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 > National and International Business System Standards > ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Discussion on TC 176 and ISO 9001:2015 8.7.1


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:

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

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


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC


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


Some Related Topic Tags (Not all threads are Tagged)
iso 9001:2015, tc 176 (iso technical committee for iso 9000 documents)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 16th April 2017, 02:16 PM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,697
Question Discussion on TC 176 and ISO 9001:2015 8.7.1

The order in which the requirements are presented has little or nothing to do with how they are applied.

API Q1 prior to the 9th edition was in the same order as ISO 9001. With the 9th edition, API started marching more strongly to their own drum.

8.1 of ISO 9001:2015 is pretty much the same as 7.1 of ISO 9001:2008, and there planning (7.1) came before determining requirements (7.2 or even 7.3.2 about gathering requirements for design).

When writing a quality manual, I would sometimes put 7.2 in front of 7.1 because it better matched the flow of the organization.

Maybe API is more insightful than TC-176?

Last edited by Sidney Vianna; 21st April 2017 at 09:22 PM. Reason: Slight correction for TC 176
Thanks to Big Jim for your informative Post and/or Attachment!

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 18th April 2017, 02:46 AM
Paul Simpson's Avatar
Paul Simpson

 
 
Total Posts: 1,795
Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

<snip>8.1 of ISO 9001:2015 is pretty much the same as 7.1 of ISO 9001:2008, and there planning (7.1) came before determining requirements (7.2 or even 7.3.2 about gathering requirements for design).
The object of 8.1 (and 7.1 from the previous edition) is to make the transition from designing and planning the QMS - including, for example, reference to process design requirements in 4.4, assigning roles and responsibilities (5.3), planning (6), providing necessary resources (7) to implementing the QMS and hence 8.1 rightly goes before 8.2.

In 8.1 the organisation has to look at the big picture of the processes it has designed and ensure they all work together with the necessary feedback mechanisms.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

When writing a quality manual, I would sometimes put 7.2 in front of 7.1 because it better matched the flow of the organization.
Sounds like your quality manuals regurgitate the standard - sigh.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

Maybe API is more insightful than TC-176?</snip>
I've lost touch with the work of API but hopefully the explanation above helps show that TC 176 understands what it is doing.
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 18th April 2017, 10:32 AM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,697
Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Paul Simpson View Post

The object of 8.1 (and 7.1 from the previous edition) is to make the transition from designing and planning the QMS - including, for example, reference to process design requirements in 4.4, assigning roles and responsibilities (5.3), planning (6), providing necessary resources (7) to implementing the QMS and hence 8.1 rightly goes before 8.2.

In 8.1 the organisation has to look at the big picture of the processes it has designed and ensure they all work together with the necessary feedback mechanisms.

Sounds like your quality manuals regurgitate the standard - sigh.

I've lost touch with the work of API but hopefully the explanation above helps show that TC 176 understands what it is doing.
I like your explanation about 8.1 transitioning between design and planning. It is interesting that the early drafts for the 2015 standard included such a transition with design, but it didn't make it to the final. It is also interesting that if that is what TC-176 had in mind, why didn't they say so in 8.1?

I write a manual that is tailored to the organization. While it is true that it is structured in the same format, it is by no means a regurgitation of the standard. It provides an outline or structure for the manual. Users find it very useful and I'm in high demand to write them.

As far as TC-176 fully knowing what they are doing, I have to weigh that carefully as I find numerous problems with the current version. A glaring example is 8.7.1c.

The organization shall deal with nonconforming outputs in ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

c) informing the customer

Do you really think that simply informing the customer could ever be enough? That it would be OK to tell the customer I'm shipping some nonconforming product and it's OK because the standard says that I need only to inform you?
  Post Number #4  
Old 18th April 2017, 11:37 AM
Paul Simpson's Avatar
Paul Simpson

 
 
Total Posts: 1,795
Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

<snip>As far as TC-176 fully knowing what they are doing, I have to weigh that carefully as I find numerous problems with the current version. A glaring example is 8.7.1c.

The organization shall deal with nonconforming outputs in ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

c) informing the customer

Do you really think that simply informing the customer could ever be enough? That it would be OK to tell the customer I'm shipping some nonconforming product and it's OK because the standard says that I need only to inform you?</snip>
How is your example a problem, not to mention a glaring example of TC 176 not fully knowing what they are doing?

