The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Shall vs. Should - Definitions - Interpretation of "shall" and "should"


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links



Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Atul's
Quality Forum Online

Howard's
International Quality Services

Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum

Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Related LinkedIn Groups

ISO 9001 for Small Businesses

ISO 9001:2015 Revision Discussions

Information Security Community

Medical Devices Group

Quality and Regulatory Network

FDA (Food and Drugs)

AS91XX Series - Tips and Advice


Related Topic Tags
5.5.2 - management representative, definitions, iso 9001 - quality management systems, interpretations
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 15th July 2002, 07:25 PM
Jimmy Olson

 
 
Total Posts: 334
Let Me Help You Shall vs. Should - Definitions - Interpretation of "shall" and "should"

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.

Last edited by Jimmy Olson; 11th February 2004 at 12:23 AM.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 16th July 2002, 03:46 AM
M Greenaway's Avatar
M Greenaway

 
 
Total Posts: 1,657
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.
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 16th July 2002, 10:16 AM
Howard Atkins's Avatar
Howard Atkins

 
 
Total Posts: 2,924
But QS is dead.

TS/ISO 16949 has the following comment
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
  Post Number #4  
Old 16th July 2002, 10:30 AM
M Greenaway's Avatar
M Greenaway

 
 
Total Posts: 1,657
Dead but not quite buried yet, 4 years and counting !
  Post Number #5  
Old 16th July 2002, 10:56 AM
db's Avatar
db

 
 
Total Posts: 2,590
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".
  Post Number #6  
Old 16th July 2002, 12:02 PM
Mike S.

 
 
Total Posts: 1,985
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.
  Post Number #7  
Old 16th July 2002, 01:23 PM
Mike S.

 
 
Total Posts: 1,985
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.
  Post Number #8  
Old 16th July 2002, 01:52 PM
Mike S.

 
 
Total Posts: 1,985
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?
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations

Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Canada Medical Device - Definition of "Manufacture", "Company? and "Distribute" rayahuang Canada Medical Device Regulations 12 26th July 2014 10:08 PM
"Labeling" vs "Accompanying Documentation" - FDA Definitions frivolas IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 2 12th March 2014 12:17 PM
Controls and Preventions are not "OJT", "Ample Supply" & "Supervisor Verification" cavrdave FMEA and Control Plans 4 24th February 2014 06:16 PM
Have you heard about "Ample Amps" - "Miraculous Motors" - "Maxeff" ? (or Wanlass) Popeos Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 10 19th December 2012 02:58 AM
"Testing procedure: TMP", "WMT", "SMT" and "RMT" - IEC 60601-1 TRF nomenclature Jaydub IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3 13th June 2012 11:47 AM



The time now is 03:41 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" -- The Elsmar Cove is *Copyright Free*.
A Peachfarm LLC Internet Property