S FEES: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Wisconsin without reference to its conflict of laws provisions and you further consent to jurisdiction by the state and federal courts sitting in the state of Wisconsin.
7. MISCELLANEOUS: This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive agreement between ASQ and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supercedes all prior oral or written understandings, communications or agreements not specifically incorporated herein. This Agreement may not be modified except in writing duly signed by an authorized representative of ASQ and you. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable, and such decision shall not affect the enforceability (i) of such provision under other circumstances, or (ii) of the remaining provisions hereof under all circumstances. Headings shall not be considered in interpreting the Agreement.
8. EXPORT: You may not load or export or re-export any of the Product or any underlying information or technology except in full compliance with all United States and other applicable laws and regulations. BY ACCESSING THE PRODUCT, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS.

I decided to go ahead and purchase the ISO 9001:2008 DIS document. Being an ASQ member, I thought of buying it via ASQ, for US$50.00, instead of shelling 64 CHF to Geneva. Well.....much to my surprise, ASQ does not allow the purchaser of the document to print it:mg:. Actually, the terms you are required to concur with are mind boggling <see below>. Too much dysfunction for me. ISO allows me to print one copy of the document, at least. So a fool parts with 64 CHF....

Neither concurrent use on two or more computers nor use in a local area network or other network is permitted.

Jeez, not only can you not print it, you can't allow access to it over a network, even if it's not printed.

Like DRM, these restrictions will just lead people to crack it and pass it around for free.

Like DRM, these restrictions will just lead people to crack it and pass it around for free.

You betcha. The primary purpose of most of these EULAs is to help lawyers make their boat payments.

I got bit once by Standards Australia about 4 or 5 years ago. They had the file locked to only allow 1 print. Paper jammed so I didn't even get one copy printed. These days if I need a standard I just buy a paper copy, cut off the binding and scan it into a pdf and that's it.

I decided to go ahead and purchase the ISO 9001:2008 DIS document.
Are there any changes in relation to CD version?

Are there any changes in relation to CD version?That requires me reading the DIS document. My lawyer is still reviewing the fine print of the agreement I had to sign before downloading the document to advise me if am allowed to read the DIS. http://elsmar.com/gif/roll1.gif

That requires me reading the DIS document. My lawyer is still reviewing the fine print of the agreement I had to sign before downloading the document to advise me if am allowed to read the DIS. http://elsmar.com/gif/roll1.gif

This might be the part you're looking for:
You acknowledge that you are not allowed to read the document, make other parties aware of its existence, or engage in mentation/ideation, voluntary or otherwise, with regard to its existence.

:mg::tg:

I got bit once by Standards Australia about 4 or 5 years ago. They had the file locked to only allow 1 print. Paper jammed so I didn't even get one copy printed. These days if I need a standard I just buy a paper copy, cut off the binding and scan it into a pdf and that's it.

Tsk, tsk, Marc. A self confessed copyright infringer! :mg:

:(Shish, it is sad when you have to sign your life away to download an international standard, after PAYING for it. A document which was developed by "volunteers", from all over the Globe. If the issue of intellectual property over a standard developed by a consensus method ever gets tried in an international court, I feel sorry for the judge. No wonder the ISO documents state:
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.

I got bit once by Standards Australia about 4 or 5 years ago. They had the file locked to only allow 1 print. Paper jammed so I didn't even get one copy printed.

One way to avoid those mechanical snafus is to "print" a PDF copy. You can do this with freeware such as PrimoPDF (http://www.primopdf.com/) which installs (like Adobe Distiller) as a printer. You hit "Print," select PrimoPDF as the printer, and it creates a PDF document.

Tsk, tsk, Marc. A self confessed copyright infringer! :mg:
With the way copyright laws and their interpretations are changing, I could be. I was reading, I can't remember where or who, that they wanted to outlaw copying a song from say a CD to an iPod or from a computer to an iPod (or other player) so you'd have to pay for the song for each device you want to play it on.

I'm still in the age of 'If I bought it, I can make a copy for myself' whether it be paper, data file or whatever.

If one wants to see what “copyright infringer” related to standards is, should come here!
But as lost of folks have been writing here in the Cove, the only way to avoid that is to make the generic standards like ISO 9001 or ISO 14001, free!
There’s a limit to price they cost, and the actual price, will just make them copied illegally everywhere!