It is impossible to write a standard that addresses each requirement of ISO 9001 in such a way that all the requirements are in one place and, at the same time, for the standard to be readable (or even to be picked up off the table! ).

Taking your example (but ignoring your EMPHASIS) for this clause to come into play the organization will have:
  • Made a strategic decision to implement a QMS - Clause 0.1
  • Had their leaders demonstrate commitment to satisfying customer requirements (among other things) - Clause 5.1.2 a and on enhancing customer satisfaction - Clause 5.1.2 c
  • Published a quality policy that includes a commitment to satisfying customer requirements - Clause 5.2 c
  • Established quality objectives to include satisfying customer requirements - Clause 6.2 d
  • They will have captured customer requirements - Clause 8.2.2
  • Unfortunately manufactured product or delivered a service that did not meet requirements.
So as 8.7 is now applicable the organization now needs to decide what to do and ensure it is in line with all its commitments.

There is a whole set of requirements about what the organisation should do to manage nonconformity to meet the following all-encompassing requirement:
Quote:
The organization shall ensure that outputs that do not conform to their requirements are identified and controlled to prevent their unintended use or delivery.
The a - d list is examples of what can be done and c that you have selected specifically (IMHO) is there to cover the situation where a non-conforming product (or service(?)) has been delivered to the customer and the organization wants to warn them not to use it or send it on into the distribution chain. It can be step 1 in the recall process.

ISO 9001 is not intended to be picked up and used as a checklist. As with any other complex set of requirements, it has to be read and understood and, only when it is understood in totality should a quality professional look to design the new requirements into a new or existing QMS.
  Post Number #5  
Old 18th April 2017, 01:42 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna

 
 
Total Posts: 8,621
Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

Do you really think that simply informing the customer could ever be enough? That it would be OK to tell the customer I'm shipping some nonconforming product and it's OK because the standard says that I need only to inform you?
Certainly not OK and, as Paul mentioned, the a-d list is not a "pick and choose" options list.

The only "acceptable" way of shipping a knowingly nonconforming product would be to exercise option d of that list which reads
Quote:
obtaining authorization for acceptance under concession.
As Paul indicated, the c bullet would apply to those situations where an organization found out, after shipment, that the product might be/is non conforming.

What, by the way, is an improvement, as the TC 176 had an official interpretation (RFI 117) which contravened that.

  Post Number #6  
Old 18th April 2017, 10:11 PM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,697
Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Paul Simpson View Post

How is your example a problem, not to mention a glaring example of TC 176 not fully knowing what they are doing?

It is impossible to write a standard that addresses each requirement of ISO 9001 in such a way that all the requirements are in one place and, at the same time, for the standard to be readable (or even to be picked up off the table! ).

Taking your example (but ignoring your EMPHASIS) for this clause to come into play the organization will have:
  • Made a strategic decision to implement a QMS - Clause 0.1
  • Had their leaders demonstrate commitment to satisfying customer requirements (among other things) - Clause 5.1.2 a and on enhancing customer satisfaction - Clause 5.1.2 c
  • Published a quality policy that includes a commitment to satisfying customer requirements - Clause 5.2 c
  • Established quality objectives to include satisfying customer requirements - Clause 6.2 d
  • They will have captured customer requirements - Clause 8.2.2
  • Unfortunately manufactured product or delivered a service that did not meet requirements.
So as 8.7 is now applicable the organization now needs to decide what to do and ensure it is in line with all its commitments.

There is a whole set of requirements about what the organisation should do to manage nonconformity to meet the following all-encompassing requirement:


The a - d list is examples of what can be done and c that you have selected specifically (IMHO) is there to cover the situation where a non-conforming product (or service(?)) has been delivered to the customer and the organization wants to warn them not to use it or send it on into the distribution chain. It can be step 1 in the recall process.

ISO 9001 is not intended to be picked up and used as a checklist. As with any other complex set of requirements, it has to be read and understood and, only when it is understood in totality should a quality professional look to design the new requirements into a new or existing QMS.
Paul,

You have never seen one of my manuals and your assumptions are way off base. I never said the manual should be read as a checklist. I'm not sure if it would matter if it did though and I don't think you can find a "shall" that says differently.

I think you are having trouble reading about what I posted as a glaring problem with 8.7.1c. How could it possible be OK that informing the customer is all that was needed if the product had already shipped? I don't believe for a moment that the committee ever intended that sort of response. "I'm sorry that we shipped trash. It has already shipped and that's all I'm going to do about it".

