Discussion on TC 176 and ISO 9001:2015 8.7.1

Big Jim

Re: Discussion on TC 176 and ISO 9001:2015

Hi Big Jim,

I haven't read through all of this thread and I am directing my response more towards your original post. I will try to have a civil discussion about this with you as I find it very interesting.

I believe this shows the beauty of ISO 9001 and the organizational freedom it allows. Looking at the 2008 version of the standard, my interpretation is that the original intent of the structure was along the lines of having the company determine the basic processes required to make the product. You have to start somewhere, right? For example:
The company I work at is a custom shop, however we also offer stock product. In this scenario, 7.1 would be utilized first to create the stock parts and design the initial flow of production.

Then, as custom orders come in, clause 7.2 comes into play, and we determine any special processes required by the customer or the regulatory/statutory requirements of their industry. Of course, we utilize 7.2.2 before confirming the agreement. During this 'planning' stage, we also set up the points of contact for both companies to meet requirements of 7.2.3.

All of this happens before clause 7.3, as we have to determine the 'what' (product requirements) before the 'how' (design and development). For example, if they require RoHS compliance, we have to design in the use of lead-free solder. If we design first, we would have to make a revision before the first article is produced.

Then, once we know 'what' and 'how', we can look into purchasing any necessary parts required (clause 7.4). So, for the company I work at, the current structure makes perfect sense.

However, I do agree that in some cases this may not make sense. There may be a company that is strictly custom, and they could require 7.2 before 7.1. I don't have any examples of this as I have not experienced it, but it makes sense that it could happen that way.

That is why I think this post brings to light the organizational freedom of ISO that most people seem to forget about. Unfortunately, it is so often "ISO makes us...", when really, all ISO makes us do is document what we say we do, communicate well with the customers, continually improve, and document our records! Things we should be doing anyways.

You and I are in accord. There are companies in which it makes sense for design to come first, some for which customer input comes first, and some where planning comes first.

The order presented in the standard seems to be an orderly way to present it, not a dictated way it has to flow.

Somehow in my answer Paul came to believe that I write a manual that regurgitates the standard because evidently it uses the clause numbers from the standard, and he doesn't like that.

Big Jim

Re: Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?


In conflict, Jim? How exactly, and no, don't repeat the words back to me for the nth time just explain the conflict between the clause and other clauses.

No circular logic from me. The use of the clause is clear to me. I'm happy to chalk this one up as yet another 'Big Jim' experience and let it lie.

As I mentioned earlier it appears that TC 176 would have to triple the number of words in 9001 (and hence its cost) and even then I guess you could manufacture some claim of

See, this is the nub of the issue. You choose to read this as: 'For every instance of nonconformity if I choose to use just one of the list a - d then I satisfy the ISO 9001 requirement and have an effective quality management system.'

I, on the other hand read this as: 'For every instance of nonconformity you must choose one or more activities from the list a - d in order to meet your commitments to satisfying customer needs and expectations.'

Occasionally one will be enough, a) correction being a case in point but often you can't do one without doing another, so you can't get the customer's acceptance under concession (d) without first contacting them (c).


I've given up trying to show you how the standard is intended to be used. :deadhorse:

I won't, however, give up pointing out the errors of your posts and how some of your opinions are just wacky. :nono:

The Jello nails was in reference to you saying that trying to pin me down was like trying to nail Jello to a wall. Your reasoning seems to be like using Jello nails.

Once again, you are evading the exact wording from the standard and trying to justify an obvious mistake. You entered again into the vortex of circular logic.

It is simply not defensible.

Big Jim

By the way, a corrected reading could have been as simple as:

The organization shall deal with nonconforming outputs in one or more of the following ways:
a) correction
b) segregation, containment, return or suspension of provision and services
c) obtaining authorization for acceptance by concession

Customers are informed when appropriate.

That's hardly a tripling of the number of pages. This one could be corrected without adding any lines at all.

The fear of making the standard too long by making it clearer is a non-starter. Any writing class stresses being clear, concise, and terse. If anything, following that strategy, could have made the standard shorter, not longer.
Top Bottom