OK guys, I hope you will bear with me on this but I have just obtained a copy of the DIS and tried to 'spot the difference' with CD1 - why can't they highlight the changes again?:confused: I may have missed some so please let me know if you see any others.

Here are the changes I can see between CD1 and the DIS:

4.1 Note 2 amended and note 3 added
6.4 Note amended
7.2.1 'as needed' changed to 'considered necessary'
7.3.3 Note amended
7.5.2 Notes 1 & 2 removed
7.6 Notes 1& 3 have been removed
8.2.1 The word indicators has gone back to measurement & a note has been added
8.2.2 Last para. the word correction has been added
8.2.4 Note removed
8.5.2f & 8.5.3e The word effectiveness has been removed

I am currently trying to prepare a matrix for the changes between 2000 and the DIS which I will post as soon as it is done.

Exactly 1 year from today, 2008-10-31 is the target date for release of ISO 9001:2008.

OK guys, I hope you will bear with me on this but I have just obtained a copy of the DIS and tried to 'spot the difference' with CD1 - why can't they highlight the changes again?:confused: I may have missed some so please let me know if you see any others.

Here are the changes I can see between CD1 and the DIS:

4.1 Note 2 amended and note 3 added
6.4 Note amended
7.2.1 'as needed' changed to 'considered necessary'
7.3.3 Note amended
7.5.2 Notes 1 & 2 removed
7.6 Notes 1& 3 have been removed
8.2.1 The word indicators has gone back to measurement & a note has been added
8.2.2 Last para. the word correction has been added
8.2.4 Note removed
8.5.2f & 8.5.3e The word effectiveness has been removed

I am currently trying to prepare a matrix for the changes between 2000 and the DIS which I will post as soon as it is done.

I appreciate the effort, but unless the changes are substantive, why not wait until they are closer to complete?

I know that the changes are small but I am being asked by a number of people about the changes and the impact they are likely to have so I thought I would do the analysis.

It frustrates me that the changes are so small - especially from CD1 to DIS as I think they are missing an opportunity to make the change worthwhile.

Colpart,

Probably this will not happen this time, but remember that in 2000 version the changes between DIS version and the FDIS of the Standard were significant.
This work of yours could be just for temporary use...
:(

AV

Don't loose sight of the aspect that at least there is some information on the direction being taken. I do see value in tracking changes. There are many who are working on implementations right now who will be affected by any changes.

I was working with companies back before the 2000 change and we took the known changes into account well before the changes were finalized. Doing that saved us a lot of time and trouble.

Colpart's information is more valuable that you might think.

I realise that this is only the DIS and some of you are not interested yet but here is my summary of the changes between ISO 9001:2000 and the DIS for ISO 9001:2008. Please let me know if you spot anything wrong or missing.

Thank you very much for the summary that clears a few questions I have had on the types of changes we were to expect.

8.5.2f & 8.5.3e The word effectiveness has been removedThanks, Colin, for this. I also noticed that some paragraphs are misidentified. For example, in the DIS document, 7.2.3 sub paragraphs are identified as j, k and l, instead of a, b and c. Similar problem in 7.4.2.

Now, the removal (AGAIN) of the word effectiveness in 8.5.2.f) and 8.5.3.e) is baffling to me. I was curious if anyone could attempt to explain it's removal from the DIS document.

Thanks, Colin, for this. I also noticed that some paragraphs are misidentified. For example, in the DIS document, 7.2.3 sub paragraphs are identified as j, k and l, instead of a, b and c. Similar problem in 7.4.2.I noticed this and passed it to the UK validation process lead. He tells me it has been passed on.

Now, the removal (AGAIN) of the word effectiveness in 8.5.2.f) and 8.5.3.e) is baffling to me. I was curious if anyone could attempt to explain it's removal from the DIS document.Can't help, Sidney. My only involvement has been from the current to the DIS (not steps in between).

My thanks, too to Colin for the effort put in. I have obviously stripped out the text, rebadged it and will make it available on my web site in the next day or so - only £10 to download! :lmao:

I have obviously stripped out the text, rebadged it and will make it available on my web site in the next day or so - only £10 to download! :lmao:

Sounds a good idea to me, what was the percentage 'cut' we agreed?;)

Thanks, Colin, for this. I also noticed that some paragraphs are misidentified. For example, in the DIS document, 7.2.3 sub paragraphs are identified as j, k and l, instead of a, b and c. Similar problem in 7.4.2.

