The Committee Draft for comment to be issued by mid-August 1998.
The Second Committee Draft to be available in the second quarter of 1999.
The Draft International Standard to be available in the fourth quarter of 1999.
The new Standard is expected to be published in the fourth quarter of 2000.

Like the Y2K 'problem', no one should be able to say they didn't have enough time to address issues.

Fall of the year 2000! It's amazing that there is so much activity around a standard that isn't going to change for another 2 years!

Thanks for the info, J R. By the way - stopped by your company's web site. Very impressive!

An FYI:

Subject: Re: Q: Getting Ready for 2000/Russo/Staples
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:44:26 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

>Could members of the list share with us their specific plans, steps,
>activities, they are now initiating to prepare their transition to the Year
>2000 version of the ISO standards????

From: Patricia Staples
Subject: Re: Q: Getting Ready for 2000/Russo/Staples

First: Identify anything that could have any impact on your business due to the year change. Brainstorm with your management group. Someone may know something that others don't.

Second: Prioritize by importance and expense. If the date on something is very expensive to change but the production and quality of the job is not affected, than it may not need to be updated. (i.e., an old, stand alone computer using a DOS program to calculate percentages of something may be expensive to upgrade, (the cost of another computer) but does it really matter?)

Third: On the high priority items, is it less expensive to upgrade or buy new?

Fourth: Implement

Fifth: Test stand alone, test network internally, then test network externally. If you use programs together, test them together. Because there are different ways for a computer tech to "fix the problem," some programs may be OK individually but will not work when you try to use it with another application.

I am not a computer expert, so all of this is general, but I hope you get the main ideas.

Patricia Staples
Quality Manager
Roy Metal Finishing

MacKenzie replies:

My advice is to do nothing. Keep up to date with the changes by all means but do nothing until the standard is published. I know that certification bodies will give clients a year to comply with the new version.

Jim Mackenzie, Consultant, Medical Devices Lead Auditor.

If QS-9000 registered, what do we have to do to stay in comlpiance? In order to be QS certified, we are ISO certified also.
Will the QS 3rd edition be revised to comply with ISO 2000?

If QS-9000 registered, what do we have to do to stay in comlpiance? In order to be QS certified, we are ISO certified also.
You don't register to QS9000, you register to ISO9001. Your cert will have a statement somwhere which will say something like: "With QS9000 additional requirements". You stay certified by having your ISO audits as usual with the additional QS9000 requirements audited at the same time - which they do in a QS audit. But the bottom line is ISO is an international standard you register to. QS9000 is a customer requirement which you request to be audited to IN ADDITION to ISO9001 requirements. In a way it's sorta like you can get a major nonpliance citation for something which is not an ISO requirement if it is a system requirement your company has defined as an internal requirement.


Will the QS 3rd edition be revised to comply with ISO 2000?God doesn't visit this forum... No - I really don't off-hand know of a defined QS revision cycle (it may be there and I'm unaware of it) and I think one of the issues will be more mixed than we may think. For example, what will be the role of TR16949?

Read that - I'll bet you'll have lots more questions.... Then, either go at it (ask questions) in that thread - or bring them back to this thread - or - start another thread in the appropriate forum!

By the way, anyone heard anything about TR16949 lately?

Subject: FYI: ISO 9000 Transition /Arter
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:21:57 -0600
From: Moderator

From: Dennis Arter

This information was recently distributed by my friends at The Informed Outlook

ISO and IAF Cooperate to Ease ISO 9000 Transition

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and the IAF (International Accreditation Forum) have launched a cooperative program aimed at ensuring a smooth transition for business and industry to the Year 2000 versions of the ISO 9000 standards. At a joint meeting in Vienna representatives of ISO/TC 176, the ISO technical committee responsible for ISO 9000; ISO/CASCO, the ISO committee on conformity assessment; and the IAF, which is an association of national accreditation bodies from more than 30 countries, economic areas, or regions, the following agreements were reached:

1. Accredited certificates to the new ISO 9001 shall not be granted until the publication of ISO 9001:2000 as an International Standard (ISO 9001:2000 will replace the 1994 editions of ISO 9001, 9002 and 9003. A Draft International Standard (DIS) is due to be released in late November early December 1999. Current plans are to circulate a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) in the third quarter of 2000 and to publish the new ISO 9001 as an International Standard in the fourth quarter of 2000).

