So far, my experiences haven't been this drastic. But, food for thought. If You have gone through registration, what did you experience?
***************************
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: ISO 9000 is an unnecessary business expense
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:28:39 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - TampaBay
"mnprinsloo" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm 2 days away from my 6th certification audit as mng.rep of a company.
> First time ISO9001:2000.
> The old standard had a lot of requirements that I would never even have
> worried about. There were elements in the 1994 standard that I would not
> handle in any other way than window dressing, they were required by the
> standard but totally unaplicable to certain industries/companies.
> But now whe have the 2000 standard. This standard illustrates the
processes
> and minor processes with in a company and exactly how everything else fits
> in with it. At last a system where you can apply the "Say what you do and
do
> what you say" principle.
I've put in a number of :2000 systems and been audited to it already about four or five times, in different industries. One big problem arises, which no doubt will be the topic of much discussion for the next five years (when they re-write it again.)
Registrar interpretation of ISO 9K2K is miserable. Of three registration companies, and about seven auditors, none had an interpretation in line with the others. Simply put, most of these companies are not up to the job of training their people properly in 9K2K, and the client is the one who suffers.
Real life case examples from a variety of registrars within the past six months:
1.) Auditor cites minor nonconformance because an updated Quality Manual "still had too much 1994 language in it." Was it lacking 2000 language? "No, I just don't think having 1994 language in a 2000 system is appropriate."
2.) When asked why a preassessment audit completely failed to cover a software team, despite requests that it do so, the auditor says, "Well, the new standard doesn't really apply to software."
3.) Auditor cites minor nonconformances to a Quality Manual which abandoned a numbering scheme that followed EITHER standard, saying "I didn't have enough time to find how you addressed the shall clauses. If I had more time, I might have found major nonconformances."
4.) Auditor opens the registration opening meeting with the comment "I've read your documentation, and you fail to meet the intent of the 2000 standard." Company president almost has a heart attack. "Where are the nonconformances?" we ask. "Oh, there aren't any, you just don't meet the intent. Your system is still based on MIL 45208, and the new standard is based on MIL-Q-9858." [NOTE: Despite this weirdness, we passed the audit.]
5.) Auditor cites nonconformance to Training, saying "Your ISO Management Rep must, at a minimum, attend the 5-Day RAB Lead Assessor Course." when challenged, he mutters something about "the new standard requires it." [NOTE: The RAB would freak if they heard a registrar demanding people go to their classes or face nonconformances. Collusion lawsuit anyone?]
And, the topper:
6.) VP of a major registration company --- and one of the members of TC 176! --- issues directive threatening MAJOR nonconformance to all clients whose ISO Management Reps are not involved in "budgeting and planning" of their companies. VP cites "ISO 9000:2000", the normative reference, in an arcane tranlation of the meaning of "management." I'm still waiting to meet a QA Manager that has any real leverage in budgeting their own department, never mind the entire company.
In summary, the term "the new standard" has become a means for bad registration auditors to blame their poor interpretations on ISO. The problem now is that the ISO 9001:2000 standard's language is so murky, it becomes hard for grievance committees --- and the accreditation body itself --- to countermand bad interpretations. Companies are left holding invalid nonconformances in the process, and ISO 9000's credibility erodes further.
***************************
If you've gone through a registration audit, tell us your experience.
Theres also some 'food for thought' at: Are Flow Charts REQUIRED by ISO 9001 and Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA)
***************************
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: ISO 9000 is an unnecessary business expense
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:28:39 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - TampaBay
"mnprinsloo" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm 2 days away from my 6th certification audit as mng.rep of a company.
> First time ISO9001:2000.
> The old standard had a lot of requirements that I would never even have
> worried about. There were elements in the 1994 standard that I would not
> handle in any other way than window dressing, they were required by the
> standard but totally unaplicable to certain industries/companies.
> But now whe have the 2000 standard. This standard illustrates the
processes
> and minor processes with in a company and exactly how everything else fits
> in with it. At last a system where you can apply the "Say what you do and
do
> what you say" principle.
I've put in a number of :2000 systems and been audited to it already about four or five times, in different industries. One big problem arises, which no doubt will be the topic of much discussion for the next five years (when they re-write it again.)
Registrar interpretation of ISO 9K2K is miserable. Of three registration companies, and about seven auditors, none had an interpretation in line with the others. Simply put, most of these companies are not up to the job of training their people properly in 9K2K, and the client is the one who suffers.
Real life case examples from a variety of registrars within the past six months:
1.) Auditor cites minor nonconformance because an updated Quality Manual "still had too much 1994 language in it." Was it lacking 2000 language? "No, I just don't think having 1994 language in a 2000 system is appropriate."
2.) When asked why a preassessment audit completely failed to cover a software team, despite requests that it do so, the auditor says, "Well, the new standard doesn't really apply to software."
3.) Auditor cites minor nonconformances to a Quality Manual which abandoned a numbering scheme that followed EITHER standard, saying "I didn't have enough time to find how you addressed the shall clauses. If I had more time, I might have found major nonconformances."
4.) Auditor opens the registration opening meeting with the comment "I've read your documentation, and you fail to meet the intent of the 2000 standard." Company president almost has a heart attack. "Where are the nonconformances?" we ask. "Oh, there aren't any, you just don't meet the intent. Your system is still based on MIL 45208, and the new standard is based on MIL-Q-9858." [NOTE: Despite this weirdness, we passed the audit.]
5.) Auditor cites nonconformance to Training, saying "Your ISO Management Rep must, at a minimum, attend the 5-Day RAB Lead Assessor Course." when challenged, he mutters something about "the new standard requires it." [NOTE: The RAB would freak if they heard a registrar demanding people go to their classes or face nonconformances. Collusion lawsuit anyone?]
And, the topper:
6.) VP of a major registration company --- and one of the members of TC 176! --- issues directive threatening MAJOR nonconformance to all clients whose ISO Management Reps are not involved in "budgeting and planning" of their companies. VP cites "ISO 9000:2000", the normative reference, in an arcane tranlation of the meaning of "management." I'm still waiting to meet a QA Manager that has any real leverage in budgeting their own department, never mind the entire company.
In summary, the term "the new standard" has become a means for bad registration auditors to blame their poor interpretations on ISO. The problem now is that the ISO 9001:2000 standard's language is so murky, it becomes hard for grievance committees --- and the accreditation body itself --- to countermand bad interpretations. Companies are left holding invalid nonconformances in the process, and ISO 9000's credibility erodes further.
***************************
If you've gone through a registration audit, tell us your experience.
Theres also some 'food for thought' at: Are Flow Charts REQUIRED by ISO 9001 and Corrective Action vs. Preventive (Predictive) Action (CAPA)