Now, the removal (AGAIN) of the word effectiveness in 8.5.2.f) and 8.5.3.e) is baffling to me. I was curious if anyone could attempt to explain it's removal from the DIS document.

Sidney, yes I noticed the mis-numbering, I guess thats the sort of thing that will be swept up in the FDIS,

Can't understand why they took out the word effectiveness, I am sure that is what we should be doing, not just seeing if the action was done.

The price of an item has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

I am going to guees that the changes from DIS to FDIS to IS will be almost zero since the current activity is an amendment of the standard for clarification and no requirements are expected to change. This effort is to clarify current requirements. The 2000 effort was a revision with requirement changes.

This effort is to clarify current requirements. Dirk, since you participate in the US TAG, can you provide any information about why in the World the TC 176 does not touch on the most glaring unclear requirement of ISO 9001? I am referring to the preventive action clause. Since the goal of the 2008 amendment is to clarify the requirements of the standard and so far, via the WD, CD and DIS, no change is proposed to 8.5.3, it seems to me that either:

The TC 176 is totally removed from the real World and doesn't realize that preventive action is EXTREMELLY ambiguous, or,
They realize it, but have no idea of how to re-word the requirements to make it clear (or clearer)You, as a Cover, know that we have countless and prolonged discussions over the PA aspect of the CAPA process. Knowledgeable and seasoned quality professionals disagree in what true preventive actions should be. The APG paper Auditing Preventive Action (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3816351/APG-PreventiveAction.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3816351), just like many other papers of the series, is inconclusive. One of the underlying expectations for ISO 9001 is that the requirements are clear and auditable. I find hard to believe that the TC 176 does not realize the problem exists.

Any comments?

Hello Sidney:

No, I cannot comment on any of the things you ask. I review documents, provide my input at the US level, review comments from others, and vote on proposed changes. I have no delusions that the TC 176 process is effective.

I would contact the Chairs of the US TAG and ask them.

Yes, for sure a problem exists related to the text of 8.5.3, the western world's understanding and knowledge of Preventive Action, and the western world's emphasis on Preventive Action.

In my opinion, it is impossible to define preventive action and satisfy all users.

Regards,

Dirk

...

In my opinion, it is impossible to define preventive action and satisfy all users.

Regards,

Dirk

I agree Dirk - Preventative action requires foresight, while criticism of a lack of PA uses hindsight - a decidedly unfair advantage.

Dirk, since you participate in the US TAG, can you provide any information about why in the World the TC 176 does not touch on the most glaring unclear requirement of ISO 9001? I am referring to the preventive action clause. Since the goal of the 2008 amendment is to clarify the requirements of the standard and so far, via the WD, CD and DIS, no change is proposed to 8.5.3, it seems to me that either:

The TC 176 is totally removed from the real World and doesn't realize that preventive action is EXTREMELLY ambiguous, or,
They realize it, but have no idea of how to re-word the requirements to make it clear (or clearer)You, as a Cover, know that we have countless and prolonged discussions over the PA aspect of the CAPA process. Knowledgeable and seasoned quality professionals disagree in what true preventive actions should be. The APG paper Auditing Preventive Action (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3816351/APG-PreventiveAction.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3816351), just like many other papers of the series, is inconclusive. One of the underlying expectations for ISO 9001 is that the requirements are clear and auditable. I find hard to believe that the TC 176 does not realize the problem exists.

Any comments?


Of course, as a spokesperson for the camp that says it means just what it says, why can't we just accept it as written? A proactive cousin to corrective action, after launch, before failure, following the same steps as corrective action? Alas, perhaps it is just my simple mind...:cool: ...but to me it is cyrstal clear.

...but to me it is crystal clear.OK. So, I repeat the same challenge I had on the other thread. Please list 5 crystal clear examples of preventive actions. Real world examples please.

I decided to go ahead and purchase the ISO 9001:2008 DIS document.

No need. Anyone can download it for free. :agree1:

/S.