2. Certification/registration body assessments to the latest draft of the new standard may begin prior to publication of the ISO 9001:2000 International Standard.

3. Certificates issued to the 1994 editions of ISO 9001, ISO 9002 or ISO 9003 shall have a maximum validity of three years from the date of publication of ISO 9001:2000.

4. ISO 9001:2000 will require auditors and other relevant certification/registration body personnel to demonstrate new competencies.

5. Certification/registration bodies will need to take particular care in defining the scope of certificates issued to ISO 9001:2000, and the permissible exclusions to the requirements of that standard.

The full communiqué explaining this agreement can accessed on the web sites of ISO www.iso.ch (http://www.iso.ch) and the IAF www.iaf.nu (http://www.iaf.nu)

Dennis R. Arter

Just a 'reminder' post. Any current comments on this post? Dennis cites the 3 years to comply specifics herein.

I don't have a copy of the DIS. Is there any explanation of what constitutes (in #4),"Auditors...shall demsontrate new competencies"? Is there some sort of exam (like QS9000) for auditors?

I haven't seen 'new competencies' defined anywhere yet.

I haven't seen an "old" competent auditor, how can they expect them to lean "new competencies."

Easy of the auditors. Remember that an incompetent auditor used to be an incompetent quality manager, and there are still plenty of future incompetent auditors out there.
Cheers.

------------------

Mike525 - sounds like y'all need to change registrars! I have seen and know of many competent auditors. I may disagree with some of their ideas, but they are competent.

Is it true that we can select the registration to ISO9000:1994 6 months after ISO9000:2000?

Originally posted by dewie:
Is it true that we can select the registration to ISO9000:1994 6 months after ISO9000:2000?I can't remember the thread that addressed this. As I remember there will be a 2 or 3 year 'grace' period for currently registered companies to fully comply.

But - Why, pray tell, would you want to register to a technically obsolete document? The new version is not asking for much more.

This is what ISO has to say:

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) has issued new, improved (sic) advice to ISO 9000 users on how to make a smooth transition to the revised versions of its world-famous quality management standards, due for publication in the fourth quarter of 2000.

"Transition Planning Guidance", updated to reflect the latest Draft International Standard (DIS) version of ISO 9001:2000, and updated answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) on the revisions, are available as hard copies from ISO national member institutes, or accessible electronically from the Web sites of ISO (www.iso.ch) and subcommittee (SC) 2 of the ISO technical committee, ISO/TC 176, which is responsible for the ISO 9000 standards (www.bsi.org.uk/iso-tc176-sc2).

"With millions of ISO 9000 users worldwide, it is imperative that the revised standards be developed with maximum transparency and that the introduction of these standards be as seamless as possible," ISO states in its introduction to its latest information package on the revisions.

Therefore, throughout the development of the revised ISO 9000 standards, ISO has striven to involve user groups by canvassing their expectations and requirements, releasing early draft documents for comment – as well as for actual trial implementation by selected organizations – and taking account of the feedback to improve subsequent drafts.

The latest Transition Planning Guidance benefits from the collaboration between ISO, representatives of the certification bodies that issue ISO 9000 certificates and, notably, the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) which represents the majority of the world’s national accreditation bodies that approve certification bodies as competent to operate. These major stakeholder groups have already agreed to a common policy on such issues as the validity of ISO 9000 certificates during the transition, and the competence of auditors to carry out their work to the new ISO 9000 requirements.

