Is it recommended to use the new terms in ISO 9001:2015?

[QAMTY]

Hi everybody

I wanted to hear your opinions regarding to insist people to use the new terms in 2015 version.

e.g.

The term “goods and services”
replaces “products”

“Documented information”
replaces "procedures and records"

"Supplier" replaces "External provider"

"Resources" replaces "equipment" in 7.5.1

Should I expect some improvements or benefits in the system?

For people who has been in ISO, since the 1994 version, I think, they could share interesting comments.

Thanks for your help

 

[RoxaneB]

I'll ask the question, I normally ask in these types of scenarios - WHY change? WHY would changing add any value to the orgnaization? WHY would people care if we changed?

If the answers are "Don't know. Don't know. And don't know." then I'd suggest no change is needed.

It's YOUR (organization's) system...make the standard conform to you not the other way around.

 

[QAMTY]

Thanks RoxaneB

I think normally changes happen to improve things, If ISO organization (Big business), is changing, terms, scopes, changing clauses, well it is supposed the purpose is to make things easier and effective,then I ask myself, why is the reason to change something?
I follow the business leaders, It may exist a valid reason behind this purpose, but I cant see it.
Thanks

 

[Marc]

<snip> The term “goods and services”
replaces “products”

“Documented information”
replaces "procedures and records"

"Supplier" replaces "External provider"

"Resources" replaces "equipment" in 7.5.1

Should I expect some improvements or benefits in the system?

For people who has been in ISO, since the 1994 version, I think, they could share interesting comments. <snip>

No significant changes have actually been made, in my opinion.

Any time you put 10 people in a room to discuss <whatever> you will end up with this type of thing especially when it comes to word choices. Changing "Supplier" with "External provider", for example, doesn't "improve" an organization. It is a matter of one or more people believing the change of words will make it more clear and easier to understand. Sometimes word choice can make a difference - I don't deny that. But often what "makes things more clear" to one person can just cause more confusion to another.

 

[Randy]

Use whatever you folks use on a daily basis if for no other reason than to avoid confusion

 

[howste]

ISO changed the wording to meet their needs to communicate requirements. The standard has never required us to use their words in our systems. I was asked to update the quality manual for our organization while we transitioned to the new requirements of ISO 9001 and AS9100. I kept "suppliers," "documents," "records," etc. because they are terms that we normally use.

 

[ABRSPLY]

While going through the 2015 upgrade audit, our CB suggested we change everything to the new terms to "clear things up". I refused and he wasn't happy. But then again, this was a witness audit by ANAB so he was a bit more nit picky. That being said, I was not impressed by the ANAB auditor, who spent most of his day online shopping and playing games on Google.

 

[Marc]

That is sad, truly sad, when a CB wants a company to do something because they would like it that way.

 

[RoxaneB]

In my previous company, we implemented 5S across all of our sites around the globe. Our internal auditors came to visit my site and spoke with our personnel - operators through leadership. At the end of the audit, we had earned one of the lowest 5S scores in the entire company. Why? Because the majority of our staff could not recite what the 5S's stood for.

We challenged this. We were a steel mill and in one of our areas - traditionally one of the dirtiest parts of a steel mill - you could eat off of the floor. The operators there took great pride in maintaining their work area and even "chased" the CEO (visiting from Brazil) to hand him a broom so that HE could clean up HIS mess.

We argued that just because our guys couldn't parrot back the 5S's, we had the culture of 5S - the pride, the ownership, the tenets of 5S were ingrained within our team.

In the end, we had one of the highest scores for 5S and were considered the benchmark mill for all of our sister sites.

It's the same thing with ISO changing the words. It's their words. No where does it say that your organization has to match their vocabulary. It's not about the words...it's about the culture and everyone sharing the same vision. I don't care if you call it a document, a procedure, a piece-of-paper, a gathering-of-words...as long as everyone understands what it is there for and uses it in the same manner.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

That is sad, truly sad, when a CB wants a company to do something because they would like it that way.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Marc. I doubt it is a CB's policy, though. Very likely it is a misguided auditor who might not have understood the implications of emphasizing the aspect of "ISO 9000 as a NORMATIVE reference to ISO 9001".

While terminology MUST be flexible, the fact that ISO 9000 is a NORMATIVE reference, the principles and definitions are critical for the proper implementation of 9001. Otherwise, the concept of standardization is not achieved.

So, and again, I suspect that a semi-competent auditor is expecting that, as part of the effort to make ISO 9000 mandatory as part of the 9001 implementation.