7.2.1 (d) - "Any additional requirements determined by the organisation"

[M Greenaway]

Just found this one and I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Reference ISO9001:2000, clause 7.2.1 (d).

Reading this it says "The organisation shall determine............d) any additional requirements determined by the organisation."

So my audit question is - have you determined the additional requirements that you have determined.

answer - of course I have, what a stupid question.

Its a bit like saying have you done the things you have done. Well look at the things ive done and tell me if ive done them.

I'm rapidly starting to think that ISO9001:2000 is very poorly written and constructed.

 

[energy]

Re: Another stupid clause ?

Originally posted by M Greenaway
Just found this one and I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Reference ISO9001:2000, clause 7.2.1 (d).

Reading this it says "The organisation shall determine............d) any additional requirements determined by the organisation."

So my audit question is - have you determined the additional requirements that you have determined.

answer - of course I have, what a stupid question.

Its a bit like saying have you done the things you have done. Well look at the things ive done and tell me if ive done them.

I'm rapidly starting to think that ISO9001:2000 is very poorly written and constructed.

Considering the requirements in a, b, c, an example would be affixing a special nameplate to your equipment. Not a Customer requirement. Not necessary for it's intended use. Not a statutory or regulatory requirement. We decided that we want to track this particular piece of equipment, in particular, throughout it's service life at it's destination. I think it's meant for those extraordinary requirements that crop up. Your audit question may be "Have you determined any additional requirements for your organization?" My answer "For what?"

 

[M Greenaway]

Your question 'Have you determined any additional requirements for your organisation' can be answered yes or no. There is no right answer, and it is a pointless question.

Looking purely at the words used, the question poised is have you determined what you have determined.

It makes no sense !!

I can understand the question 'have you applied the additional requirements determined by the organisation', but that is a different question, and not part of this clause.

 

[Jim Biz]

energy - imho you're on the right track - until you got to "for what"??


the section (including the info in 9004 guidelines) reads to me as if it is saying - "ok you think everything is fine" - now "are you SURE" you have it covered?

Possible follow-up question (s)
Can you prove you have a clear understanding and effectivley communicated the elements/expectations of your process - to all interested parties ? considering each aspect of a,b,c ?

During any secondary review of a,b,c items did you discover/determine any actions that would improve the expectations of the customer beyond those that formerly have been addressed during process planning ??

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim that is a wild interpretation of this clause and you have added many things that just arent there.

Have you ever thought of becoming an assessor ?

 

[energy]

Good ones

Originally posted by Jim Biz
energy - imho you're on the right track - until you got to "for what"??

the section (including the info in 9004 guidelines) reads to me as if it is saying - "ok you think everything is fine" - now "are you SURE" you have it covered? Yes we do!

Possible follow-up question (s)
Can you prove you have a clear understanding and effectivley communicated the elements/expectations of your process - to all interested parties ? considering each aspect of a,b,c ? Sure, our job folder contains all the Product Realizaton records for this customer.

During any secondary review of a,b,c items did you discover/determine any actions that would improve the expectations of the customer beyond those that formerly have been addressed during process planning ?? No.
More like our expectations. You have a problem with that, Mr. Auditor Bonehead? (under my breath, of course)

 

[energy]

Aren't there?

Originally posted by M Greenaway
Jim that is a wild interpretation of this clause and you have added many things that just arent there.

M.
No wilder than the beginning of this thread called "Another stupid clause". Stupid is in the eye of the beholder! It's all about interpretation. Let me look in my "Guidelines" for a more definitive interpretation. I'll get back to you later this year!

 

[M Greenaway]

Improving the expecatations of the customer without actually being able to deliver on those expectations sounds to me like a very poor idea.

 

[M Greenaway]

Sorry energy about the reference to 'stupid' in the title, but I had to catch peoples attention.

Anyway has anyone got a reasonable reply apart from the waffle offered so far ?

 

[Jim Biz]

Frankly - I've never been through an assessment - where absolutley "NO" additional interprative aspects were taken into consideration.

I may be way off base with my thinking - and we surley can agree to disagree ---

But I believe the additional leeway for intrepretation is part of the reason the standards are being touted as a "CONSISTANT (which is arguable in itself) PAIR :truce: