Hello everyone. What is the general interpertation of "shall" and "should" in standard? Is "should" as loose as it sounds? My understanding is that "shall" means must be and that "should" is just a recommendation and doesn't really need to be done. I'm sure it probably is this simple, but when it comes to standards you can never be certain.:)

Richard

I would agree with your interpretation with respect to ISO9001. QS9000 however slightly tightens the noose by saying that 'shalls' must be done, and 'shoulds' must be done or a suitable alternative approach.

But QS is dead.

TS/ISO 16949 has the following comment
The word “should” indicates a recommendation. Paragraphs marked “NOTE” are for guidance in understanding or clarifying the associated requirement.
The only should not in a note is
4.2.3.1 Engineering specifications
The organization shall have a process to assure the timely review, distribution and implementation of all customer
engineering standards/specifications and changes based on customer-required schedule. Timely review should be
as soon as possible, and shall not exceed two working weeks.

Dead but not quite buried yet, 4 years and counting !

Typically, a "shall" means 'this you will do, and you will do it this way'. A "should" means 'this you will do, and you decide how to do it'. It is often called a "shall with flexibility".

Well, IMHO, if ISO-9000, 9001, or 9004 does not specifically give the official ISO definition of a certain term they use (such as “should”) the most reasonable thing to do is use the normal, everyday (dictionary?) definition based on the context of the sentence. To me “should” does not mean you have to do something, or 'this you will do, and you decide how to do it' or something “must be done or a suitable alternative approach”. Where do those definitions come from? There must be a reason they use “should” instead of “shall”. To me, should means “ought to, but don’t have to”, i.e. “You should get your Mother a gift on Mother’s Day” or “you should check your tire pressure every week”. Or, as Howard said, recommendation is a good synonym.

As I said, JMHO.

Jim,

Maybe I'm just being unreasonable, but it seems stupid to me that they (ISO) can't include all applicable "special" definitions in one of the 3 documents (ISO-9000, 9001, and 9004). Those 3 documents are commonly sold as a package and I assumed, wrongly it would seem, that especially ISO-9000 "fundamentals and vocabulary" would include all of the necessary definitions. How many people even know that "ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Terminology used in ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000" exists? I didn't, but maybe I'm a dummy. How many "extra" publications does one need to understand these "standards"? Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts?

Well, at least I can agree witht he second definition they give.

Jim,

Where would one get a copy of "ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Terminology used in ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000" ? Is it available free on the web or is it another money-maker for ISO?

Jim,

Thanks. I think. :)

Which is better and more positive?

1. We shall pay you

2. We should pay you

The same reasoning applies to the use of those 2 words in the standard.

Randy good point.
I choose 1, pay up:vfunny:

Per ISO 9000-2000: (I imagine the statement below is the same in the current doc)

The representative should report to top management and communicate with customers and other interested parties on matters pertaining to the quality management system.

There is that word "should" again. Is this "should" up to the intrepretation of my CB??

This statement above is the only leg I have to stand on to support my debate here at work.

I think this "should" can be optional, but management review is a "shall" which communicates the same type information at planned intervals.

Per ISO 9000-2000: (I imagine the statement below is the same in the current doc)

The representative should report to top management and communicate with customers and other interested parties on matters pertaining to the quality management system.

There is that word "should" again. Is this "should" up to the intrepretation of my CB??

This statement above is the only leg I have to stand on to support my debate here at work.


Ummmm...what? Was your post really from today, June 8th, 2010 and you are really referencing ISO9000-2000? And is that really about the (management) representative reporting to top management?

Am I in an alternate reality where there is no 2008 version?

Here's the definition from AS9102 Aerospace First Article:


1.3 Convention:
The following convention is used in this Standard.

• The words "shall" and "must" indicate mandatory requirements.
• The word "should" indicates mandatory requirements with some flexibility allowed in compliance methodology.

An Organization is permitted to show that its approach meets the intent of the requirement and this standard.


Good luck

Ummmm...what? Was your post really from today, June 8th, 2010 and you are really referencing ISO9000-2000? And is that really about the (management) representative reporting to top management?

Am I in an alternate reality where there is no 2008 version?

oh gawd. don't need your remarks please. I do not have the 2008 to reference and I stated that I thought the current one was the same in the post.

I am awaiting my CB reply on this matter. Will reply again with their comments.... regarding ISO 9001:2008.
good grief.

Ummmm...what? Was your post really from today, June 8th, 2010 and you are really referencing ISO9000-2000? And is that really about the (management) representative reporting to top management?

Am I in an alternate reality where there is no 2008 version?

Current versions: ISO 9001:2008
ISO 9000:2005

Current versions: ISO 9001:2008
ISO 9000:2005

Bingo!!

Stijloor.

Current versions: ISO 9001:2008
ISO 9000:2005That is correct.
But, for all PRACTICAL purposes, there is no real difference between the current versions of these two documents and their previous revisions. Especially for the purpose of the discussion started by Crusader. I would be surprised if the registrar were to issue a NC based on ISO 9000, even though it is a normative reference in ISO 9001.

The answer to Crusader's concern is not in ISO 9000, but in ISO 9001, 5.5.2 a) and b).

oh gawd. don't need your remarks please. I do not have the 2008 to reference and I stated that I thought the current one was the same in the post.