P.S.: The idea was to share the link with you guys, but this damn anti-spam security policies just told me I had to remove the weblink as I am only entitled to post one after five posts in this forum!... :bonk: So, consider this post #1 and keep reading below until you find what you're looking for! ;)

Finally! Here we go then: You can download ISO/DIS 9001 by clicking :magic:here (http://www.nsai.ie/uploads/file/draftstandard.pdf):magic: and its comments template by clicking :magic:here (http://www.nsai.ie/uploads/file/Blank%20Template%20for%20CEN%20and%20ISO%20Cmments.rtf):magic:.

This draft has been circulated to ISO Members for vote and comment. The voting period is due to close on 20080220, so if you wish to comment, you should send your comments to any ISO member before that date! :cool:

/S.

...this anti-spam security policies just told me I had to remove the weblink as I am only entitled to post one after five posts in this forum! Sorry about that, but spam is a difficult issue to deal with. If I didn't do that and take other measures, there would be hundreds of distracting spam threads.

To save space I've deleted the unnecessary posts. If someone with less than 5 posts wants to put in a link they can PM a moderator or I, and if it's appropriate we'll put it in. I apologise for the inconvenience.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,This draft has been circulated to ISO Members for vote and comment. The voting period is due to close on 20080220, so if you wish to comment, you should send your comments to any ISO member before that date! :cool:

/S.

Please note the purpose of this draft highlighted in red and that the use of this document is subjected to the conditions found therein.

Sandra,

In fact I find it very strange that this version of ISO 9001:2008 can be available for free.
For example ASQ just allowed members to download CD1, however the DIS version had to be bought!
I had the DIS version because one of the organizations I work for here in Lisbon bought it.
Anyway, obrigado!

AV:bigwave:

Folks, please don't get too excited about this. It's a link. If the copyright owner contacts me and asks I will remove the link.

If anyone here has a question about a copyright document being posted, or linked to, please use the Report This Post button rather than discussing it in posts in the thread.

Thanks!

Sorry about that

Marc,

No problem. I totally understand and I hate SPAM!!! - I just tried to make a joke out of it and have a laugh! ;)

/S.

Please note the purpose of this draft highlighted in red and that the use of this document is subjected to the conditions found therein.

Harry,

That is correct. But that does not mean that the ISO members cannot distribut it to the public and ask for their comments. And that is what NSAI is doing. :applause:

/S.

Sandra,

In fact I find it very strange that this version of ISO 9001:2008 can be available for free.
For example ASQ just allowed members to download CD1, however the DIS version had to be bought!
I had the DIS version because one of the organizations I work for here in Lisbon bought it.
Anyway, obrigado!

AV:bigwave:

António,

We just find it strange, because we are so used to be abused, that when someone does the right thing - like NSAI is doing! - we get startled.

I guess the Irish are more generous and less greedy than others. It's probably due to all the "pots of gold" the Leprauchauns have give them along the centuries, don't you agree? :notme:

/S.

Folks, please don't get too excited about this. It's a link. If the copyright owner contacts me and asks I will remove the link.

Marc,

I tried to make it easier and faster for you folks to download it by inserting the direct link to the PDF files, but maybe I should have just posted the link to the download page (http://www.nsai.ie/index.cfm/area/news/action/article/information/qualitymanagement), so you could read the introduction and understand what NSAI is doing - which is what any ISO member should do: Distribute the draft freely to collect comments on it from the public, to assure that all interested parties are involved in this revision. :applause:

By the way: I don't know about you guys, but I am sending my comments to NSAI instead of sending them to IPQ or IPAC because I believe NSAI deserves my cooperation as they were the ones who shared the ISO/DIS with me. :agree:

/S.


P.S.: Yeah, yeah, I know I could have posted all these messages in one only message, but as Marc deleted my messages #2, #3 and #4, I was - AGAIN! :mad: - unable to post a link on this one. That is why I decided to answer all of you separatly! :magic:

Thank you Sandra,

You could have just post an inactive link, example abc(at)xyz.com instead of abc@xyz.com and we will activate it for you.

Sandra,

Believe me; don’t send any comments about this subject to IPQ*.
They wouldn’t know what to do with them!

* IPQ – Portuguese Institute for Quality

AV:)

Thank you Sandra,

You could have just post an inactive link, example abc(at)xyz.com instead of abc@xyz.com and we will activate it for you.

... and loose the opportunity to pick on Marc a litle bit more??? Nahhhh!!! ;)

/S.

