Attached is draft ISO 9001:2008 issued in Jan 08 for comments that closed in Feb 08. Note the warning that this version may have changed but for those who have not seen this version, it offers some indication of what the proposed changes are. All changes highlighted in Yellow.

Also attached is a summary of changes.

Cheers :bigwave:

This looks like the Australian/New Zealand version. Is this the same as the ISO DIS standard issued around last September?

Hi Howste
I have had to interpret the Draft ISO 9001:2008 standard for all you up there in the Northern hemisphere. We write upside down here so even this message has been deciphered from Down-Under-Speak/Write so that you can read it. :lol:

The attached standard has been included as it took me some time to track it down and it appeared that the only information available on the Cove was drafted over a batch of advertising material. Nothing like the real thing to promote clarity for all.

Cheers

I appreciate you changing the text to right side up so I can read it!

It does look like it's from the DIS ISO 9001 dated September 20, 2007. It is much easier to see exactly the changes though, since they're highlighted and some of the unchanged text is left out.

I have a copy of the DIS 9001 but I can't distribute it, so I'm glad you were able to track this down and post it for us all.

I've tried to open the pdf file with the ISO 9001:2008 draft version but it seems to be corrupted...could you ck?

I've tried to open the pdf file with the ISO 9001:2008 draft version but it seems to be corrupted...could you ck?
It still opens fine for me...

Hi!
Does anyone have a copy of the ISO 9001:2008 FDIS?

Thanks!

Hi!
Does anyone have a copy of the ISO 9001:2008 FDIS?

Thanks!

Copyrighted materials can not be requested at this Forum.

When the new revision of ISO 9001 is expected to some?:thanks:

when the new revision of iso 9001 is expected to some?:thanks:2008-10-31 @ 2:37pm GST

Am I reading this section upside down - or am I really stupid? What does this mean (I have substituted the definition of a [product] from ISO9000 - which is, I believe, what ISO9000 exists for):

(1.1) "In this International Standard, the term “product” applies to the [result of a process] intended for, or required by, ... the product realization processes."

To me, this suggests that "product realization" could just as well be called "product transformation" (again using ISO9000 definitions) - since the "product" in this case is an input.

What about (for example) the induction and training process? It is needed to ensure that competent staff work in production. So your staff are a "product" on the production line?

There must be simpler words to describe the basic concepts. "Resources" might do, whether bought in or created, and that would help to get away from the confusion often caused when people try to find "inputs" to be "transformed" to fit the definition of a process, when the last thing you want is your resources to be transformed so that they can't be used again?

...I guess, you have to hold that “thoughts” until the final and official version is release…

Am I reading this section upside down - or am I really stupid? What does this mean (I have substituted the definition of a [product] from ISO9000 - which is, I believe, what ISO9000 exists for):

(1.1) "In this International Standard, the term “product” applies to the [result of a process] intended for, or required by, ... the product realization processes."Peter, I don't understand what your concern is. Please clarify. The paragraph you quoted just clarifies that the requirements of the ISO 9001 standard apply to the INTENDED product (which, by definition, includes components), but not to the byproducts of the product realization processes.

Peter, I don't understand what your concern is. Please clarify. The paragraph you quoted just clarifies that the requirements of the ISO 9001 standard apply to the INTENDED product (which, by definition, includes components), but not to the byproducts of the product realization processes.

Sidney

Sorry, but I don't understand your interpretation(!), and I don't think that it clarifies anything.

"The product intended for the product realization processes" sounds to me like something going in to another process, not coming out.

The intention may be as you say, but the result makes it less, rather than more, clear.

And if you forget about a production line, and try to relate it to a "transactional" process (such as the design of a training course?), it is worse.

Sidney

Sorry, but I don't understand your interpretation(!), and I don't think that it clarifies anything.

"The product intended for the product realization processes" sounds to me like something going in to another process, not coming out.

The intention may be as you say, but the result makes it less, rather than more, clear.

