Is ISO 9001:2000 a retrograde step ?

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Leader
Super Moderator
M Greenaway said:
But if a standard ceases to actually tell us to do anything then surely it ceases to be a standard.

I'm not sure what to make of this. The standard - 1994 and 2000 revisions both - tell us to do plenty, it just doesn't tell us how. The 2000 revision actually caused our organization to do more work - but it's value added and we were able to eliminate a lot of unnecessary things we were doing before "just to satisfy an auditor".
 
D

db

M Greenaway said:
But if a standard ceases to actually tell us to do anything then surely it ceases to be a standard.

My suppliers certified to this standard could be doing anything.

Isn't the standard a model? As such it doesn't tell us to do anything. It tells us what the end product should look like. A blueprint of a house can be a standard. It tells you where things go and what they are, but not necessarily what they are made of. A wall may show 2X4s, but are they wood, plastic, steel? Does it matter if they are oak, or fir? It is just a model.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
It depends on how you see it.

Firstly I believe 9k2k is a big step forward as a model for a quality (or business) system form the old version. It says to an organisation - understand your system (processes), get close to your customer, monitor and measure the things that are important to you and take management action on things that are wrong or areas for improvement.....

...but...

from a customer point of view 9k2k does not give me the same level of control over what a supplier is expected to do. It is a lot more subjective and there is less requirement for documentation and inspection. As a customer I feel I would have to tell the supplier more about what I would want in the way of quality plans or quality controls.

IMHO
 
Top Bottom