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

[Sorin]

Re: Shall vs. Should - Definitions - Interpertation of "shall" and "should"

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).

 

[WCHorn]

Re: Shall vs. Should - Definitions - Interpertation of "shall" and "should"

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.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Shall vs. Should - Definitions - Interpertation of "shall" and "should"

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?

 

[John Martinez]

Re: Shall vs. Should - Definitions - Interpertation of "shall" and "should"

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?

 

[Bill Pflanz]

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

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Shall vs. Should - Definitions - Interpertation of "shall" and "should"

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 includes

The 4th edition of ISO 9001 stipulates

Top management shall appoint a member of the organization's management who, irrespective of other responsibilities

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.

 

[Crusader]

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.

 

[Stijloor]

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.

 

[WalkingSeed]

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.

 

[Crusader]

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.