There simply is no rational way to justify that as anything but a mistake.
  Post Number #7  
Old 18th April 2017, 10:19 PM
Big Jim

 
 
Total Posts: 2,697
Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna View Post

Certainly not OK and, as Paul mentioned, the a-d list is not a "pick and choose" options list.

The only "acceptable" way of shipping a knowingly nonconforming product would be to exercise option d of that list which reads

As Paul indicated, the c bullet would apply to those situations where an organization found out, after shipment, that the product might be/is non conforming.

What, by the way, is an improvement, as the TC 176 had an official interpretation (RFI 117) which contravened that.

Thanks for pointing out that TC-176 has had errors in the past, and the one you pointed out is even related to the topic at hand.

I don't not agree, however, that the proper way of reading this "one or more of the following ways" would include "informing the customer" to ever be the only way needed to handle nonconforming product, especially after it has shipped.

If you don't agree, then we will need to agree to disagree.

However, I'm chalking this up as a TC-176 screw-up. At best, something missed in proof-reading.
  Post Number #8  
Old 19th April 2017, 03:51 AM
Paul Simpson's Avatar
Paul Simpson

 
 
Total Posts: 1,795
Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

Forgive me for picking up on your reply to Sidney but there are a couple of factual errors I need to correct.
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

Thanks for pointing out that TC-176 has had errors in the past, and the one you pointed out is even related to the topic at hand.
Just because Sidney has posted information about an ISO process for providing sanctioned interpretations does not mean they are holding their hands up to a mistake.

Any ISO 9001 user can request, through their National Standards Body (NSB), an interpretation of a requirement in ISO 9001. There is a standing working group in TC 176 that considers these requests and replies.

Did you not know this?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

I don't not agree, however, that the proper way of reading this "one or more of the following ways" would include "informing the customer" to ever be the only way needed to handle nonconforming product, especially after it has shipped.
I'm ignoring the double negative at the start of this section and I agree with you that an organisation always has to do more than inform the customer. The list I posted previously is the organisation's commitments. Their response has to be in line with their commitments.

Even if the organisations first action is simply to contact the customer, the customer's response will decide which of the other actions on the a - d list they have to do.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

If you don't agree, then we will need to agree to disagree.
I can't speak for Sidney but I'm always happy to agree to disagree with your POV, Jim.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

However, I'm chalking this up as a TC-176 screw-up. At best, something missed in proof-reading.
Every time you call foul it seems to come back to your misunderstanding.

You're an auditor and consultant, right?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

Paul,

You have never seen one of my manuals and your assumptions are way off base. I never said the manual should be read as a checklist.
Nobody says the manual should be used as a checklist - this just plays into the 'regurgitate the standard' school of thought. My point was that all the requirements of ISO 9001 are interrelated and you can't go through the standard like a checklist and expect to come up with an effective QMS. Unless you can see the big picture you are likely to end up with this piecemeal approach.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

I'm not sure if it would matter if it did though and I don't think you can find a "shall" that says differently.
You are right, there is no ISO requirement about what a manual should look like and nothing that prevents you regurgitating the standard for your clients. We are discussing here what value there is in this approach.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim View Post

I think you are having trouble reading about what I posted as a glaring problem with 8.7.1c. How could it possible be OK that informing the customer is all that was needed if the product had already shipped? I don't believe for a moment that the committee ever intended that sort of response. "I'm sorry that we shipped trash. It has already shipped and that's all I'm going to do about it".

There simply is no rational way to justify that as anything but a mistake.
I presume you read my earlier reply? Your latest response says otherwise. I have no problem reading your posts.

If my pointing out the interrelationships between requirements all through the standard hasn't helped you then we have reached that point of agreeing to disagree.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards

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
Emoticons 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
How important is a Quality Manual - ISO 9001:2008 to 9001:2015 matti Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 95 13th April 2017 10:00 PM
Total number of Requirements for ISO 9001:2008 vs. ISO 9001:2015 Matrix45 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9 21st January 2017 04:49 PM
ISO 13485:2015 and ISO 9001:2015 divergence ? retain both under the EU MDD? SteveK CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2 20th June 2016 06:36 AM
ISO 13485:2015 Pre-Release News and Discussion Marcelo Antunes ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 169 18th June 2015 08:00 AM
ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001:2015 - Changes Discussion Marc ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12 13th May 2014 09:04 PM



The time now is 03:09 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 
 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" - A Peachfarm Internet Property