P.S.: :thanx: for the tip! :)


Sandra,

Believe me; don’t send any comments about this subject to IPQ*.
They wouldn’t know what to do with them!

* IPQ – Portuguese Institute for Quality

AV:)


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

/S.

P.S.: Let's just hope the IPQ people doesn't visit this forum!!! :notme:

Thank you Sandra,

You could have just post an inactive link, example abc(at)xyz.com instead of abc@xyz.com and we will activate it for you. That is for email addresses. For links it would be something like company dot com

OK. So, I repeat the same challenge I had on the other thread. Please list 5 crystal clear examples of preventive actions. Real world examples please.

Fair question. I posted a white paper on preventive action examples on the other thread, more specific to the topic. We'll let this thread go back to the original theme.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=24395

hope that works.

Sorry you lot, but can anyone explain what the DIS version is all about? What does DIS stand for? Is it Draft Implementation Standard?

What are the various levels of standards during the draft, review and publishing process, as used by ISO? I have tried looking on the ISO website with little success!

CDx (1, 2...) = Comments Draft 1, 2....
DIS = Draft International Standard
FDIS = Final Draft Internacional Standard
TC = Technical Commitee
TC176 = Technical Commitee responsible for the revisions of ISO 9001.

On this ongoing revision of ISO 9001, TC176 published a CD1 version last February 16 and this DIS version last September 20.

Next year they will publish the FDIS version and finally, in 2009, the official new version of the standard will be released.

I hope this short explanation is helpfull.

/S.

Next year they will publish the FDIS version and finally, in 2009, the official new version of the standard will be released./S.

2008 I believe is the currently expected release date for the IS.

Sandra thanks for link!!
I have gone through pages and my idea is to distribute this revision among current user as patch for ISO 9001:2002 for free.
I do not see any news there rather than some grammar studies.

But... my favourities are "where applicable” in 6.2.2 b) and "where practicable” in 8.3 :lmao:
I am sure next TS will fix it. ;)

2008 I believe is the currently expected release date for the IS.October 31, 2008 is the target date.
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486

What are the various levels of standards during the draft, review and publishing process, as used by ISO? I have tried looking on the ISO website with little success!From http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/stages_description.htm

Stages of the development of International Standards

An International Standard is the result of an agreement between the member bodies of ISO. It may be used as such, or may be implemented through incorporation in national standards of different countries.
International Standards are developed by ISO technical committees (TC) and subcommittees (SC) by a six-step process:

Stage 1: Proposal stage
Stage 2: Preparatory stage
Stage 3: Committee stage
Stage 4: Enquiry stage
Stage 5: Approval stage
Stage 6: Publication stageSee the stage code table (http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/stages_description/stages_table.htm) for a visual representation of the development stages.
If a document with a certain degree of maturity is available at the start of a standardization project, for example a standard developed by another organization, it is possible to omit certain stages. In the so-called "Fast-track procedure", a document is submitted directly for approval as a draft International Standard (DIS) to the ISO member bodies (stage 4) or, if the document has been developed by an international standardizing body recognized by the ISO Council, as a final draft International Standard (FDIS, stage 5), without passing through the previous stages.
The following is a summary of each of the six stages:
For greater detail on how an International Standard is developed, refer to the publication ISO/IEC Directives (http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/iso_iec_directives_and_iso_supplement.htm), Part 1, Procedures for the technical work.

Stage 1: Proposal stage
The first step in the development of an International Standard is to confirm that a particular International Standard is needed. A new work item proposal (NP) is submitted for vote by the members of the relevant TC or SC to determine the inclusion of the work item in the programme of work.
The proposal is accepted if a majority of the P-members of the TC/SC votes in favour and if at least five P-members declare their commitment to participate actively in the project. At this stage a project leader responsible for the work item is normally appointed.

Stage 2: Preparatory stage
Usually, a working group of experts, the chairman (convener) of which is the project leader, is set up by the TC/SC for the preparation of a working draft. Successive working drafts may be considered until the working group is satisfied that it has developed the best technical solution to the problem being addressed. At this stage, the draft is forwarded to the working group's parent committee for the consensus-building phase.