And if you forget about a production line, and try to relate it to a "transactional" process (such as the design of a training course?), it is worse.Note 1 of the ISO 9001 DIS (I have not seen the FDIS document yet) states

NOTE 1 In this International Standard, the term “product” applies to the product intended for, or required by, a customer or the product realization processes. This applies to any intended output resulting from product realization processes, including purchasing.
The output of the purchasing process can be raw materials, components, etc. which will be used in the product realization process. The note, in my opinion, serves the purpose of clarifying that "product" also includes the constituent parts of the final product, i.e., raw material, sub-assemblies, etc. Many people still misinterpret the word product in ISO 9001 as only "final, finished products".

Note 3 of the product definition contained in ISO 9000:2005 states Quality assurance is mainly focused on intended product

I find that the attempt in the standards to explain words used in the standards often makes things worse. "Product" is defined as "the result of a process", but this definition is then compromised by the manufactured concept of "product realization processes" - which implies that some (other) processes don't "realise" (ie create) products.

In ISO9001, most of the references to "product" do mean "what the customer gets", so it is not surprising that people interpret the word in that way. Right at the beginning of the 2008 Draft it says: "This International Standard can be used ... to assess the organization‘s ability to meet customer, statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the product...".

The way the word is defined and used needs to be rethought and redefined so that it is consistent, if as you (correctly) say "many people still misinterpret the word".

I find that the attempt in the standards to explain words used in the standards often makes things worse. "Product" is defined as "the result of a process", but this definition is then compromised by the manufactured concept of "product realization processes" - which implies that some (other) processes don't "realise" (ie create) products.

In ISO9001, most of the references to "product" do mean "what the customer gets", so it is not surprising that people interpret the word in that way. Right at the beginning of the 2008 Draft it says: "This International Standard can be used ... to assess the organization‘s ability to meet customer, statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the product...".

The way the word is defined and used needs to be rethought and redefined so that it is consistent, if as you (correctly) say "many people still misinterpret the word".

Peter,

What do you mean by:

<snip>"Product" is defined as "the result of a process", but this definition is then compromised by the manufactured concept of "product realization processes" - which implies that some (other) processes don't "realise" (ie create) products.

Emphasis mine..

Stijloor.

Thank you for sharing the draft ISO 9001:2008. Atleast we can get some idea , what and where we need to focus .:thanx:

Peter,

What do you mean by:



Emphasis mine..

Stijloor.

Stijloor and Peter,

I think the confusion can be generated by the fact that there are production processes (lines) that have to be designed and built or modified in order to make new products to be shipped and sold. The production line can be seen as a product of an engineering process. More complicated are companies that design and make production lines for other production companies.

Kind regards,

Jack

Stijloor and Peter,

I think the confusion can be generated by the fact that there are production processes (lines) that have to be designed and built or modified in order to make new products to be shipped and sold. The production line can be seen as a product of an engineering process. More complicated are companies that design and make production lines for other production companies.

Kind regards,

Jack

Jack,

I personally do not have any problems with the term "process" and its interpretation. I was just curious to find out from Peter what he means by: manufactured concept of "product realization processes."

Stijloor.

<quote>
What do you mean by:
</snip>"Product" is defined as "the result of a process", but this definition is then compromised by the manufactured concept of "product realization processes" - which implies that some (other) processes don't "realise" (ie create) products.</snip>
Emphasis mine.
</quote>
Stijloor

Until this version of the standard appeared, I had never heard of anyone advertising a job for a "product realization manager", or discussing why their "product realization processes" were not as efficient as their competitors, or saying that "their products haven't been realized as planned so they have had more complaints from customers last month". And I still haven't!

It is a manufactured concept because someone (a committee?) made it up. It doesn't relate easily to what managers think they are responsible for, and it certainly means nothing to most members of staff who are "doing product realization". In fact it is a manufacturing concept, which is why these definitions and terminology are so non-intuitive for people in service industries and administration departments.

