Has anyone made an ISO9001:2015 vs. ISO9001:2008 Matrix

[Marc]

Re: ISO9001:2015 vrs ISO9001:2008 Matrix

It is based on feedback from an ISO TC176 member who stated that he did not think there would be significant changes between now and release. I didnt mean to offend, I am just trying to ensure that we (my organisation) are prepared and not leaving everything until the launch.

To me it's like making a movie or designing a product. You start out with what is projected, but you follow along with every script change. I agree with your proactive approach, and I also do not think there will be significant changes between now and release. I do expect a few changes to how some aspects will be audited, but that is another story.

 

[andrewg]

Re: ISO9001:2015 vrs ISO9001:2008 Matrix

My thoughts exactly Marc!

 

[TPMB4]

Unlucky with your timings with the re-cert January 2016. If the standard gets released December 2015 I guess that means you will among the first who have to get certified to it. I'm guessing if issued mid December 2015 then by mid December 2018 you will have to be certified to 9001 2015 hence my above comment. So I reckon you are right to work on it now before it is out in full version. You will obviously be working on this and watching/incorporating changes as they become known.

I just can't see them making any big changes now that missing them would give cause to an NC. No reason for that view just that so far down the journey to the new standard they must have got the big ideas straight and it is mostly clarification through minor wording tweaks. I mean with the change to 2000 version, which I understand had the big idea of changing to process approach, had that down early on not in the last year of a long change process. The big ideas are out in the draft so why not look at where your current QMS is against them. No change until later on but work out the change needed is surely part of what a QMS is at least partly about, change management.

 

[AndyN]

Unlucky with your timings with the re-cert January 2016. If the standard gets released December 2015 I guess that means you will among the first who have to get certified to it.

Not at all. The transition period is 3 years! Once the standard is released, new certifications are to the 2015 version, a transition can do whatever in the 3 years.

 

[Marc]

Thing is, what's the point in waiting? I did several implementations as the 2000 version was being drafted. We implemented to the 2000 draft/DIS but they registered to the 1994 standard as the 2000 version wasn't out yet. When the time came they were ready with *very* few (and very minor) changes before they went through the 2000 version audit by their registrars.

This isn't rocket science, and the changes are less dramatic than consultants and others ready to make a profit make it out to be (for some reason). If it takes a company 3 years to make changes, the company has bigger problems than ISO 9001.

 

[andrewg]

The changes do not look massive to me. Mostly what a good ISO based company should already be doing. I agree, I do not see the point in waiting and I will be hoping to transfer to ISO9001:2015 as soon as possible (assuming release goes to plan etc).

Thanks,

Andy

 

[John Broomfield]

Here are the most significant changes from ISO 9001:2008 according to the DIS.

It looks as if the internal audit team should include at least one top manager.

 

[andrewg]

Thanks thats a useful summary of some of the changes.

 

[mweb]

Sorry to drag this thread up again, but I have a question about the 'Summary of Changes' doc.

Under point 1 it says: "Top managers are required to engage in the most important QMS activities as opposed to simply ensuring that these activities occur."

From this John has extrapolated that "It looks as if the internal audit team should include at least one top manager."

I have a copy of the DIS in front of me at the moment, and having just pored over it for a second time, I can't find where either of these things is even suggested. Can anyone point me to where I should be looking? Thanks.

 

[John Broomfield]

mweb,

Thanks for asking.

Please take a look at the clause 5.1.1 and you'll see what top management is directly responsible for instead of making sure someone else does it.

But the recommendation to include a top manager on the audit team comes from clause 7.2 where the competence requirements apply not only to those who affect product quality, but also to persons who affect the "quality performance" of the organization.

The "quality performance" of an organization depends on top management, ergo the competence requirements now plainly apply to the top managers.

Thus far internal auditors rarely, if ever, investigate how the competence of top management is determined and ensured.

To audit the verifications of the competence of top management and their fulfillment of the other top management requirements, I see a need for a top manager on the internal audit team.

This may be nothing more that the existing management rep who, after all, is meant to be a member of top management. They should, however, check to ensure that they are authorized by the very top manager to do this.

I would get that authority in writing.

John