Stage 3: Committee stage
As soon as a first committee draft is available, it is registered by the ISO Central Secretariat. It is distributed for comment and, if required, voting, by the P-members of the TC/SC. Successive committee drafts may be considered until consensus is reached on the technical content. Once consensus has been attained, the text is finalized for submission as a draft International Standard (DIS).

Stage 4: Enquiry stage
The draft International Standard (DIS) is circulated to all ISO member bodies by the ISO Central Secretariat for voting and comment within a period of five months. It is approved for submission as a final draft International Standard (FDIS) if a two-thirds majority of the P-members of the TC/SC are in favour and not more than one-quarter of the total number of votes cast are negative. If the approval criteria are not met, the text is returned to the originating TC/SC for further study and a revised document will again be circulated for voting and comment as a draft International Standard.

Stage 5: Approval stage
The final draft International Standard (FDIS) is circulated to all ISO member bodies by the ISO Central Secretariat for a final Yes/No vote within a period of two months. If technical comments are received during this period, they are no longer considered at this stage, but registered for consideration during a future revision of the International Standard. The text is approved as an International Standard if a two-thirds majority of the P-members of the TC/SC is in favour and not more than one-quarter of the total number of votes cast are negative. If these approval criteria are not met, the standard is referred back to the originating TC/SC for reconsideration in light of the technical reasons submitted in support of the negative votes received.

Stage 6: Publication stage
Once a final draft International Standard has been approved, only minor editorial changes, if and where necessary, are introduced into the final text. The final text is sent to the ISO Central Secretariat which publishes the International Standard.

Review of International Standards (Confirmation, Revision, Withdrawal)

All International Standards are reviewed at the least three years after publication and every five years after the first review by all the ISO member bodies. A majority of the P-members of the TC/SC decides whether an International Standard should be confirmed, revised or withdrawn.

I hope it matches 27001

CDx (1, 2...) = Comments Draft 1, 2....
DIS = Draft International Standard
FDIS = Final Draft Internacional Standard
TC = Technical Commitee
TC176 = Technical Commitee responsible for the revisions of ISO 9001.

On this ongoing revision of ISO 9001, TC176 published a CD1 version last February 16 and this DIS version last September 20.

Next year they will publish the FDIS version and finally, in 2009, the official new version of the standard will be released.

I hope this short explanation is helpfull.

Just a follow up on the above:

The DIS Validation Study has just been completed by the US TAG in November. The DIS will be voted upon in February, with the FDIS published shortly after that. The IS is due to be published October 30, 2008

As to ISO's publication process, perhaps this diagram can help.

According to my sources, the IAF is leaning towards a 36 month period for the transition to the ISO 9001:2008 conversion, for organizations certified to ISO 9001:2000. That means that we could have co-existing ISO 9001:2000 and 9001:2008 certificates as late as October 31, 2011.

The "rationale" is to allow the conversion to happen during a re-certification audit, to minimize costs.

According to my sources, the IAF is leaning towards a 36 month period for the transition to the ISO 9001:2008 conversion, for organizations certified to ISO 9001:2000. That means that we could have co-existing ISO 9001:2000 and 9001:2008 certificates as late as October 31, 2011.

The "rationale" is to allow the conversion to to happen during a re-certification audit, to minimize costs.

And to maximize confusion:notme:

What confusion?

The changes are so few that there will be no confusion!
It will happen the same from 87 to 94 version...
:rolleyes:

Transition confusion by playing "Who's on 1st?"

If the changes are so minor why not do what was done for 14001 and have a short transition, just get it done. Wham, bam, thank you mam.

If the changes are so minor why not do what was done for 14001 and have a short transition, just get it done. Wham, bam, thank you mam.Me too would have voted for an 18-month transition, but since there are "no changes" to the standard (just clarifications), for all practical purposes, it does not make any difference if your supplier is certified to the 3rd or 4th Editions of ISO 9001....

