From: ISO Standards Discussion <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:03:16 -0600
Subject: Re: IMHO DIS a step backward /Russo
From: "C.W. Russ Russo" <[email protected]>
>From: Len Litvan <[email protected]>
>
>In a comment related to follow up audits, Dennis Arter wrote;" I have
>been pushing to get this *requirement* removed for some time now. It is
>much too restrictive and costly."
>and Len Litvan commented favorably
>"Thanks for your effort to remove mandatory follow up audits. With a
>gazillion ways to ensure that corrective actions are implemented and
>effective, it was presumptuous of the writers to require follow up audits."
Sorry, Gentlemen, but unhappily the new DIS version has reestablished the requirement for follow up audits within the clause on internal audits. This along with other significant changes between the CD-2 and DIS are IMHO backward steps for ISO. Others include:
1. the removal of most references to "customer" throughout the standard.
2. the removal of the language "product and/or service" in favor of continuing a definition of a service as a product. This continues the misconception that ISO is not applicable to service organizations.
3. the significant reductions in clause 8 that effectively eliminates the push toward fact-based decision making.
4. reinserted the practice of making parenthetical reference to the records clause when mandating a record. IMHO this language encourages practitioners to rely on mandated records rather than determining which records are appropriate for the organization's needs.
5. Also, the writers have not cleaned up the distinction between a record and document. And in fact have added a sentence that tells companies (5.5.6) "Documents defined as quality records shall be controlled." INHO this approach will cause considerable confusion among practitioners.
Some good things -- among others -- that have happened are:
1. elimination of the term "system level procedure"
2. elimination of specific requirements for many procedures.
3. elimination of reference to "ethics" not because that isn't a good idea, but because it was so ill-defined.
C.W. Russ Russo
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:03:16 -0600
Subject: Re: IMHO DIS a step backward /Russo
From: "C.W. Russ Russo" <[email protected]>
>From: Len Litvan <[email protected]>
>
>In a comment related to follow up audits, Dennis Arter wrote;" I have
>been pushing to get this *requirement* removed for some time now. It is
>much too restrictive and costly."
>and Len Litvan commented favorably
>"Thanks for your effort to remove mandatory follow up audits. With a
>gazillion ways to ensure that corrective actions are implemented and
>effective, it was presumptuous of the writers to require follow up audits."
Sorry, Gentlemen, but unhappily the new DIS version has reestablished the requirement for follow up audits within the clause on internal audits. This along with other significant changes between the CD-2 and DIS are IMHO backward steps for ISO. Others include:
1. the removal of most references to "customer" throughout the standard.
2. the removal of the language "product and/or service" in favor of continuing a definition of a service as a product. This continues the misconception that ISO is not applicable to service organizations.
3. the significant reductions in clause 8 that effectively eliminates the push toward fact-based decision making.
4. reinserted the practice of making parenthetical reference to the records clause when mandating a record. IMHO this language encourages practitioners to rely on mandated records rather than determining which records are appropriate for the organization's needs.
5. Also, the writers have not cleaned up the distinction between a record and document. And in fact have added a sentence that tells companies (5.5.6) "Documents defined as quality records shall be controlled." INHO this approach will cause considerable confusion among practitioners.
Some good things -- among others -- that have happened are:
1. elimination of the term "system level procedure"
2. elimination of specific requirements for many procedures.
3. elimination of reference to "ethics" not because that isn't a good idea, but because it was so ill-defined.
C.W. Russ Russo