And it shoots itself in the foot when put alongside the definition of a "product" as the "result of a process": so processes produce products - unless they are "non-product realization processes"...? The advice "if you are in a hole, stop digging" would seem to apply to the definition of terms to explain other terms which patently causes more confusion.

There must be an easier way to define the basics, so that "normal" managers and staff don't need consultants or "experts" to explain what they need to understand to be able to apply the standard. It is counter-productive to define a concept, then to restrict (or in some cases to change) its definition, and then to give examples to explain what you mean. (Sorry, but this has always been a bugbear of mine...)

<quote>
What do you mean by:
</snip>"Product" is defined as "the result of a process", but this definition is then compromised by the manufactured concept of "product realization processes" - which implies that some (other) processes don't "realise" (ie create) products.</snip>
Emphasis mine.
</quote>
Stijloor

Until this version of the standard appeared, I had never heard of anyone advertising a job for a "product realization manager", or discussing why their "product realization processes" were not as efficient as their competitors, or saying that "their products haven't been realized as planned so they have had more complaints from customers last month". And I still haven't!

It is a manufactured concept because someone (a committee?) made it up. It doesn't relate easily to what managers think they are responsible for, and it certainly means nothing to most members of staff who are "doing product realization". In fact it is a manufacturing concept, which is why these definitions and terminology are so non-intuitive for people in service industries and administration departments.

And it shoots itself in the foot when put alongside the definition of a "product" as the "result of a process": so processes produce products - unless they are "non-product realization processes"...? The advice "if you are in a hole, stop digging" would seem to apply to the definition of terms to explain other terms which patently causes more confusion.

There must be an easier way to define the basics, so that "normal" managers and staff don't need consultants or "experts" to explain what they need to understand to be able to apply the standard. It is counter-productive to define a concept, then to restrict (or in some cases to change) its definition, and then to give examples to explain what you mean. (Sorry, but this has always been a bugbear of mine...)

Peter,

Thank you for your explanation.

Do you believe that others have difficulties with the definition?

I think that the standard writers (the 2000 version) have worked (hard) to remove all manufacturing bias out of the Standard. Compromises had to made obviously and "Product Realization" is an example of such a compromise.

During my consulting and training work, I never found this term to be problem with my Clients/Students. It was easily understood.

And, of course, we're only talking about the English language version.
Even in Dutch (my first language) it made sense.

Any suggestions how you would like to call "Product Realization?"

Thank you Peter.

Stijloor.

Peter,

Thank you for your explanation.
Do you believe that others have difficulties with the definition?
I think that the standard writers (the 2000 version) have worked (hard) to remove all manufacturing bias out of the Standard. Compromises had to made obviously and "Product Realization" is an example of such a compromise.
During my consulting and training work, I never found this term to be problem with my Clients/Students. It was easily understood.
And, of course, we're only talking about the English language version.
Even in Dutch (my first language) it made sense.
Any suggestions how you would like to call "Product Realization?"
Thank you Peter.
Stijloor.

Stijloor

"Even" my Dutch wife doesn't know what it means! I think that you have put your finger on it - they have started with manufacturing, and then tried to broaden it to make it fit, whereas I think that it would have been better to take a step back and forget about production lines. The same approach as we recommend to users when they are defining their management system - define what you do, then look at any relevant external standard and see if what you have defined still fits the bill.

How about "Design, Development, Production and Delivery", or "Getting and Doing Work" or "Making and Delivering Things"? Absolutely no-one I know talks about "Product Realization" unless they are referring to the standard - which is not a good enough reason to use it!

Product lifecycle is a pretty well-used term that is similar. Although it typically includes some things not specified in ISO 9001.

Product lifecycle is a pretty well-used term that is similar. Although it typically includes some things not specified in ISO 9001.

"Managing the ...": That certainly works for oil & gas. Probably works for (eg) consultancy and training as well?

But... why did you not suggest it before and save me all this confusion!!!

"Managing the ...": That certainly works for oil & gas. Probably works for (eg) consultancy and training as well?

But... why did you not suggest it before and save me all this confusion!!!