I just think it's gonna turn into a cross between "mating elephants, a goat ropin', and greased pig catching":lol:

I've just been asked to comment on the 3 year transition and another requirement in the transition - IAF are saying that CBs cannot reissue certificates before they have had a visit as some less than reputable Certification Bodies might issue certificates without any audit in order to gain unfair commercial advantage and erode confidence in accredited certification.
So despite the general understanding that there are no changes some CB is planning to make a pot of money by reissuing all their certificates before anyone else. :confused:

:topic:

I just think it's gonna turn into a cross between "mating elephants, a goat ropin', and greased pig catching":lol:

You sure lead an interesting life, Randy! ;)

:topic:



You sure lead an interesting life, Randy! ;)


Interesting isn't the half of it, we're entering into the "birthday season" with out 14 grandchildren. All I'll have left for me is... :2cents:

So despite the general understanding that there are no changes some CB is planning to make a pot of money by reissuing all their certificates before anyone else. :confused:The proposed IAF resolution is that no certificate to ISO 9001:2008 should be issued (for currently certified organizations) before the CB performs either a surveillance or re-certification audit. The IAF does not want CB's issuing an 9001:2008 certificates "willy-nilly". Because that could erode the confidence in the accredited certification process.....

The proposed IAF resolution is that no certificate to ISO 9001:2008 should be issued (for currently certified organizations) before the CB performs either a surveillance or re-certification audit. The IAF does not want CB's issuing an 9001:2008 certificates "willy-nilly". Because that could erode the confidence in the accredited certification process.....Why? :confused:

You have an accredited certification .... you change the standard to such a small extent that people are pretty much unanimous that an ISO 9001.2000 certification is going to comply with ISO 9001.2008 - so why not just reissue certificates? :confused:

I promise not to have any less confidence in the accreditation bodies' ability to manage the certification industry. ;)

Why? Come on Paul. Auditors must assess extremely carefully if the organizations are complying with the new requirements. It will take time. I'll give you an example.

How long do you think it will take you to verify if an organization that is currently required to comply with

Top management shall appoint a member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes
will later be required to comply with


Top management shall appoint a member of the organization’s management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes.

It will take weeks....http://www.mnsportsfans.com/forum/images/smilies/sarcasm.gif

And, from what I've seen, many don't yet comply with the 9k2k requirements even..........

Just wonder why there are not significant changes.

I think if some of the TS requirements were adopted may be good for companies to improve to a higher level.

Without significant changes since 2000, will there be some significant changes in the next revision after 2008?

Could it be due to what Andy commented? :o

Just wonder why there are not significant changes.
Some of the "official justification" can be found at the design specification document available at this post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=133024&postcount=3). But, my impression is that the TC 176 did not want to rock the boat twice in a row. Unfortunately, even some long needed changes, such as the clarification of the preventive action requirements were not worked upon. Makes you wonder who is sleeping at the wheel....

Can anyone shed some light on (what I thought I heard) that the release of 9001 is delayed until 09? I was at a meeting and I thought I heard that, but it may have been in reference to the 9004 document.

Sidney, anyone?

??? The horse's mouth (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=222741&postcount=151)still says the same thing....

I think this problem isn't at all tied to time necessary for evaluation or eroding confidences. It's all about $$$. :nopity:

Can anyone shed some light on (what I thought I heard) that the release of 9001 is delayed until 09? I was at a meeting and I thought I heard that, but it may have been in reference to the 9004 document. Sidney, anyone?
I have the same unofficial information from "good informed sources" :cool:
But my CB Headquarters affirm that 31.10 is still valid date.
And they confirm 3-year transitory period.

I have the same unofficial information from "good informed sources" Sorry, but those sources are not good nor/and informed....

From the old news archive @ http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/138402/755901/1069636/Activities.html?nodeid=3554104&vernum=0


These pragmatic decisions were based on the progress of the work; however they have one major consequence, which is the two standards will no longer follow concurrent development paths. The next edition of ISO 9001 is expected to achieve publication around October 2008, whereas the next edition of ISO 9004 is not expected until August 2009.

Sorry, but those sources are not good nor/and informed....
Don't treat this so seriously :cool:
I don't believe my "good informed sources" :notme:
Please, treat this as a joke :D

Please, treat this as a joke Don't worry. :agree:
I just feel the need to point out misinformation:cool:.

The other day, I was speaking to the Los Angeles ASQ Chapter about the upcoming ISO 9001:2008 document. One of the attendees asked me about the date I was mentioning concerning the release of the 9001 standard, because a couple of days earlier he had attended a presentation by a consultant who "assured" the audience that ISO 9001 was not going to be revised before 2011.

So, I told the gentleman to go to the ISO website and find for himself who was right. I hope he did.

