Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

How ISO 9001 could look in the future - ISO 9001 revision (Guide 83)

#3
What a pity that they are duplicating definitions from ISO9000 which is currently under review.

How about one glossary for all such standards, with only specific terms being qualified in a particular standard where the meaning and use is "discipline-specific"?

And they are missing an oportunity to emphasise that an organisation has one management system (ie how it "runs the business") and each of these standards relates to how it manages a particular aspect (Q, H&S, E etc) of its operations.

And why do they use abbreviations (eg "MSS") without defining them first...?
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#4
And they are missing an oportunity to emphasise that an organisation has one management system (ie how it "runs the business") and each of these standards relates to how it manages a particular aspect (Q, H&S, E etc) of its operations.
I agree 100% Peter. I am fully convinced that THE ONLY WAY for ISO MSS to gain the proper attention from top management is for them to understand that conformance to MSS affects their BUSINESS PROCESSES.

Product realization is NOT A QUALITY SYSTEM process. It is a BUSINESS PROCESS; a core one.

Purchasing is NOT A QUALITY SYSTEM process. It is a BUSINESS PROCESS.

Sales and order review, ditto. New Product Introduction, including product design and development, ditto. Etc, etc, etc...

Until ISO TC's frame MSS as discipline-component of business processes, they will not promote the proper application of such standards.
 
V

vanputten

#5
Not only is the high level structure and identical text being debated within the TAG to ISO/TC 176, but so is what should be included in ISO 9001 and what are the principles underlying the standard (i.e. 8 quality management principles).

How can these things be determined in parallel?
 
Top Bottom