If I had suggested it before, you wouldn't have appreciated it nearly as much. :notme:

I thought I had read that the committee selected the French word

"re ill eye zay she own"

to replace the simple English word "design" since it made more sense in more languages?

I do not like green eggs and and ham and I do not like "realization", it means nothng in our industry.

If I had suggested it before, you wouldn't have appreciated it nearly as much. :notme:

You mean that I would not have achieved such a high level of "satisfaction and understanding realization"...?

Thanks!

Ummm... maybe. :confused:

thanks nice information, please keep it more up

thanks for providing the draft copy...very useful for reference.

Product lifecycle is a pretty well-used term that is similar. Although it typically includes some things not specified in ISO 9001.

It's interesting that no-one has picked up on "Managing the Product Lifecycle": what do we mean by "Product" in this context, and does it fit with the definition in the standard...

Can we pass this draft on to the others?

Yes, you certainly can.

Cheers:bigwave:

I have got an Excellent Informative Presentation in this regard. Hope it'll useful for a man/many.

Regards,
Sadananda

Thank you very much, nice information, please keep it more up


I have got an Excellent Informative Presentation in this regard. Hope it'll useful for a man/many.

Regards,
Sadananda

Does anybody know what the projected schedule release date is for ISO 9001:2008?

Thanks?

2008-10-31

Thank you for posting the Draft copy of the 2008 standard. I have a job interview coming up and this information is extremely helpful!!

Ron:thanx:

Hi Sadananda,
Thank you for sharing the powerpoint presentation.
best regards,
raffy:cool:
I have got an Excellent Informative Presentation in this regard. Hope it'll useful for a man/many.

Regards,
Sadananda

You can read about the changes in ISO 9001:2008 vs. ISO 9001:2000 by downloading my paper, ISO 9001:2008 Differences, from my WhittingtonAssociates web site.

Go to the Resources selection at the top of the home page and select ISO 9000 from the drop-down menu. The first entry is a PDF file with 19 pages describing every text change throughout the new standard.

Deleted ISO 9001:2000 text is indicated by strike-throughs. New ISO 9001:2008 text is highlighted and underlined. The underlining will allow readers to distinguish the new text, even if the paper is printed without color.

Most of the text in ISO 9001:2000 has not been affected by ISO 9001:2008 and is not repeated in the paper. Revised text is shown in Italics to distinguish it from my comments.

Note: The ISO 9001:2008 differences are explained using the content of ISO/FDIS 9001:2008 and may change when ISO 9001:2008 is published.

Hi Larry, Welcome:bigwave:

Dear Mr. Larry,

Thanks for this document, it is very useful for us

Thanks & best regards
(http://elsmar.com/Forums/member.php?u=16369)

Hi Larry, Welcome:bigwave:

When the new ISO 9001 standard is official will it mean that the ISO 16949 will also change since its an extension of the ISO 9001?

When the new ISO 9001 standard is official will it mean that the ISO 16949 will also change since its an extension of the ISO 9001?

No, not yet.

Stijloor.

Thanks Larry,
Very helpfull!:agree1:
John

Hi!
Does anyone have a copy of the ISO 9001:2008 FDIS?

Thanks!

You can buy it here if you like:

http://www.aworldofquality.com/content/store/ItemDetail.aspx?ItemID=515

Or download and review an account of the somewhat underwhelming changes.

Bt this I mean that risk management is still absent and corrective action still comes before preventive action.

You can buy it here if you like:

http://www.aworldofquality.com/content/store/ItemDetail.aspx?ItemID=515

Or download and review an account of the somewhat underwhelming changes.

Bt this I mean that risk management is still absent and corrective action still comes before preventive action.

Thanks for the post + attachment. Please let us know if you are affiliated with the "linked" organization.

Stijloor. Forum Moderator.

Thanks for the post + attachment. Please let us know if you are affiliated with the "linked" organization.

Stijloor. Forum Moderator.
Yes, we list ISO standards for ANSI.

Yes, we list ISO standards for ANSI.