The guidance document includes the full text of the ISO/IAF policy, as well as specific advice for the following stakeholder groups: current, intermediate and new ISO 9000 user organizations; industry sector schemes and quality awards; national standards bodies; accreditation bodies; certification (also known as "registration") bodies; training bodies and consultants. Other special features of the document include correlation and correspondence tables of ISO/DIS 9001:2000 with the current version of ISO 9001, and a summary of key enhancements.

In line with ISO’s wish to accompany the introduction of the revised ISO 9000 standards with the best possible service to users, the organization is encouraging widespread dissemination of the Transition Planning Guidance and FAQ’s. To this end, ISO Central Secretariat and ISO/TC 176/SC 2 have agreed that ISO member bodies and other organizations may use these documents, on the following conditions:

a)** Their origin as ISO documents is clearly identified, acknowledged and promoted.

b)** That if they are to be reproduced for re-sale, then this will require a formal written copyright agreement to be agreed with ISO, and may involve royalty payments (contact: Jacques-Olivier Chabot, Director of General Services and Marketing, ISO Central Secretariat. E-mail chabot@iso.ch).

c)** If not for re-sale, then there will be no restriction on their translation and onward promotion (including by Web site), or distribution.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 07 February 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 22 March 2001).]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:00:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Conflict Of Standards Use/../Miller/Hartman


Ray Miller queried: "How they are handling 8.3, I don't know..."

Ray, Our company has recently completed the effort to revise their documentation to be compliant with the INTENT of the DIS. Our documentation was NOT renumbered or reformatted (there's a cross reference in ANNEX B of the DIS), and no major revisions were made to the way we have been conducting business since 1992.

The DIS revisions make no great change to the INTENT of the previous versions of ISO 9001 (i.e. Continual Improvement - Always a part of (and a result of) the Management Review, Internal Audits, and Preventive Action requirements; Customer Satisfaction - Due to the fact that the wording in the DIS states that you can measure "satisfaction and/OR dissatisfaction" this is virtually no different than the previous requirement for handling customer complaints.

And to address your query directly, we continue to comply with the intent of the previous revision (especially since DIS 8.3 is one of the items that Jack West (Chairman of the TAG) stated will be corrected in the FDIS).

Don't let the consultants and other neighsayers fool you, there REALLY are NO major changes or additional requirements to the new revision.

David Hartman

This is our reply to TC 176, and it was published in the ISO-900 + ISO 14000 news letter for the month of june. I guess that we differ a little from your views.

Wendell Goodosn


ISO 9000 + ISO 14000 News
Letters to the Editor
Get real, TC 176!
I’ve read the proposed changes to the ISO 9001 standard and, to say the least, TC 176 must have had their head in the wrong place to make the wholesale change to the elements of the standard the way they did. I can’t believe this is for the good of the customer to change the standard this way.
We believe the custome is always right and that pleasing the customer is the most importamt thing any business can do. However, by changing the standard in the format that is proposed will hurt small businesses to the point of having to hire a consultant to find out exactly what the auditors will want documented.
Furthermore, it is the most fragmented standard that I’ve seen outside of MIL-Q-9858A. We had somthing that could have been improved without this re-numbering of the elements that will cause complete confusion to small businesses.
Get real! Let’s change it the way we did in 1994, not this way. Use the existing elements and improve them. Don’t change them this way.
I can see our auditors from our third party saying we will have to re-write all three tiers of our procedures and policies, to conform. We already have spent over $150,000 and now will have to throw it away.
Wendell Goodson
2405 South Shiloh RD
Garland, Texas 75041

No question their heads are in the wrong places. Any other clever observations?

Originally posted by Jim Biz:
Subject at hand:

I am aware of 1 or 2 companies in out area that have actually implemented the elements of the 1994 standards... with no real intention of being registered - they knew they needed a quality system and have put the elements to work for them ... it will be interesting to see what if anything they change internally due to the newest versions.. Just a comment... Using ISO9K as a tool makes sense. Doing it because your customer requires it is typically only a financial decision. I would expect more from a company doing it because they see opportunity for improvement rather than as a customer requirement.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "...what if anything they change internally due to the newest versions..."

