Design & Development Clause 7.3, Applicable or not, What is rule?

[howste]

Clause 4.1 of ISO 9001 requires that we determine and control our QMS processes. If we have no authority for design, we have no control either.

Going back to the guidance document on the ISO website, in one of the examples it says:

XYZ Electronics was justified with its decision to exclude sub-clause 7.3 Design and development from its QMS since it does not have any authority or accountability for design of the mobile phone product. Its customer provides the design.

(my emphasis)

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I would prefer to respond to you privately, but your private message feature has been turned off. So I guess that I will not be able to respond.

This conversation is public. As you know, I know what CB you work for. I just think it would be enlightnening for the rest of the covers and the world at large to know that too.

I have learned a lot while participating here at the Cove. You are one of the contributors that I have found most helpful. I am not trying to flaunt a unique intrepretation, I have only defended it once it came up.

Thanks for the compliment. One of my goals at the Cove is to share knowledge and warn people about misinformation. That is exactly what I am trying to do here. I have even voiced my strong disagreement with some of the "official" TC176 interpretations.

Sidney,

Why would you go back and edit your post so it has a very different question than the one I already answered?

What are you referring to? I added the word "me" to the post when I realized it was missing.

I looked at the web site for the CB that you are associated with. I did not find anything about design or no design concerning registration. So you expect other CBs to live to a higher standard?

Good way of attempting to deflect the issue, Jim. If you have certainty about the adequacy of this interpretation, why don't you name the CB behind it? People are starting to get curious. Actually, that CB has several "Covevoyeurs". I would not be surprised if you get a call from someone there, who will tell you: Drop this exchange or else.

 

[Big Jim]

This conversation is public. As you know, I know what CB you work for. I just think it would be enlightnening for the rest of the covers and the world at large to know that too. Thanks for the compliment. One of my goals at the Cove is to share knowledge and warn people about misinformation. That is exactly what I am trying to do here. I have even voiced my strong disagreement with some of the "official" TC176 interpretations. What are you referring to? I added the word "me" to the post when I realized it was missing. Good way of attempting to deflect the issue, Jim. If you have certainty about the adequacy of this interpretation, why don't you name the CB behind it? People are starting to get curious. Actually, that CB has several "Covevoyeurs". I would not be surprised if you get a call from someone there, who will tell you: Drop this exchange or else.

When I originally commented on Partial Design, I had no idea that it was not more commonly accepted. I never expected this to become such a volatile thread.

Sidney, in spite of which CB I work with, I have extended the olive branch. I have extended it on my behaf, not theirs. It is up to you if you want to accept it or not. If you have a problem with that CB, take it out on them, not me.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If you have a problem with that CB, take it out on them, not me.

I don't have a problem with anyone or anything other than wrong ideas being mis-promoted. The CB in question is not promoting it. From all that I know, that advisory might be rescinded or not enforced any longer. You, Jim, is the one that has been trying to convince us that the interpretation makes sense. And several people, including myself, have expressed opposing views.

For a positive Cove experience, it is imperative that people understand that we must be able to disagree (sometimes vigorously) over ideas, but, and to the extent which is possible, don't take the opposing views as personal attacks.

 

[Big Jim]

I don't have a problem with anyone or anything other than wrong ideas being mis-promoted. The CB in question is not promoting it. From all that I know, that advisory might be rescinded or not enforced any longer. You, Jim, is the one that has been trying to convince us that the interpretation makes sense. And several people, including myself, have expressed opposing views.

For a positive Cove experience, it is imperative that people understand that we must be able to disagree (sometimes vigorously) over ideas, but, and to the extent which is possible, don't take the opposing views as personal attacks.

I will accept that you and I have agreed to disagree.

 

[Stijloor]

Big Jim and Sidney,

I have followed this thread with great interest. Both of you gentlemen are to be commended for your professional behavior and great posts in this thread. You show that professionals can have strongly opposing viewpoints and have a meaningful dialogue about it. I am impressed.

Stijloor.

 

[JaneB]

I have never even heard of anything called 'partial design' let alone come across it.

I am kind of 'gobsmacked' at the idea of 'involvement' somehow enabling something called 'partial design' to be 'included in the scope'. How this could be seen as acceptable is quite beyond me. (And this isn't a personal attack, Jim, but it is a very strong refutation of that particular position.)

The key point is who has responsibility for the design and authority to create and/or change it.

Sure, they may involve other people in that.

But no, I don't accept for one single millisecond the idea that any of those other parties could claim 'partial design' (whatever that is supposed to be). No, no and no again.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Big Jim and Sidney,

I have followed this thread with great interest. Both of you gentlemen are to be commended for your professional behavior and great posts in this thread. You show that professionals can have strongly opposing viewpoints and have a meaningful dialogue about it. I am impressed.

Stijloor.

I disagree.

 

[AndyN]

I disagree.

????????

 

[Jim Wynne]

????????

Here in the Series of Tubes when you see a "smiley" symbol such as the three shown above it should be taken as a hint that what preceded it might not have been intended to be taken seriously.