And "we" is Quality Management International, Inc.?
Is that your affiliation?

Stijloor.

And "we" is Quality Management International, Inc.?
Is that your affiliation?

Stijloor.
Yes Stijloor, we are Quality Management International, Inc. We are sponsoring the advertisement on the left "Develop and Document Your Management System". John

Looking for the FDIS for the changes in ISO 9001:2008 trying to understand what the new changes are.

Thanks,
al40

Looking for the FDIS for the changes in ISO 9001:2008 trying to understand what the new changes are.

Thanks,
al40

Even though it's an FDIS, it's still copyrighted and can't be posted here. You can purchase and download it from several sites, including ASQ, ISO or John's site above. This thread also has several summaries posted or linked.

Is there more information that you need that isn't posted here?

:confused:

Hello,
My company is registered to TS 16949. What does the 2008 standard mean for us? Will the TS standard be updated also? If this is true how long will we have to comply with the new spec?

Thanks a bunch,
SheliaB in Georgia:confused:

:confused:

Hello,
My company is registered to TS 16949. What does the 2008 standard mean for us? Will the TS standard be updated also? If this is true how long will we have to comply with the new spec?

Thanks a bunch,
SheliaB in Georgia:confused:
Being as ISO 9001:2008 brings "no new requirements" it can have no impact on ISO/TS 16949.

Yes, ISO/TS 16949 will be updated on its continual improvement cycle.

Please be informed that Larry's comments are against FDIS version. There were some cases that final ISO document differs from FDIS.

In all cases, thank you, Larry!

Evgeny Avanesov
Member of the Russian delegation
in ISO/TC 176

:confused:

Hello,
My company is registered to TS 16949. What does the 2008 standard mean for us? Will the TS standard be updated also? If this is true how long will we have to comply with the new spec?

Thanks a bunch,
SheliaB in Georgia:confused:

Most standard revisions allow for a three year phase in period.

Most standard revisions allow for a three year phase in period.Not sure if this is the case. The ISO 9001 87=>94 transition had an 18 month time frame. The ISO 14001 96=>04 transition had an 24 month time frame. The only transition that I can remember with a 36 month time frame was the ISO 9001 94=>00 one. And we all remember the worldwide procrastination.

Since ISO/TS16949 2008/9 is not expected to bring any new requirements, I suspect the IATF will have a short time frame for migration. 18 months or so would be my bet.

Not sure if this is the case. The ISO 9001 87=>94 transition had an 18 month time frame. The ISO 14001 96=>04 transition had an 24 month time frame. The only transition that I can remember with a 36 month time frame was the ISO 9001 94=>00 one. And we all remember the worldwide procrastination.

Since ISO/TS16949 2008/9 is not expected to bring any new requirements, I suspect the IATF will have a short time frame for migration. 18 months or so would be my bet.

Per ISO/IAF for all accredited certifications:

1. Certificates of conformity to ISO 9001:2008 (or national equivalents) shall only be issued after 14 November 2008 and after a routine surveillance or recertification audit against ISO 9001:2008.
2. From 14 November 2009 all new and updated certifications shall be to ISO 9001:2008.
3. After 14 November 2010, any existing certification issued to ISO 9001:2000 shall not be valid.

Per ISO/IAF

1. Certificates of conformity to ISO 9001:2008 (or national equivalents) shall only be issued after 14 November 2008 and after a routine surveillance or recertification audit against ISO 9001:2008.
2. From 14 November 2009 all updated certifications shall be to ISO 9001:2008.
3. After 14 November 2010, any existing certification issued to ISO 9001:2000 shall not be valid.

John, I haven't checked the website but on point 2 above, should that be ... all new certifications ...?

John, I haven't checked the website but on point 2 above, should that be ... all new certifications ...?

Colin,

Validity of certifications to ISO 9001:2000

One year after publication of ISO 9001:2008 all accredited certifications issued (new certifications or recertifications) shall be to ISO 9001:2008.

Here is the site (http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1152) from which this quote was taken.

Does this help?

Stijloor.