Originally posted by Wendell Goodson:
I can see our auditors from our third party saying we will have to re-write all three tiers of our procedures and policies, to conform. We already have spent over $150,000 and now will have to throw it away.Make a cross-reference matrix. Why would you rewrite all (or any) of your procedures? http://www.qs9000.com/ubb/confused.gif Document tiers are a convenience, not a requirement. All I would rewite is your systems manual - a 1 day job. If all your procedures and such are that dependent upon structure you goofed when you developed your systems documentation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "...what if anything they change internally due to the newest versions..."

Marc Just to clarify - as I understand it they have implemented according to the 1994 version.. IMHO they may or may not "change internal documents structures or recording practices" (what difference would it make to update internal system documentation and practices to the 2000 write-up? If registration isn't the goal)

(Edited to correct quote code)

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 26 June 2000).]

If the company implemented ISO9K to 'better' the company and not to register I personally see no reason for them to 'update' to the 2000 version. Thus I see no reason to "change internal documents structures or recording practices".

The 2000 version of ISO9K only further bastardizes (my opinion) the standard towards the BullSh_t Zone. Customer Satisfaction my foot. Any company which does not satisfy its customers deserves what it gets and no standard will effectively force a company to do so. This is a carry-over from QS-9000, a customer requirement - not a 'standard. Since QS9000 is a customer requirement it shouldn't surprise us that it requires a supplier to 'please the customer' but Customer Satisfaction has no place in ISO 9001.

Marc, Marc, Marc.

Customer satisfaction has NO place in ISO 9000? Why else, on earth, would you bother with a quality management system?

These things take time, cost money (I know Crosby sez it's free, but that's b****it).
If your customers don't care it would be irresponsible to pay for a quality management system.

In fact, Customer Satisfaction turns out to be the definitition of quality! Even if your parts don't conform to requirements, if you customers are happy, you have a quality product.

Do you get it?

Dave

Originally posted by isodug:

In fact, Customer Satisfaction turns out to be the definitition of quality! Do you get it?I guess I have to ask if YOU get it. Any company that does not attend to customer satisfaction without a specification telling them to is - well, I hesitate to call it doomed, but it's a very poor way to run a business.

Companies improve their quality systms for many reasons. Typically part of the motive is profits and, by default, customer satisfaction. Are you telling me you need a specification like ISO9001 to direct your company (by requirement) to consider and address customer satisfaction?Originally posted by isodug:

Even if your parts don't conform to requirements, if you customers are happy, you have a quality product...Pretty interesting statement. But I disagree.

Well, try this out.

You get a call fom the chief engineer of your best customer. "From today forward the framis on the 1243 widget needs to be 0.0003 overcise. We have to allow the extra in order to mate with the new material.

Can I get a print change or a dieviation?" you ask.

"Maybe in three months!" he replies. "I'm up to my a*s in alligators over here. This is one of 348 changes we're making for Ford since they decided to create a 2000 1/2 model because of poor sales. And I need the parts ASAP."

Do you make and ship the the 0.0003" oversize framises? (y) Are the parts out of spec? (y) Do they satisfy the customer? (y) Are they poorer quality parts than the ones you made to spec yesterday? (n)

There is NOTHING more important to your business than satisfying customers.

Dave

Originally posted by isodog:

Are the parts out of spec? (y)No - they are not. The telephone conversation with your customer was for all intents and purposes a verbal requirement change which is (at heart) a contract change/revision. I assume you documented the call, who authorized the change, the date of first shipment, etc. Your change system should have provisions for this type of change since it's so common in audtomotive. The system should provide for follow-up on your end. You may never get a revised print, but you have evidence of the customer requested change. I don't see a problem here - typical automotive pro-active http://www.16949.com/ubb/wink.gif business as usual.

Dave
Small percent of customers turn to the manufacturer or service for their opinion. Your opinion was common in 1970s in USA manufacturers as they were selling what they produces. But the compotitive products from Japanese manufacturers with TQM has changed the mentality.

