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

[Marcelo]

Well, I would say it?s a little more difficult than that.

In past standards, the role of the management representative was created to shield/separate top management from the QMS (as the management representative was the QMS "process" owner and thus responsible for the QMS). So, effectively, although top management in general was required to show commitment, they were not required to be all accountable or responsible for the system (only the management representative was responsible). Now they are required to be accountable.

However, they still are not required to be responsible. This is still open when the draft say:

Top management shall assign the responsibility and authority for:
- ensuring that the quality management system conforms to the requirements of this International Standard;
- ensuring that the processes are delivering their intended outputs;
- reporting on the performance of the quality management system, on opportunities for improvement and on the need for change or innovation, and especially for reporting to top management;

Those are still the same QMS "process" owner responsibilities from the past, only now, they do not need a function called management representative for it.

So I don?t think that?s really a change, and it?s even a little worse, because the management representative had to be part of management before (and thus at least some top management would be responsible), and the revised requirement don?t even require that!

 

[John Broomfield]

Marcelo,

Thank you. Would you please comment on top management being responsible for the "quality performance" of their organization?

Do you share my view that this is more than the performance of the QMS?

John

 

[Marcelo]

John

Would you please comment on top management being responsible for the "quality performance" of their organization?

Do you share my view that this is more than the performance of the QMS?

No. If I understand you comments correctly, you are basing this assumption in the following requirements:

Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the quality management system by:

- taking accountability of the effectiveness of the quality management system;

- engaging, directing and supporting persons to contribute to the effectiveness of the quality management system;

However, and there?s the catch, I think, they are not required to be responsible, only "accountable"! There?s no definition of accountability in the series (even in this document - http://www.iso.org/iso/03_terminology_used_in_iso_9000_family.pdf), so, using the general idea of the word, I would assume that the accountability requirement in this particular case related to top management "being required to explain actions or decisions to someone" (for example, shareholders).

Accountability can also be interpreted as "required to be responsible for something", but I don?t think it fits this case, because there are clear requirements for responsibility and authorities in 5.3, and if you take a look at that, you will note that top management is required to assign QMS responsibility to someone (which can be someone else, even outside top management the way the requirement is written now).

Regarding the "- engaging, directing and supporting persons to contribute to the effectiveness of the quality management system", I do agree that this changes the role of top management to a little more active role, but this still do not require responsibility.


Also, I do not think "quality performance" means more than the QMS.

Performance was not defined in ISO 9000, but is defined now in the ISO 9000 DIS as

3.7.9
performance
measurable result

Note 1 to entry: Performance can relate either to quantitative or qualitative findings.
Note 2 to entry: Performance can relate to the management (3.3.3) of activities, processes (3.6.1), product (3.7.6) and services (3.7.7), systems (3.4.1) or organizations (3.2.1).

So, when I read "quality performance", I understand "measurable results related to quality. In my opinion, this would still only be constrained inside the QMS.

 

[John Broomfield]

Marcelo,

Thanks, but you did not refer to clause 7.2.

Clause 7.2 refers to the quality performance of the organization.

Being as the organization is run by top management, they must be competent.

Who is going to verify their competence beyond the Board of a Directors?

Who, within the organization, is going to audit this?

I'm suggesting that a top manager would.

John

 

[Marcelo]

John

7.2 in the draft is related to competency. The requirement was moved from 6.2.2 from the old version due to the restructuring.

The old requirement is

The organization shall
a) determine the necessary competence for personnel performing work affecting conformity to product requirements,

The revised requirement in the draft is:

The organization shall:
- determine the necessary competence of person(s) doing work under its control that affects its quality performance

My opinion is that is in practice the same requirement, with some polishing of words to accommodate the new "quality performance" "definition".

The organization is run by top management, but as I mentioned on the previous comments, the standard still seem to separate top management from the QMS.

So, unless you are saying that the 2008 version required to evaluate top management competency, I don?t see why this version would.

 

[Marcelo]

Also, I did not see it in this thread, but there?s a correlation matrix on topics between the 2008 and DIS versions here: Correlation matrices between ISO 9001:2008 and ISO/DIS 9001

 

[Paul Simpson]

Hi, Marcelo. Generally I agree with your approach on this. The standard is little changed in terms of hard requirements for the organization's leaders. I did have a slight issue with the following snip:

<snip>In past standards, the role of the management representative was created to shield/separate top management from the QMS (as the management representative was the QMS "process" owner and thus responsible for the QMS). So, effectively, although top management in general was required to show commitment, they were not required to be all accountable or responsible for the system (only the management representative was responsible). Now they are required to be accountable.</snip>

It is true that the MR role has disappeared but the original intention for the MR was not to act as a shield - far from it. The idea was that there would be a member of the top management team who would speak to his / her peers about the QMS. There has been a lot of debate about what 'a member of the organization's management' means here and elsewhere but the intent was for a conversation between equals.

Whether the new requirements for 'Leadership and commitment' address the need better than the old MR requirements we will see soon enough.

 

[lk2012]

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.

I'm especially delighted to see this:

'Top managers are required to engage in the most important QMS activities...'
that means they can't shirk it anymore and treat the QA as a nuisance. <insert mad laughter>
​

 

[Big Jim]

Hi, Marcelo. Generally I agree with your approach on this. The standard is little changed in terms of hard requirements for the organization's leaders. I did have a slight issue with the following snip:



It is true that the MR role has disappeared but the original intention for the MR was not to act as a shield - far from it. The idea was that there would be a member of the top management team who would speak to his / her peers about the QMS. There has been a lot of debate about what 'a member of the organization's management' means here and elsewhere but the intent was for a conversation between equals.

Whether the new requirements for 'Leadership and commitment' address the need better than the old MR requirements we will see soon enough.

The way that I look at the role of the Management Representative is more like he is assigned to shepherd the quality management system. The concept of being a shield I would put more as how many less enlightened top managers applied it.

In general, top managers are better equipped to make sure the quality management system is functioning well, and the idea that it is up to them to determine what other leadership is needed is much more fitting than it was in 1987.

 

[Marcelo]

It is true that the MR role has disappeared but the original intention for the MR was not to act as a shield - far from it. The idea was that there would be a member of the top management team who would speak to his / her peers about the QMS. There has been a lot of debate about what 'a member of the organization's management' means here and elsewhere but the intent was for a conversation between equals.

Hi Paul

Yes, "shield" was not a good word, what I wanted to say is that the requirement in effect "separated" top management from the other requirements for the QMS besides Clause 5 (meaning for example, in this case, the need for top management to show competency for quality related matters).

If I remember correctly, the original requirement comes directly from BS 5750-1:1979 and had not changed that much throughout the years:

The supplier should appoint a management representative (preferably independent of other functions) who shall have the necessary authority and the responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the standard are implemented and maintained.