Is there an "ultimate" version QMS version similar to 9001, like a "mother of all QMS"?

Wolf.K

Quite Involved in Discussions
Hi,
I wonder if there is an upgrade (or how you want to name it) for ISO 9001like QMS? I wonder if it is possible to implement a QMS not related to regulatory or ISO requirements, but as a tool for managing a company? Actually, I like QMS processes, but at my company we have many processes which are not related to 9001 requirements and, therefore, are not required to be controlled. E.g., our forms for when to go on vacation are not included. Same goes with salary requirements, insureance requirements, and "who does switch on the disk washer before going home" kind of things... (the latter - is that infrastructure?)

Any ideas, recommendations, thoughtful hints?

Truly youry!
 

Randy

Super Moderator
a tool for managing a company?
Yep, good, solid, ethical and honest management/leadership that does what's needed, when needed and appropriately needed.

I wonder if it is possible to implement a QMS not related to regulatory or ISO requirements
Yep, but in the real world the sun will rise in the west before that happens.


All in all you're asking for the impossible and improbable
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Actually, I like QMS processes, but at my company we have many processes which are not related to 9001 requirements and, therefore, are not required to be controlled.
If top management in your organization allows for “business processes” that do not need to be controlled, that is a sign the organization is too early in the maturity journey to think of any other model to follow.
 

normzone

Trusted Information Resource
I think of it as "Do you want this to be done the same way by each person every time?"

Then a control for that process (how people document their plan for their vacations) should be established ... unless it's okay for me to just drop an email to let you know I'll be out next week.
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
Hi,
I wonder if there is an upgrade (or how you want to name it) for ISO 9001like QMS? I wonder if it is possible to implement a QMS not related to regulatory or ISO requirements, but as a tool for managing a company? Actually, I like QMS processes, but at my company we have many processes which are not related to 9001 requirements and, therefore, are not required to be controlled. E.g., our forms for when to go on vacation are not included. Same goes with salary requirements, insureance requirements, and "who does switch on the disk washer before going home" kind of things... (the latter - is that infrastructure?)

Any ideas, recommendations, thoughtful hints?

Truly youry!
The organization shall define QMS processes, not ISO 9001 . ISO 9001 is a general standard to be applied everywhere. The organization shall decide documented information to be retained. Consider that some records/ documented information are directly linked and requested according to statutory, regulatory and national law requirements.
Consider to make a risk analysis for this : what is the risk/impact to maintain these records? In my opinion, I think it could have some impact on HR management process. In addtion, responsibilities and authorities shall be defined by the organization.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
Hi,
I wonder if there is an upgrade (or how you want to name it) for ISO 9001like QMS? I wonder if it is possible to implement a QMS not related to regulatory or ISO requirements, but as a tool for managing a company? Actually, I like QMS processes, but at my company we have many processes which are not related to 9001 requirements and, therefore, are not required to be controlled. E.g., our forms for when to go on vacation are not included. Same goes with salary requirements, insureance requirements, and "who does switch on the disk washer before going home" kind of things... (the latter - is that infrastructure?)

Any ideas, recommendations, thoughtful hints?

Truly youry!
@Mike S. provides good information. Have a look at ISO 9004. It encompasses more than the customer-facing focus of ISO 9001.

Alternatively, have another look at ISO 9001 and ask yourself if it can do more than you are currently doing with it.

Taking your couple of examples:
  • 9001 requirements for HR are generally confined to the competence areas (Clause 7.2). You can apply the same requirement for managing processes to the whole employee lifecycle and cover hiring, remuneration, employee benefits, appraisal, firing etc.
  • Same for the company secretariat. You can have processes for legal filings, legal advice to the Board etc.
Back in the 90s several companies in the UK took this approach and there was even a certification scheme for Company-Wide Certification where the CB I worked for sent specialists in to audit the HR, Finance, IT, etc. functions to demonstrate that those support activities were operating in a quality way.

If you support the principle of Process Approach you should be able to apply that thinking to any area. The only question is that of competence - do I understand enough about the discipline (HR, IT, Legal etc.) to judge whether the process is working a) as planned, and b) in line with any legal or other requirements?

Good luck! Let us know how you get on.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Back in the 90s several companies in the UK took this approach and there was even a certification scheme for Company-Wide Certification where the CB I worked for sent specialists in to audit the HR, Finance, IT, etc. functions to demonstrate that those support activities were operating in a quality way.
Since you mentioned “back in the 90’s” I guess this scheme is no longer offered. Is that the case? If so, why? Sounds like a great idea.

As for ISO 9004, does ANYONE have ANY verifiable evidence of an organization using it in a prolonged period? Shouldn’t ISO use actual, verifiable data to determine if their products life cycle should be extended? Since ISO 9004 keeps being published, who uses it? Where? How? Fortunately, the flawed suggestion of converting 9004 in to a requirements standard died a quick death. Unfortunately, the minds behind such an inane idea have not been identified.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
Since you mentioned “back in the 90’s” I guess this scheme is no longer offered. Is that the case? If so, why? Sounds like a great idea.
I am unaware of it being used now, Sidney. It may be but I left that particular CB in the 90s.

BTW, any organisation can ask their CB to do more than is mandated by the accreditation body and IAF criteria (and even that is often ignored). If I want my CB to audit my total business management system then I can do that. I agree, my involvement with the scheme was that it worked well and delivered good value.

As for ISO 9004, does ANYONE have ANY verifiable evidence of an organization using it in a prolonged period? Shouldn’t ISO use actual, verifiable data to determine if their products life cycle should be extended? Since ISO 9004 keeps being published, who uses it? Where? How? Fortunately, the flawed suggestion of converting 9004 in to a requirements standard died a quick death. Unfortunately, the minds behind such an inane idea have not been identified.
You've taken this discussion beyond the OP and beyond what I posted in reply.

Oh, and I have no answers to your question. It is not an ISO decision, BTW. ISO operates on a resolution system with all its participating NSBs. Most NSBs don't share the information you have asked for when they vote to (for example) revise a standard or investigate an alternative use of a standard as, for another example, a requirements standard. So it is not individuals who propose and agree on a direction, however inane you may think it is.

Individuals can agree or disagree with their choices. If they want to influence them then they have to get involved or continue to throw rocks from the sidelines.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Members of NSB have, many times, a personal interest in voting for confirming standards that are not popular. How many times (even on this site) people come here and mention they are “members of TC 176”, when in reality they are just a participant in a national mirror body who receives emails and are made aware of developments about the standards. I know, I have been a member of an ANSI group supporting the development of ISO 50001 and related documents. The vast majority of the people participating in these groups want to use that as a marketing tool for their consulting and (for a very few) authoring “careers”. The fact that ISO does not research, disclose and maintain factual, verifiable data on standards usage in order to make educated decisions on standards life cycle is very telling, imo. Some would even say hypocritical. After all, decision making based on factual data is one of the ISO 9000 principles, and somehow, it doesn’t apply to ISO nor their TC’s.

The ISO secretariat used to be certified to ISO 9001 by SQS. I don’t know (nor care) about the current status of that certification, but if I were ISO, I would seek data on customers and other stakeholders perception of Type B Management Systems Standards in order to ascertain it’s continuing value in the marketplace. It might be just my misguided expectation, but verifiable data transparency should be one of ISO’s hallmarks. Just saying.
 
Top Bottom