Question: If you want a marked up print, and your customer won't provide it, what's keeping you from doing it?
Send a copy to the customer to close the loop on the process and you are being proactive.
You have to mark up the prints for your use anyway, so giving the customer a copy of what you're building to reduces the risk of it being rejected by their incoming inspection.

AJP

I'll say it again, I'd rather have a satisfied customer than conformance to specifications!

Dave

Quite a spirited debate!

--------------------------------

From: (Manus)
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Date: 30 Jul 2000 16:44:58 GMT
Subject: Re: ISO9000 : 2000

>> there is no point of contact designated
>> that the companies who are interested can get solid information and
>> clarification.
>
>You could start with Dennis Arter since he is the standards chair for
>theASQ's
>Audit Division.

But Dennis is not the actual point of contact. He is actually usually booked out of town somewhere giving seminars or attending the meetings. So prompt replies would not be there.

>> The biggest problem has been even though official copies of the draft have
>> stated on them not for use in implementation, many companies, including ASQ,
>> have been providing classes on the draft standard.
>
>Because, renumbering and the like aside, the basic content of the standard is
>notgoing to change dramatically (and, frankly, has not since CD2 last Fall).
>One could very easily begin the process of reviewing/comparing their existing
>quality system to the DIS to see the major issues they need to address and
>put into action plans for how they expect to address them. There will be
>matters
>if detail to check out when the IS is published, but it isn't like there will be
>totally unforseen changes coming.

The problem is that the content in a few places HAS changed dramatically. The registrar mentioned was in attendance and was quoting the FDIS. Compared to the CD2 or DIS the changes brings up concerns of ISO dictating methodology rather than concept.

>> And now with the
>> renumbering and addition of information along
>
>First of all, the renumbering would only be relevant if some were writing
>theirquality system documentation to, word by word, track the actual
>structure of
>ISO 9001. Certainly that has been done, but it is never a recommended way to
>proceed. Write your quality system as you want it then provide a simple, one
>page mapping document between you system's structure and the
>ultimatestructure of ISO 9001.

I think you have a misconception. The ISO standard for writing your quality manual actually gives the method of structuring your manual based on the standard. Given that a number of registrars have pushed this onto companies, the restructuring of the standard every time we blink coupled with ASQ's and others jumping the gun on pushing implementing the standard, even while it is draft, is creating my concern.

>> with interpretations added to the
>> standard and it hasn't even been published(?!?)
>
>Interpretations are something one cannot stop, we can all do it. The issueis,
>who's doing the interpreting. Not ISO, but a host of organizations,
>non-profit and commercial, who feel they have an interest, professional
>and economic, in the widespread use of this standard. Consider the
>sources when you hear interpretations. Registrars, unsurprisingly, will
>have to be making them, and that's a good thing. I'd like to hear even
>more public interpretations by registrars. It would make the process of
>selecting a good one much easier!

The problem is that this is supposed to be an international standard. Also if you look at 10011, the lead assessor's standard, you are to leave out your opinions and interpretations when auditing. If the auditor is to remain objective they have to let the client do the interpreting and implementing and they are to judge if there is objective evidence that it is effective. Black and white, not grey.

>> ... where is the regulation coming from?

>Not from ISO since they have nothing to do with any registration or
>certification schemes. They are all run by organizations in specific
>countries
>who certify audfit/assessment firms who then, in turn, do the audits,
>for a fee, and grant registration certificates to those they feel meet the
>standard, as they interpret it.

But the certification bodies are to be taking direction from the ISO committees, not the other way around. But I am also not blind. The standard, pure as the intent, have become laughable. A lot of large companies have pressured their registrars and certification bodies into registering them, even though their system is not effective at the most basic of levels, satisfaction of _all_ their customers.

>> I am informing my company and our suppliers and clients to ignore most
>> everything until the actual standard is out. You cannot get registered using
>> the draft so why bother?

