ISO 9001:1994 more user friendly than ISO 9001:2000?

[Brian Hunt]

I'm setting up a quality management system from scratch - to do this effectively will need more than the six mandatory procedures requried by ISO9001:2000. Although the new standard is promoted as being easier and less bureaucratic than the previous version, my own feeling is that lacks clarity. This means that it's interpretation and implementation can be very varied and possibly end up producing a more complicated management system than the old version.

Or am I showing a lack of understanding here?

Brian

 

[Craig H.]

I'm setting up a quality management system from scratch - to do this effectively will need more than the six mandatory procedures requried by ISO9001:2000. Although the new standard is promoted as being easier and less bureaucratic than the previous version, my own feeling is that lacks clarity. This means that it's interpretation and implementation can be very varied and possibly end up producing a more complicated management system than the old version.

Or am I showing a lack of understanding here?

Brian

No, Brian, you do understand.

There is a tradeoff here. In exchange for the clear cut "shalls" of the 1994 version, where you could "check off" required documents, etc., the 2000 version requires more thought be given to what makes a given system "tick"., IMO. Less user friendly? Maybe, but the 2000 version gives us the latitude ( and responsibility) to decide what works for our unique situation(s).

Possibly creating a more complicated management system? Maybe, but let's hope that the increased complication is brought upon us by increased upper management involvment and input.

You say that the QMS you are working on is "from scratch". If the QMS, and not the company itself, is "from scratch" (in other words the company has been in business for a while), then I would strongly suggest that you look at what is in place now. Chances are that you already have many of the pieces of a QMS in place, they just are not organized as such. Have you done a gap analysis?

Hope this helps.

Craig H.

 

[Rob Nix]

Craig provides excellent advice!

Instead of creating a comprehensive system, and then paring it down to the necessary elements, describe your present system (using flowcharts, etc.) and see if it meets all of the ISO9K2K requirements (gap analysis) - adding ONLY WHAT IS NEEDED (in a value added manner if possible) to meet the requirements.

 

[Mike S.]

FWIW I do think that the 1994 version was easier to understand and implement. I think either version can be used as a guide to create a great QMS.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

... This means that it's interpretation and implementation can be very varied and possibly end up producing a more complicated management system than the old version.

Or am I showing a lack of understanding here?

No, I think you understand it perfectly well, because I agree: I really believe the 1994 version was easier... If you happened to be the one building or auditing a QMS, that is... You could tick the clauses off one by one and get it done, without too much concern about how the different parts worked together.

Today, you have to create a system describing the interaction of your processes. A system that can be tailored to your organizations needs and therefore probably serves the users better.

/Claes

 

[Laura M]

Craig's advice is excellent. I would contemplate whether "easier" means "better." I believe the 2000 version is producing "better" quality systems.

 

[mshell]

I agree as well. I am in the process of building a new system based on the requirements of the new standard and have found that the new standard forces you to think about the process you are implementing rather that just implementing them because ISO says so.

I also agree that you should document your current practice and build from there. It is much easier to get buy in/support if you start with current practice and improve upon it by making things easier/faster/better for all involved. You will probably be pleasantly surprised by how many of the requirements your organization is already meeting. After all much of the standard is just business common sense.

 

[Brian Hunt]

No, Brian, you do understand.

There is a tradeoff here. In exchange for the clear cut "shalls" of the 1994 version, where you could "check off" required documents, etc., the 2000 version requires more thought be given to what makes a given system "tick"., IMO. Less user friendly? Maybe, but the 2000 version gives us the latitude ( and responsibility) to decide what works for our unique situation(s).

Possibly creating a more complicated management system? Maybe, but let's hope that the increased complication is brought upon us by increased upper management involvment and input.

You say that the QMS you are working on is "from scratch". If the QMS, and not the company itself, is "from scratch" (in other words the company has been in business for a while), then I would strongly suggest that you look at what is in place now. Chances are that you already have many of the pieces of a QMS in place, they just are not organized as such. Have you done a gap analysis?

Hope this helps.

Craig H.

Craig - thanks for your comments

The belief I have is that the requirements (e.g. for contract review and calibration) are clearly stated in the old standard and visible to all - but not as clear in the new one. The interpretation of the new standard requires "experts" and makes the requirements less accessible to everyone else. This could result in a more complicated management system and less understanding from senior management.

The QMS I'm working on is from scratch in that the company is a small one with a number of informal, back of the envelope procedures. While they are close to the requirements of the standard as I diagram them below, I do think that the old standard was better in communicating what was needed for an effective company. The problem was in the interpretation and application of the standard.

Brian

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

That is an unusually clear and informative illustration... Well done Brian.. Would you mind if I nick it for internal use over here?

/Claes

 

[Brian Hunt]

That is an unusually clear and informative illustration... Well done Brian.. Would you mind if I nick it for internal use over here?

/Claes

Thanks Claes - you're very welcom to use it - a better quality pdf version is attached

Rgs

Brian