Dear all,
Which processes should be monitored to meet 8.2.3?
Many thanks

One of the differences between ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008 is the addition in 4.1 of
e) monitor, measure where applicable,

another change is the removal of "to ensure product conformity" in 8.2.3,

IMO The process that should be monitored and measured are those that you decide are the most important and have the greatest effect on your overall objectives.

Dear all,
Which processes should be monitored to meet 8.2.3?
Many thanks

As Howard says - those where it makes sense, where you'll get useful results.

Don't read 'monitor and measure' as either meaning the same thing or as one phrase, though, because it certainly does not say this..

Look closely at what it says (ie, the exact wording) in 8.2.3


( that you) shall apply suitable methods for monitoring (ie, you must monitor - not just ignore whatever's happening or hope it's doing OK. But even a supervisor walking around the shopfloor, or a manager running their eye over some management reports (say) can qualify as monitoring

and, where applicable, measurement - you don't have to measure every process. You only measure those processes where you can, where it makes sense, where you'll get results - ie, 'where applicable'.

It's usually more expensive to measure processes than to monitor them. And there's no point in spending a lot of $$ on measuring where you don't need to and won't get any/many useful results!

Any what's the point of requiring monitoring, plus measuring "where applicable'? To make sure your processes produce the planned results. Keep your focus on that.

How would you provide evidence of this monitoring (supervisor overseeing shop floor, or manager reviewing data)?

This is really where Iso gets its bad name with documentation, the easiest way to provide evidence is to create a document and have someone write all over it (a checklist perhaps). Written evidence would never naturally occur for that type of monitoring.

One of the differences between ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008 is the addition in 4.1 of
e) monitor, measure where applicable,

another change is the removal of "to ensure product conformity" in 8.2.3,

IMO The process that should be monitored and measured are those that you decide are the most important and have the greatest effect on your overall objectives.
I believe the standard is asking for all of the processes identified in clause 4.1 to be either monitored or measured. The choice we have for each process is whether we will measure it, or just monitor it. The "where applicable" applies to the measurement. As Jane states, measurement is more costly and should be used when you determine it's necessary.
NOTE When determining suitable methods, it is advisable that the organization consider the type and extent of monitoring or measurement appropriate to each of its processes in relation to their impact on the conformity to product requirements and on the effectiveness of the quality management system.(my emphasis)


How would you provide evidence of this monitoring (supervisor overseeing shop floor, or manager reviewing data)?

This is really where Iso gets its bad name with documentation, the easiest way to provide evidence is to create a document and have someone write all over it (a checklist perhaps). Written evidence would never naturally occur for that type of monitoring.
Don't create evidence for the auditor. The intent is that you ensure that top management has the information that they need to determine that the process is effective in achieving the organization's objectives. This will generally correspond with applicable management review inputs. If evidence has been provided for top management to make this determination, then the same evidence should work for the auditor as well.

How would you provide evidence of this monitoring (supervisor overseeing shop floor, or manager reviewing data)?

This is really where Iso gets its bad name with documentation, the easiest way to provide evidence is to create a document and have someone write all over it (a checklist perhaps). Written evidence would never naturally occur for that type of monitoring.

Well, in my experience and opinion, such a 'bad name' is ill-deserved, as it's usually created by people misunderstanding or misapplying the Standard! (Which includes poor auditing)

Sure, the idea of considering creating a checklist for a manager to fill out to 'prove' s/he has monitored is close to ludicrous - and 9001 is NOT requiring that!

Just a few ways I've seen it demonstrated are: managers clearly demonstrating (discussing, showing, etc) that they are very familiar with the processes and the results they're getting, management reports, discussions at various meetings & forums, and actions arising (incl. NC, CA, PA & management review), database results (dashboards etc).

As howste says:

Don't create evidence for the auditor. The intent is that you ensure that top management has the information that they need to determine that the process is effective in achieving the organization's objectives. This will generally correspond with applicable management review inputs. If evidence has been provided for top management to make this determination, then the same evidence should work for the auditor as well.

Stay with good sound business sense! Because that's ultimately what ISO is about.