>Hopefully, one can bother for the reason I mentioned initially, you can
>use the draft to initiate discussion on what the new things will be that you
>and your suppliers/clients might expect under the new standard. In fact, it
>should be a great opportunity to have such discussion without the stress
>of actual registration expectations affecting the discussion. And why not use
>the draft as an opportunity to check out registrars and see what they feel
>are the key new/changed issues? Their explanations/interpretations compared
>to your own thoughts would be useful in selecting/changing/retaining a
>registrar.

It would be unethical and unfruitful to pursue discussions on a standard that is not released. As Adrian Bentnall pointed out, with the 3 year waiting period there is no point implementing or discussing something until the committee actually gives us something solid to work with, not just drafts which change.

Slan Leat!

Phil McManus

Dear Marc,
I wish to seek better understanding of the requirement of 8.3 which requires organization to measure customer satisfaction and/or dissatication.
I agreed that the 1994 version somewhat measures this "new" requirement in the form of "customer complaints handling". However, would it be adequate to understand the customer only based on this information. My rationale is that customer who make complaints may not indicate dissatisfaction because those who does may still satisfied and continue to have business with you. And on the other hand, customer who don't make complaints may not be satisfied but choose not to complain.
Based on the above, how would an ISO auditor or an organization determine customer satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction from the customer complaints.

------------------
Thanks and Best Regards

lmfoong

I would expect that estimates of the percentage of ISO 9001:2000 registered companies that don't "understand what it all is about" to be much much lower - like ... zero?! IMHO the situation hasn't changed much, well... at least not in my part of the world. Compliance with auditors' requirements still remains at the top of the agenda - numbers for (the sake of) numbers, charts for charts, papers for papers.... :(

Judging by the various threads we have discussing top management's 'commitment', I do not see that happening any time soon.

:frust:

Originally posted by Jim Wade
And may I add this subsidiary question?Surely!In May 2000, in these Forums, a view was expressed that, 95% of the time, companies consider that compliance is the only important thing. They want the certificate. They need it to make business. But they do no effort to understand what it all is about. [Ref: ISO 900x:2000 > Summary of Differences ISO 9000 1994 - 2000: Logged 19th May 2000 10:10 AM Marc Smith]

Since, as far as I can see, this went unchallenged, I guess it was seen to be approximately true at that time for (it certainly reflects what I have observed in the UK).

But what about now?Excuse the sarcasm, but I agree... What about now?You can no longer get a legitimate ISO 9000 certificate without top management's full and active involvement.Or so the theory goes...So, I would expect that estimates of the percentage of ISO 9001:2000 registered companies that don't "understand what it all is about" to be much much lower - like ... zero?!My, we ARE an optimist!Is this in fact true? Are things really changing so dramatically?Not in my opinionWill December 2003 see us in the happy position that we will have gone from about 5% penetration into the hearts and minds of top management to something approaching 100%?Businesses are, as far as my experience goes, still registering for the same reasons and I do not see anything in the 'New and Improved!' ISO 9001 that will really require upper management to do more than they do now. But - all is not bleak. I do see more interest from upper management than before, but I think that is in part because as time goes on there are more articles about it in business magazines and such so more people in top management are aware of its 'requirements' than were in the past.

I agree with Atul.

A Blast from the Past!

OK. A few years have passed. I see lmfoong never got an answer... Oh, well. It happens...

Any contemporary comments? How many have finished the transition and gone through the audit? Or better said, how many have not?

A Blast from the Past!

OK. A few years have passed. I see lmfoong never got an answer... Oh, well. It happens...

Any contemporary comments? How many have finished the transition and gone through the audit? Or better said, how many have not?


Since you asked, most of my clients have made the upgrade to the Process Approach (a few are still QS). I think it is save to say the vast majority do a good deal more than the minimum needed to get a cert. Most put forth a fair effort to understand the new principles and to actually put legitmate improvement efforts in place.

Much different that the early-mid 1990's.