Well...don't get it personal but I assumed that one of the rules on this board was to reference current versions of any given/referenced standard when used to support argument/advice.

Especially in the case that you cited, where there is big diff. in regards to requirements/definition of MR between 2000 and 2008 versions (reports to/part of).

Ummmm...what? Was your post really from today, June 8th, 2010 and you are really referencing ISO9000-2000? And is that really about the (management) representative reporting to top management?

Am I in an alternate reality where there is no 2008 version?
Jeez, lighten up. Maybe you are in an alternate reality, some kind of domain where sarcasm is the currency.

Especially in the case that you cited, where there is big diff. in regards to requirements/definition of MR between 2000 and 2008 versions (reports to/part of).What are the differences?

What are the differences?
While not a "big" difference, the difference between 2000 and 2008 of ISO 9001 for Management Rep is the organization's own management.

As far as I'm concerned, the only time I'm interested in should vs. shall is where an organization restates the standard in their documents. IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESTATE THE STANDARD, THEN STATE IT ACCURATELY. In this context, the organization is trying to wiggle out of a requirement by using "should" instead of "shall". No? Then if you are going to restate the Stanadrd, the quote it correctly. What has the organization have to hide by not doing so?

Guess what, every organization that I have audited that uses should instead of shall intends just that....leave wiggle room.

EVERY organization that I have audited that uses should where they do not restate the standard, when called out, will eventually state, "IT IS ONLY A SUGGESTIOIN".

Why play games?

The shall vs should controversy has existed from the beginning with the ISO standards. The problem is not the difference between the two but the vagueness of what should means. To use Randy's example, a person who should pay has the option of paying or not paying with no guidance. By writing a procedure using the word "should" you are allowing the user to determine the action required.

Over time we found it easier to make it more clear when and what actions were required and leave decision making as a job responsibility when there were alternatives.

Bill Pflanz

While not a "big" difference, the difference between 2000 and 2008 of ISO 9001 for Management Rep is the organization's own management. I don't understand why certain fallacies don't get challenged. The following is part of the requirements from ISO 9001:2000, as it relates to a management representative position:
Top management shall appoint a member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includesThe 4th edition of ISO 9001 stipulates
Top management shall appoint a member of the organization's management who, irrespective of other responsibilitiesSo, and again, I contend there are no differences, much less significant differences. From where I sit, the addition of the two words "the organization's" does not change anything. Just attempts to clarify the requirement.

I will let you know what my registrar says about: who exactly the MR(me) is expected/supposed to report to on the ISO org chart. That is the question. (The definition states that the MR "should" report to top manangement.) Clarification on that definition is all I am after!

I once reported to top management(2 persons) - an executive and the owner of company.
Now, I report to a chief mfg engineer, who has no authority regarding the control of the organization. This person is just below the VP level. The VP has influence on the control of the organization but not control.

I will let you know what my registrar says about: who exactly the MR(me) is expected/supposed to report to on the ISO org chart. That is the question. (The definition states that the MR "should" report to top manangement.) Clarification on that definition is all I am after!

I once reported to top management(2 persons) - an executive and the owner of company.
Now, I report to a chief mfg engineer, who has no authority regarding the control of the organization. This person is just below the VP level. The VP has influence on the control of the organization but not control.

As long as the required duties of the MR are effectively performed, I don't think it makes a difference to whom you report. Many people in an organization wear different hats, play different roles, and report to various folks. In you role as MR, you report to the President. In your other role, you report to the Chief Mfg. Engineer. In a smaller organization, flexibility is the key.

Stijloor.

IN my experience 'shall' means something must be done, 'should' is a recommendation to perform a task and 'will' is a promise to perform some specific activity.

As long as the required duties of the MR are effectively performed, I don't think it makes a difference to whom you report. Many people in an organization wear different hats, play different roles, and report to various folks. In you role as MR, you report to the President. In your other role, you report to the Chief Mfg. Engineer. In a smaller organization, flexibility is the key.

Stijloor.

I don't report to the Pres anymore - he flat out told me to my face that he does not me to report to him at all or any of my work.

I don't report to the Pres anymore - he flat out told me to my face that he does not me to report to him at all or any of my work.

Is your resume up to date?

Stijloor.

I don't understand why certain fallacies don't get challenged. The following is part of the requirements from ISO 9001:2000, as it relates to a management representative position:
The 4th edition of ISO 9001 stipulates
So, and again, I contend there are no differences, much less significant differences. From where I sit, the addition of the two words "the organization's" does not change anything. Just attempts to clarify the requirement.

Sorry, I though I had stated "while not a Big difference" which means....er....not a big change. I do not see where we disagree.

I do not see where we disagree.Sorry, John, but I think we have to be pragmatic. A previous poster had mentioned that there were SIGNIFICANT differences. You mentioned not big differences/changes, which means there were small changes.

As I said, in my viewpoint, there are NO changes. The two added words don't change anything.

Some people (not you) still try to sell the idea there are differences between ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008 so they can "sell" their services to unsuspecting fools customers.

In our quality manual we have spelled out the difference between the words.
Shall = a requirement that must be met
Should = an option with an organizational preference (If it isn't met, a rationale is documented)
May = an option without any preference

Difference between 'Shall' and 'Should' is clarified in ISO TC 176-526 (page # 8).

Please also refer ISO Directives Part 3:1997, Annex E (page # 47)