ISO 9000:2020 by the Covers - Authoring a draft of the 'next generation' ISO 9001

Is anyone up for some fun by authoring a draft of the next generation <or Cove version> of ISO 9000?

It think we should name it 9000:2020 for the clarity of vision we will bring to it.

I'd start by trying real hard not to include the word Quality anywhere. My version might not even mention Calibration (stickers).

I would lean towards the business excellence models.

Any takers? This could be fun.

Caster said:

Any takers? This could be fun.

Click to expand...

Whyever not? After all, many of us (myself included) have expressed opinions about how ISO9001 could / should have been written... I would however suggest that we call it something else entirely, in order to avoid undue confusion.

/Claes

Iso 9001:2020

I had the good fortune to attend the Annual Quality Conference in Toronto last May by ASQ. In one of the forums it was discussed that the next revision would be minor but a major revision would be around 2010. The new revision would be leaning towards national quality awards like Baldridge or the European model.

What is in the name! ISO 9001 has been a good standard. It can be revised to meet the demands of industry and service. It should be more oriented towards service as more organizations are offering services. Quality is and will remain important, even if a new name is given to it. Calibration, benchmarking or other such tools would always be a requirement to compare objectively.

"I had the good fortune to attend the Annual Quality Conference in Toronto last May by ASQ. In one of the forums it was discussed that the next revision would be minor but a major revision would be around 2010. The new revision would be leaning towards national quality awards like Baldridge or the European model."

Hello Amjadrana:

I am on the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO. What you posted above is news to me. Currently the only plans are to amend ISO 9001 to clarify current requirements. There are no plans to add or remove requriements. The main goal is to make ISO 9001 clearer; easier to understand. Any reference to dates are guesses as to how long the process will take. There are no set dates. I have yet to hear anything about 2010. I have heard nothing about leaning towards Baldrige or European modles. Acutally, this is the purpose of ISO 9004:2000.

Regards, Dirk

Claes Gefvenberg said:

Whyever not? After all, many of us (myself included) have expressed opinions about how ISO9001 could / should have been written... I would however suggest that we call it something else entirely, in order to avoid undue confusion.

/Claes

Click to expand...

While I agree that is should be called something else, the 2020 reference is correct. Not for the clarity it will have, however...but for the fact that the way we discuss things in the Cove, this document won't be done until 2020!

I have to agree with RC.2020 ...if we start today

Caster said:

Is anyone up for some fun by authoring a draft of the next generation <or Cove version> of ISO 9000?

It think we should name it 9000:2020 for the clarity of vision we will bring to it.

I'd start by trying real hard not to include the word Quality anywhere. My version might not even mention Calibration (stickers).

I would lean towards the business excellence models.

Any takers? This could be fun.

Click to expand...

It is a most interesting thought. After all, if Linux can rival you all know what by who and was created on an open source basis such that the end result was "free", why not a new concept for a "quality standard".

And why should the end result have anything like "ISO" included in its title. ISO is effectively a publishing body: the work is done by others gathering under its name.

Thus one might consider calling the "standard" the Covers might agree upon the Covenant, or the Coverture. Making it "free" to all wishing then to download it from the Cove would prevent anyone then being "covetous"?

AllanJ said:

Thus one might consider calling the "standard" the Covers might agree upon the Covenant, or the Coverture. Making it "free" to all wishing then to download it from the Cove would prevent anyone then being "covetous"?

Click to expand...

I hereby nominate Allan to write the dictionary for our...document...let's just call it that for now.

Covenant 2020

I love the Covenant name!

My biggest issue with ISO is with the word Quality.

As soon as Executives read that AWFUL word - it gets handed off to the Quality department to implement. We simply don't have the clout to do it!

I just finished a seminar with our process owners.

Our system is written around our business needs <not ISO requirements>. There is one well hidden x-ref that shows how the system meets ISO requirements. Only 2 of us know it even exists.

I asked people to imagine they owned the company - 100% said they would implment all the systems if it was their own company.

I also asked them to assess which processes belonged to the traditional department named "Quality". The averge was 20%, and some radicals were at 0%!

So....it's gotta be owned everyone and driven by the top team.

As long as its called "quality system requirements" we are going to see the very depressing "would you leave quality" thread grow and grow and grow.

Imagine how great it would be if the President/CEO demanded you show up every week to present your action plan and timeline to implement the quality subset of a Business Management System.

Think of all the new "best friends" we would have!

Has anyone else had sucess making it a business system?

Fifteen years to go till 2020!

Great post

Caster said:

I love the Covenant name!

Click to expand...

I agree.

Caster said:

My biggest issue with ISO is with the word Quality.

Click to expand...

Again I agree, it has become a problem. Only because when people say "quality" the audience thinks "iso" and when you say "iso" people think "documentation" both of these are mistakes - perhaps the Covenant can come up with another name for quality that emphasizes some of the history that has been misplaced - Deming's 14 points, Juran, Right first time ....

Caster said:

As soon as Executives read that AWFUL word - it gets handed off to the Quality department to implement. We simply don't have the clout to do it!

Click to expand...

Again is this because we have the wrong people in the quality department - not able to project manage something as big as this or that the credibility of the process is shot?

Caster said:

I just finished a seminar with our process owners.

Our system is written around our business needs <not ISO requirements>. There is one well hidden x-ref that shows how the system meets ISO requirements. Only 2 of us know it even exists.

I asked people to imagine they owned the company - 100% said they would implment all the systems if it was their own company.

Click to expand...

Again, this looks to me like an effective system. If people believe it is right they are more likely to buy in and follow the systems.

Caster said:

I also asked them to assess which processes belonged to the traditional department named "Quality". The averge was 20%, and some radicals were at 0%!

Click to expand...

Not so radical. I don't think the quality department "owns" any core processes. Everything we do is support activity. The best I coud think of is the audit activity - the worst the infamous document control!

Caster said:

So....it's gotta be owned everyone and driven by the top team.

As long as its called "quality system requirements" we are going to see the very depressing "would you leave quality" thread grow and grow and grow.

Imagine how great it would be if the President/CEO demanded you show up every week to present your action plan and timeline to implement the quality subset of a Business Management System.

Think of all the new "best friends" we would have!

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Here in the Cove - with or without the Covenant we need to be pushing this message. QMS is about the business!

Caster said:

Has anyone else had sucess making it a business system?

Click to expand...

Our business system is integrated and captures all of the controls we use to run and direct the way we work and move the company.

Caster said:

Fifteen years to go till 2020!

Click to expand...

Not a long time in standards making terms but a long time in this market place in these times.