Just recived this email from DQS german auditing company.


The current revision of ISO 9001 is making strong progress. It is already scheduled to be published in October 2008, according to the responsible ISO committee ISO/TC 176/SC 2.
What do organizations have to expect from the new ISO 9001:2008? Basically no major changes at all. There is one important message to remember: There won’t be any new requirements. Compared to the current version, the only difference will be minor editorial changes.

One example:

ISO 9001:2000
If any customer property is lost, damaged or otherwise found to be unsuitable for use, this shall be reported to the customer and records maintained (see 4.2.4).

ISO 9001:2008 (Draft)
If any customer property is lost, damaged or otherwise found to be unsuitable for use, the organization shall report this to the customer and maintain records (see 4.2.4).

A draft ISO/DIS 9001 is scheduled to be published in September 2007.

Hello Jerry! Welcome to the Cove!

Thank you very much for posting your thoughts regarding the new ISO standard. We have discussed the standard in-depth here; primarily from the philosophical approach of should it be changed, which changes, etc.

You might want to view the ongoing thread, and add any additional comments there.

ISO9001 What's next? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14749&highlight=next+ISO+9001)

I know we are only on CD1 yet but if the changes stay the same, what do we envisage having to change in QMS's?

There will be the obvious where references are made to :2000 but I can't see many others at this point.

The latest issue Quality Systems Update (QSU, volume 17, number 5, 2007) had a blow-by-blow report that detailed all the proposed changes -- well worth the price of subscription just for that issue alone.

The changes are expected to touch over 45 clauses and also encompass changes to the forward (explain standardization process and rules for adoption), and Annex A (updating the 'translation tables' for ISO 14001 and ISO 9001).

The proposed changes, while not earth-shattering, do reflect clarifying language (e.g. changing root cause to root causes in section 8.5.2) and should provide a clearer roadmap for implementing quality systems.

Members of the US TAG will be reviewing the proposed changes and suggesting comments over the next several weeks.

The changes are expected to touch over 45 clauses and also encompass changes to the forward...


The forward what?

The forward what?

Foreword.

The latest issue Quality Systems Update (QSU, volume 17, number 5, 2007) had a blow-by-blow report that detailed all the proposed changes

Here it is: http://www.qsuonline.com/BodyPages/QSU2007/QSU_V17_5.pdf

Stijloor.

The forward what?

If you look in the 2000 version of the standard, the Foreward is right after the table of contents and right before the Introduction. Sorry I didn't capitalize it to make it more clear that it's the Foreward (and I originally spelled it wrong to boot! Thanks for helping to point that out, Stijloor - it's appreciated.)

If you look in the 2000 version of the standard, the Foreward is right after the table of contents and right before the Introduction. Sorry I didn't capitalize it to make it more clear that it's the Foreward (and I originally spelled it wrong to boot! Thanks for helping to point that out, Stijloor - it's appreciated.)

Ah! I was seeing an adjective with no noun. I should have realized what you were referring to from the context. BTW, you spelled it wrong twice. :cool: It's foreword. :D

well worth the price of subscription just for that issue alone. That is debatable;).The changes are expected to touch over 45 clauses and also encompass changes to the forward (explain standardization process and rules for adoption), and Annex A (updating the 'translation tables' for ISO 14001 and ISO 9001).

The proposed changes, while not earth-shattering, do reflect clarifying language (e.g. changing root cause to root causes in section 8.5.2) and should provide a clearer roadmap for implementing quality systems.

Members of the US TAG will be reviewing the proposed changes and suggesting comments over the next several weeks.For those of us who got a copy of the CD1 document and read it, we would be hard pressed to categorize the modifications as changes. They are primarily re-wording, re-phrasing of existing text. I would venture to say that most organizations which are presently compliant to ISO 9001, could totally disregard the discussions preceding the release of the 4th Edition of ISO 9001, and still comply with the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 on November 1st, 2008. I mean, in practical terms, they do not need to change a thing in their QMS, to comply with the "new"(?) version.

That is debatable;).For those of us who got a copy of the CD1 document and read it, we would be hard pressed to categorize the modifications as changes. They are primarily re-wording, re-phrasing of existing text. I would venture to say that most organizations which are presently compliant to ISO 9001, could totally disregard the discussions preceding the release of the 4th Edition of ISO 9001, and still comply with the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 on November 1st, 2008. I mean, in practical terms, they do not need to change a thing in their QMS, to comply with the "new"(?) version.

Hi Sidney,

Is it fair to say that we're really talking here about an "edit" of the wording in ISO 9001:2000? From carefully reading CD1, I gathered that the intent of each of the clauses did not change. Am I correct? No need to get nervous!

Stijloor.

Is it fair to say that we're really talking here about an "edit" of the wording in ISO 9001:2000?Yes, IMO. From carefully reading CD1, I gathered that the intent of each of the clauses did not change. Am I correct?Yes, IMO. No need to get nervous!In my webinar, (http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/svianna-10516-upcoming-changes-iso-9001-2008-standard-9004-revision-9001and-business-finance-ppt-powerpoint/) I said: don't worry, be happy.

Where can I get the CD1 document that everybody is mentioning here? I would like to read it too.
Thanks for all your posts, they're really informative. :applause:
Gaby

Where can I get the CD1 document that everybody is mentioning here? I would like to read it too.The document is not available anymore. There was a window of opportunity for it's free download via the ASQ store. Check ASQ has posted ANSI/ISO CD1 9001:2009, ANSI/ISO CD1 9004:2009 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=20593) . You can sign up to receive a message when the DIS document becomes available.

Where can I get the CD1 document that everybody is mentioning here? I would like to read it too.
Thanks for all your posts, they're really informative. :applause:
Gaby

Hello Gaby,

ISO 9001:2008 CD1 was posted on the www.asq.org site for a pre-determined amount of time to allow for review and feedback. Now it has been removed. This document is copyrighted material from ISO and cannot be shared with others. Participants here (called "Covers" sometimes) are not permitted by the Owner of this site (Mr. Marc Smith) to solicit or share these types of documents. I am sure you'll understand. Be on the lookout for the next release.

Stijloor.

Thanks to Sidney Vianna and Stijloor for your replies, I already followed your instructions and signed up at ASQ website to receive the notification when new document is released, according to its information it could happen on this September.

Thanks a lot!

:thanks:

Gaby

Foreword.

Foreword.

Hello, there! Is there something you were looking for, or needed assistance with?

Foreword.

Ah, the English langage!

Ah, the English langage!
Yes, and I'm glad the thread moved foreword after that. :tg:

:topic:

Reminds me of this famous (in the UK) tv sketch.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbvCRkl_4U

Just shows how much the English language depends on context - much like a good quality management system: interpreting a global standard and applying it to diverse situations and circumstances.

//Rog.

This topic don't supply correctly informative
:topic:, pls

This topic don't supply correctly informative
:topic:, plsI think your post is lost in translation. Not sure what you mean. :confused:

I think your post is lost in translation. Not sure what you mean. :confused:

Hi Sidney,

The OP may be concerned that this thread does not provide her/him with correct information. S/he also added the "off topic" smiley. Some posts are indeed off topic. A new (international) poster may have a problem understanding the intent and humor behind it.

Stijloor.