Is ISO 9001:2000 (9k2k) HARDER than the 1994 Version?

[David Hartman]

I am in the process of coordinating the implementation of 9k2k in a service center that previously had no documented quality program. In this specific scenario I am finding 9k2k to be much easier to implement.

Most of my effort is being concentrated on ensuring: that management has established a quality policy and objectives; that each major process is defined by inputs, actions, and outputs (I am using standard flowcharting as the tool for this effort); that training needs/competency have been determined (and methods for capturing training records have been defined); that metrics are defined for each process (including measures of customer satisfaction); that an internal audit organization is in-place; that a preventive/corrective action process is defined and implemented; and that regular management reviews are defined and implemented.

Although at first blush this seems like a lot of activity, I feel that it is nothing compared to the efforts that I have worked in the past documenting every activity and yet trying to allow enough flexibility to keep from getting dinged for trivialities. I also feel that 9k2k concentrates more on the "important" aspects of making a company successful, and therefore will be of greater benefit to those that implement it properly.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

The 9k2k version is more open to interpretation, and brimming with cross references within the document. That may make it harder to set your system up.

But: I consider it better than the 1994 version, and used properly it ought to lead to a better QMS.

/Claes

 

[Manoj Mathur]

ISO 9K 2K is easier to implement because in this case one need not produce so many documents only for sake of documentation and second in this version Top Management commitment is sought very clearly.

 

[Mike S.]

David,

If I'm not mistaken, I think a poll just like this one, started within the last year, already exists here in the Cove. Did you try a search? It might have much more data and commentary already there.

 

[David Hartman]

You were correct Mike. I'm appologize to all, I should have performed the search first. :truce:

I have since modified my process to reflect the need to perform a search PRIOR to posting such queries.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Well..... Opinions change with time, so I don't mind this new poll at all.

/Claes

 

[barb butrym]

The intent is the same, with CI and satisfaction added as a requirement instead of a "given" Its all in the eyes of the beholder, which format matches your personality/skill base? If done properly ( i.e. for the right reasons) you covered the intent of 2000. If you looked at "how will this add value to my system, instead of how can i get around this the easiest way, and if you looked at the whole picture .......... they are the same, with a simple format change. A rose is a rose.......IMHO. Both are good practice

 

[Mike S.]

I thought there was another poll (other than this one) asking opinions on whether folks thought 9000-1994 was easier or harder than 9000-2000, but I can't find it in a search. Am I crazy or just being dense (again)?

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

I thought there was another poll (other than this one) asking opinions on whether folks thought 9000-1994 was easier or harder than 9000-2000, but I can't find it in a search. Am I crazy or just being dense (again)?

Mike, you're neither dense nor crazy... This is the thread you were referring to. I believe someone posted a fresh input to the poll, thereby bringing it up to the top of the list.

/Claes