In my experiences, the "problem" is not so much with the standard, but with the understanding of intent. I often hear comments which sound similar to the discourse I hear surrounding a different topic/context. It is often perceived that CERTIFICATION to a given standard is intended to come to the rescue and "do something" for the individual beyond the framework established. In fact, the CERTIFICATION has little to do with it. It is, instead, a strategic approach, a supporting top management, and an implementation/execution done in a manner that provides real benefit for the organization and its customers.
9001 (i.e. ANY governing standards) is simply a framework of parameters. In no place does it dictate HOW. If individual ORGANIZATIONS approach the framework set forth by the standard strategically with intent of ....
1- Establishing compliance in a manner which is BENEFICIAL to the organization, ...and...
2- In a manner to ensure SUSTAINABILITY as the work force evolves....
...then the organization relies on the QMS (as intended) instead of dreading the QMS (as is often the case).
Considering the generic approach and application of ISO 9001, (which my experience has shown to be a proper approach considering the broad spectrum of those seeking certification), organizations often "forget" (?) that certification to the standard does not prevent them from going far beyond what is necessary for certification, and all the way to using the QMS framework to add additional requirements/direction to actually benefit the organization (novel idea
It shocks me how many organizations manage just those things identified in the standard by their "QMS", but then have equally (more?) activities to the organization that simply "exist" fragmented and lost, outside any formal framework.
The goal is for an organization's team to scream NO if portions of the QMS are threatened to be removed and/or circumvented, because the teams have "grown up" on the benefits the aspects of a well developed QMS provide.
"We" can change standards as often as we like (as in the example given by @Sidney Vianna above), but regardless of how they look or what they are called, they are only as good as the understanding and will of the top management of the organizations deciding to implement.
Be well.
9001 (i.e. ANY governing standards) is simply a framework of parameters. In no place does it dictate HOW. If individual ORGANIZATIONS approach the framework set forth by the standard strategically with intent of ....
1- Establishing compliance in a manner which is BENEFICIAL to the organization, ...and...
2- In a manner to ensure SUSTAINABILITY as the work force evolves....
...then the organization relies on the QMS (as intended) instead of dreading the QMS (as is often the case).
Considering the generic approach and application of ISO 9001, (which my experience has shown to be a proper approach considering the broad spectrum of those seeking certification), organizations often "forget" (?) that certification to the standard does not prevent them from going far beyond what is necessary for certification, and all the way to using the QMS framework to add additional requirements/direction to actually benefit the organization (novel idea
It shocks me how many organizations manage just those things identified in the standard by their "QMS", but then have equally (more?) activities to the organization that simply "exist" fragmented and lost, outside any formal framework.
The goal is for an organization's team to scream NO if portions of the QMS are threatened to be removed and/or circumvented, because the teams have "grown up" on the benefits the aspects of a well developed QMS provide.
"We" can change standards as often as we like (as in the example given by @Sidney Vianna above), but regardless of how they look or what they are called, they are only as good as the understanding and will of the top management of the organizations deciding to implement.
Be well.