There are a lot of things that are not transparent about ISO 9001. The target release date for the upcoming 4th edition is not one of them.

One of my colleagues attended an ISO9001:2008 Awareness and she said that according to the training consultant, it will be released by Oct 15, 2008 and if you are certified to these standard, you’ll be audited in the next six months. And if you are certified to ISO/TS16949, ISO9001:2008 requirements will be easy.
Raffy:cool:

...yeah… or probably months to year… depending on auditor’s incompetence…

it will be released by Oct 15, 2008 and if you are certified to these standard, you’ll be audited in the next six months. Another example of misinformation.

We'll I have to get back to my colleagues and tell them that they are providing incorrect information.:frust: Luckily, I did not attend the said awareness, otherwise i'll be one of them who has incorrrect information.
Thank you guys for enlightening me.:thanx:
Raffy:cool:

from my registrar:
Transition of existing ISO 9001 Certificates When the new ISO 9001 is formally available, sources indicate that anywhere from six to twelve months will be allotted for transition. Once (registrar) is notified of the transition period, we will make the information available.

Since the changes to ISO 9001:2000 are expected to be relatively minor, the assessment to the new ISO release can be undertaken as part of an ongoing surveillance activity or during a re-certification audit.

Thanks, Steel.:applause:

I'll confirm my CB's position, but I think that's what we're doing with our clients too.......:agree1:

I would hope that all registrars are as good as mine about keeping their clients up to date on what is going on.

I would hope that all registrars are as good as mine about keeping their clients up to date on what is going on.

We at NQA do our best. The word I have from my Conformity Assessment Manager is that the IAF hasn't yet decided. It could be 18-36 months.........

If you want to be in the know, just attend one of my free webinars...:tg: The following is the text of the resolution proposal, being voted in the IAF. To me, the proposed 36 month transition period is nonsensical, especially when the ISO 14001:2004 transition was 18 months.


Transition Period for ISO 9001:2008


Rationale for the proposed Resolution
After extensive debate, the IAF Technical Committee Task Force is proposing that the transition period for ISO 9001:2008 be 36 months so that a Certification Body may simply follow its normal surveillance and re-certification cycle and, if it chooses, not issue a certificate for ISO 9001:2008 until the time of re-certification - which truly means there will be no additional cost to the Certification Body or its client for this change. If the transition period were to be 18 months, then there could be some added cost associated with re-issuing certificates, even though minimal. If a Certification Body does not wait at least until after a surveillance or re-certification audit, then some less than reputable Certification Bodies might issue certificates without any audit in order to gain unfair commercial advantage and erode confidence in accredited certification.
The following Resolution has been circulated for 60 day comment to both IAF Members and the IAF Technical Committee. Please make all comments on the accompanying template and return this to the IAF Adviser at xxxxxx@iaf.nu (adviser@iaf.nu) by 9 June 2008.
IAF Resolution 2008-XX-(Agenda Item YY) Transition Period for ISO 9001:2008 - The General Assembly, acting on the recommendation of the Technical Committee, resolved that the transition period for conforming to ISO 9001:2008 shall be 36 months following publication of the revised standard. Therefore on [date 36months after publication - to be inserted], certification to ISO 9001:2000 will no longer be valid. A Certification Body shall audit and certify an organization to ISO 9001:2008 in accordance with ISO/IEC 17021:2006 with the exception that for any organization previously certified to ISO 9001:2000, the Certification Body shall base its decision on the results of surveillance or a re-certification audit.

As I posted earlier (on this site or another!) we had seriously suggested a blanket reissue of certs as soon as 9k2008 is issued - it is not that different!

But under the (draft) accreditation rules we have seen are not able to do so in case any one CB gets a "commercial advantage" :tg: from doing so. We have to wait until after the next visit before we can reissue.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum ....

If you want to be in the know, just attend one of my free webinars...:tg: The following is the text of the resolution proposal, being voted in the IAF. To me, the proposed 36 month transition period is nonsensical, especially when the ISO 14001:2004 transition was 18 months.

Texas is nice this time of year.... :)Do you have a Road Show??:D

Do you have a Road Show??Road show? Do you think that would be better than a webinar? All of us in the comfort of our own environments?

Road show? Do you think that would be better than a webinar? All of us in the comfort of our own environments?

Well... yes... OK. You caught me; a big difference the W makes,