Do We Have to Comply with Our Own Procedures?


M Greenaway

Well that should grab some attention.

Just wondering where the old 4.9.c clause of the 1994 standard has its equivalent in the 2000 standard.

This is the clause that those of you who only audited for compliance to procedures were actually auditing, but it doesnt appear to be in the 2000 version.

Therefore is it no longer a requirement to comply with your own procedures ?

Let the fun begin.........


Trusted Information Resource
stir it up


Great topic….this should be fun!!!!!
Couple of quickies I pulled out.

"5.4.1 Top management shall ensure that quality objectives, including those needed to meet requirements for product….."

This paragraph states that the requirements for product need to be defined and measured, but nothing about compliance to the requirements.

"7.1.c requried verification…….and the criteria for product acceptance"

You could say this may cover it, because your process should include how to handle parts that are non-compliant.

Just a couple of penny's tossed in!



my stab at it...

The one clause that immediately came to my mind is 7.2.1d - any additional requirements determined by the organization.

In our case this is where we plug in the procedures that apply - including job-specific procedures. So from our perspective, in order to carry out our work, we must follow these procedures. They are required by our org to effectively plan, carry out, and measure performance.

If we fail to follow these procedures, we are failing to meet 7.2.1d.

M Greenaway


The clause you quote is related to determining product requirements - I cant see how this fits with my question ??


Then look past your paradigm Martin!:)

7.2.1 refers to the determination of ALL requirements that are related to the product - not just direct product requirements such as specifications.

7.2.1d says "any additional requirements determined by the organization"

These requirements are those that the org imposes on itself to produce the product. These org requirements are communicated as "procedures".

M Greenaway

OK Lucinda, its a tenuous link though isnt it. I mean the 1994 clause 4.9.c was clear and unambiguous - is there such a clause in the 2000 standard ?

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource

When I read your post I couldn't determine if you were being facetious or serious. It seemed a strange question. I'm not a 9001-2000 expert (not even close!) but I figured, maybe you're serious. It also kinda intrigued me -- all those experts with all those man-days working on a "new and improved" standard couldn't miss that, could they? So I took a quick look. Nothing real obvious. How about 4.2.1 Note 1? Waddaya think?

Mike S.

Yes Martin, that did grab my attention :vfunny:

How about 4.1? Annexe B in the std doesn't make the connection, but...:

4.1 states:

"The organisation shall establish, document, implement and maintain a quality management system..."


"These processes shall be managed by the organisation in accordance with the requirements of this international standard."




I wouldn't call it a tenuous link Martin. Particularly when strengthened by Internal Audit 8.2.2a "....and to the quality management system requirements (italics my own) established by the organization"

Not following these requirements results in a nonconformance and those must be addressed per the last paragraph of 8.2.2.

Sorry to douse your debate so quickly Martin. :truce: You are quite right that the corresponding clause is missing, but I submit that it is adequately covered by these that I've cited.

It was a cute thought though!:smokin: :bigwave:

M Greenaway

Thanks Mike and Claes

Yes that looks like it could be it !!

Great I know which clause to pin my NC's on now.
Top Bottom