Future ISO 9001 Variations: "Lighter" and "Higher Level" Versions?

[howste]

The problem with the scheme that I mentioned is that they claim conformity to the standard, but they don't actually conform to the whole standard. If they're going to claim conformity, they need to state what they do and don't conform to. The independent certification process helps customers to avoid the confusing, misleading mess.

 

[JaneB]

The problem with the scheme that I mentioned is that they claim conformity to the standard, but they don't actually conform to the whole standard.

Exactamundo. Self-awarded claims of conformity aren't worth the paper they're (not) written on. All the ones I've ever come across just drop out any bits that they find too onerous, too difficult, too demanding, too... disciplined? too... you fill in the blanks.

If they're going to claim conformity, they need to state what they do and don't conform to. The independent certification process helps customers to avoid the confusing, misleading mess.

Yes, exactly. And yes, I know that the independent certification thing isn't perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than a self-awarded conformity statement, which is worth zero.

 

[dv8shane]

The problem with the scheme that I mentioned is that they claim conformity to the standard, but they don't actually conform to the whole standard. If they're going to claim conformity, they need to state what they do and don't conform to. The independent certification process helps customers to avoid the confusing, misleading mess.

Check this link out it is a "CB" http://www.qas-international.com/htdocs/Independence.html . Apparently they certify to 9001 etc without any accreditation. I find this a joke.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Thanks to Sidney for posting this quote:

That consensus had not yet been reached on how best to position a future ISO 9001. A number of options had been put forward, including for a 3 part series of standards, to include a “lighter” version of ISO 9001, a “current level” version of ISO 9001, and a “higher level” version of the standard. Other options included allowing for a wider ranging version of the standard, with more extensive “exclusions” being permitted. There did seem to be a general feeling that a “lighter” version of ISO 9001 was not a favourable option, but that other options should be considered for the incorporation of “higher” level requirements.

It is worth a while looking at where this suggestion has come from. There have been a few moans on the Cove (Never! :mg about ISO 9001 over the years. Now some people say that 9k does not do enough in the way of capturing leading edge quality management and that all the time taken in updating 9k from the 2000 to the 2008 edition (for example) was just wasted time as it changed so little.

There are others here who say this focus on 'business issues' like objectives and continuing improvement takes the standard away from the product compliance focus it should have in terms of controlling suppliers. These are typically the people who also baulk at the idea of 'value added' from auditors recording opportunities for improvement.

Now if we agree these two groups exist then they have two fundamentally different needs in terms of direction for development and this is why Nigel has put this idea of two / three versions into the mix.

I hope this helps.

 

[treesei]

I think we have three issues here:

1) It seems we would like to have some deviation from current 9001, higher and lighter, to satisfy the need of various industries in various situations. I believe people are doing this. From the higher end for example, if a medical device OEM buys a critical part from a 9001 supplier, some additional requirements beyond 9001 may be applied (but not to the extent of 13485 which the supplier does not have and needs not to have. The lighter end will obviously help many small businesses that are expert in their area but have no desire to get 9001 certified.

2) Do we want to make these deviations "official" by revising current 9001 back to a 9000 set? I will say take it or leave it. 9001 is general and needs to remain general whatsoever. From a single 9001 to a triple-set may not solve the problem, and many small companies still will not seek for certification for financial reasons.

3) That some CBs certify companies to 9001 based on incomplete conformance is a bad practice. A triple-set will not solve this problem.

 

[howste]

Check this link out it is a "CB" http://www.qas-international.com/htdocs/Independence.html . Apparently they certify to 9001 etc without any accreditation. I find this a joke.

Yup, we've discussed them a few times before. Here's one example: http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11115

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Question 42 in the current ISO Survey asks people to opine about the future ISO 9001 and it's possible variations.

 

[jasonb067]

Question 42 in the current ISO Survey asks people to opine about the future ISO 9001 and it's possible variations.

Why was the survey left open? I had thought that it was going to close in Jan. of this year.

I am curious as to what the initial and final data will tell us. Will raw and summarized data / analysis be available once the survey is completed?

 

[Antonio Vieira]

So is it that ISO is going back ?

Even if this was considered going back, in my oppinion it will be going forward!

It's not fair to have registered organizations with good QMS having the same certificate as Organizations that have just identified some internal processes...

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Why was the survey left open? I had thought that it was going to close in Jan. of this year.

The survey will remain open until the end of February 2011.