I had an auditor tell me that there was talk within ISO to combine these two specs is there any truth to it? If so where can I find more info.


Thanks,

Al:gossip:

I had an auditor tell me thatthere was talk within ISO to combine these two specs is there any truth to it? If so where can I find more info.Al

In this thread ISO 9001:2012 & ISO 14001:2012 - ISO TC's 176 & 207 & other stakeholders Joint vision (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13788).

Just yeaterday I saw some information for the possible changes of ISO9001:2000 to ISO9001:2008. A draft of proposals was listed on a web site for QSU.
There was no information mentioning the combining of the 2 standards.

I could see where they could combine some elements of both standards, but there are some items that have different focuses in the two.

There is no talk to "combine" the two standards.

A "Joint Vision" is not combining the two standards. There is a discussion to see if alinging the two is possible and still meet everyone's needs (I'll use that statment instead of "stakeholders.")

Based on the dynamics of the alignment debate within the Technical Advisory Groups, I don't think it will ever happen.

Regards,

Dirk

I could see where they could combine some elements of both standards, but there are some items that have different focuses in the two.

There is a lot of activity toward integrating the implementation of a company's systems, but not the standards.

I am scheduled to do a (paid) 1 hour webinar on the topic of integrating or combining the QMS and EMS into one business system. The date is currently set for July 14. If anyone is interested, let me know.

We completed our second combined internal audit a few weeks back and one of the OFIs coming out of it was to develop a combined internal audit checklist. There was too much time spent flipping back and forth between checklists, but the time saved in auditing one process to both standards was great.

We just completed our first combined external audit and boy, I wish I could say that time was saved.

I can understand why it's important to keep the standards separate - some organizations may only wish to pursue registration to one of the standards - however, the fact that we had to visit areas twice was rather disconcerting and an ineffective use of resources in my opinion. I was joined-at-the-hip with my auditor for 8 days.

It was frustrating to visit Maintenance, for example, twice....Mtce is Mtce, no matter if the questions are geared towards a piece of equipment with a quality focus or one with an environmental focus.

If this "joint vision" continues, I hope that the the number of mandays required to audit a system (especially an integrated system) is re-assessed!

We completed our second combined internal audit a few weeks back and one of the OFIs coming out of it was to develop a combined internal audit checklist. There was too much time spent flipping back and forth between checklists, but the time saved in auditing one process to both standards was great.

We just completed our first combined external audit and boy, I wish I could say that time was saved.

I can understand why it's important to keep the standards separate - some organizations may only wish to pursue registration to one of the standards - however, the fact that we had to visit areas twice was rather disconcerting and an ineffective use of resources in my opinion. I was joined-at-the-hip with my auditor for 8 days.

It was frustrating to visit Maintenance, for example, twice....Mtce is Mtce, no matter if the questions are geared towards a piece of equipment with a quality focus or one with an environmental focus.

If this "joint vision" continues, I hope that the the number of mandays required to audit a system (especially an integrated system) is re-assessed!

If your registrar audited it as you describe, shame on them. There is no reason to go to Maintenance twice, even though they use separate audit worksheets. I always audit it together on one visit, even if it not integrated at all. Why would anyone wnat to do it twice?:nope:

The only reason not to, is if the auditor is not qualified in both standards. In which case, they should provide an auditor who is.

PS: Some registrars do reduce the audit days for EMS if a system is integrated. I know at least one of the two I work for does this.

If your registrar audited it as you describe, shame on them. There is no reason to go to Maintenance twice, even though they use separate audit worksheets. I always audit it together on one visit, even if it not integrated at all. Why would anyone wnat to do it twice?:nope:

The only reason not to, is if the auditor is not qualified in both standards. In which case, they should provide an auditor who is.

PS: Some registrars do reduce the audit days for EMS if a system is integrated. I know at least one of the two I work for does this.

Our Auditor is qualified to audit both standards, however, I am uncertain as to her experience in auditing an integrated business system.

Regarding the reduction in manhours, however, aren't systems subject to x-number of manhours per standard (per the certification bodies' regulations)?

That's the kind of thing that need to be looked at as more company develop integrated systems and if ISO pursues this "joint vision".

There is guidance from accreditation bodies on integrated systems audit time and performance.

I'll hold off comment further because I feel like choking the guilty.

RCBeyette:

I would not say that you experienced a "Combined Audit." Your auditor performed two audits sequentially. That is really unfortunate.

Regards,

Dirk

[quote]Our Auditor is qualified to audit both standards, however, I am uncertain as to her experience in auditing an integrated business system.

Even if not experienced, there is no reason to schedule it for later in the week and going back a second time. Logic dictates that auditing both together or back to back would be more efficient and more effective.


Regarding the reduction in manhours, however, aren't systems subject to x-number of manhours per standard (per the certification bodies' regulations)?


Yes, of course. However, they based a reduction on the EMS days if the system was fully integrated. I am pretty certain they got approval for that early on. They don't do things randomly. If the systems are not integrated, then there is no reduction in audit days, but we still schedule the audit in an efficient manner, taking the customer's preferences in mind.

Dirk and Hjilling:

You both make some valid points. This might have been her first attempt at a combined audit of an integrated system. It's her 3rd or 4th time seeing our "Q"MS and her 2nd with our "E"MS. Hopefully, she managed to gain an understanding for our next audit.