Good Afternoon
Our maintenance department just showed me an article in Maintenance Technology magazine(March2004) titled Using CMMS for ISO/QS-9000
by Ed Johnson, WCI Steel,Inc.He states in this article "Serveral years ago
the ISO standards were revised to require computerized maintenance management in place of older manual systems"
I do think that this is incorrect but as you get older your mind plays tricks.
I have looked over the standards and cannot see this requirement.
Is there anyone out there, that can shed more light on this subject
Many Thanks
PG

I'd have to agree with you, George...I don't believe that there is a specific requirement for a computerized maintenance system.

That being said, however, during our recent External Audit (Surveillance Audit #9/Re-Registration Audit...ended yesterday), our new Lead informed me that the new Standard allows him the right to issue findings (i.e., nonconformances) against ineffective processes. He followed that, though, saying he didn't know us well enough yet (this was his first audit with us) to issue such statements as nonconformances and would simply make them Opportunities for Improvement.

If what the Lead is true, then should your External Auditor find fault with a paper-ladened maintenance system (assuming that's what you have), or deem in ineffective, they may issue you a finding. I'd challenge it though. There must be a logical reason why you have retained such a system and this is your company.

As many of us in the Cove has repeatedly said, "Make the Standard conform to you...you don't conform to the Standard."

I've got to agree, Roxane. The important thing is that the system work for you. As far as writing NCs for ineffective processes, my first question would be; "What is effective?". Think about it. Every process can be improved. So therefore, all processes are not as effective as they can be. So therefore, we write up all processes as nonconforming. This is extreme, which brings me back to my point. Where is the line? If I had a system that I felt was working, I would not accept any nonconformances for things that either weren't "appropriate" or "effective" enough. :mad:

I've got to agree, Roxane. The important thing is that the system work for you. As far as writing NCs for ineffective processes, my first question would be; "What is effective?". Think about it. Every process can be improved. So therefore, all processes are not as effective as they can be. So therefore, we write up all processes as nonconforming. This is extreme, which brings me back to my point. Where is the line? If I had a system that I felt was working, I would not accept any nonconformances for things that either weren't "appropriate" or "effective" enough. :mad:

While it's off-topic, you're preaching to the choir here, Dave. If my system is compliant and working, then there is no nonconformance. Issue me an OFI, I'm okay with that...I like getting them...but not a finding. I can not accept having a conditionally approval because Mr. Auditor didn't "feel" the system was effecient. However, since that has not yet happened, there's nothing for me to get too upset over.....yet....

Roxanne
Merci beaucoup, I e mailed the author of the article and he states that he received the info from one of his consultants when they undergoing certification.He cannot verify what standard it is in.He is using CMMS so I think maybe he is supporting his software supplier. Again Merci George
Hockey Rules

You're welcome, George.

Ah...hockey...my darling Sens close out the season against the Leafs tomorrow night in Ottawa...

Roxane
We are your AHL BC Sens and still have not made the playoffs
Go Montreal Canadiens
PG

Roxane
We are your AHL BC Sens and still have not made the playoffs
Go Montreal Canadiens
PG

:topic:

Good luck against Boston!

Facing Toronto in the first round...I hate when Canadian teams have to face each other so early! Vancouver and Calgary are against each other, too, I think.

As for Saturday's game...well, now we know why Lalime is the starting goalie!

Go Maple Leafs