ISO 9001 2000 - Implications for a small company



Could anyone give me the vaguest hint what the implications are likely to be for a small company if, and when the ISO9000 changes occur, and what will the effect be on QS9000. I am doing an assignment for University and the whole question has me totally confused.


Kate Thomas

[This message has been edited by k.t (edited 23 August 2000).]

Jim Biz

HINT:Standards rewrite for "Clarification" can be viewed by some to mean "Standards increase in duties"

30% increase in management documentation - proving that you customer is satisfied with what you are producing.

increased attention on "workplace" environmental conditions.

Some current procedures will need to be upgraded.. some reporting functions will need to be added.

Nothing there will be a BIG MOUNTAIN to climb for any small company - but the companies management will need to increase focus on things they already do under 9000;1994



Here's another question for you all.

If a small (98 employees) company, that is already 'accredited' with ISO9001:1994, has scrap problems (bear with me!!) What effect would the new ISO9000:2000 have on the scrap problems, if any??? Sorry another Uni Question.

Kate Thomas

David Mullins

Size doesn't matter .
Neither does the version of the standard.
Nonconforming product (a.k.a. scrap) should be identified, controlled to prevent use, corrected and re-verified (the 1994 version actually gives a longer list of required actions).

THEN corrective action kicks in.

To quote DIS 9001, "the organisation shall take corrective action to eliminate the cause of nonconformities in order to prevent recurrence."

9001:1994 para 4.14.1 says that actions taken to eliminate causes of actual or potential nonconformities shall be appropriate to the magnitude of the problem and risks.
para 4.12.2 states "procedures ... shall include ... determination of the corrective action needed to eliminate the cause of nonconformities"
para 4.13.3 states "eliminate potential causes of nonconformity" which thusly applies to future scrap.

Under 9001:1994 you could say that the scrap rate is of a magnitude that does not warrant elimination, or it is within planning targets, etc.

Under 9001:2000 you could say that whilst we recognise the need to eliminate the causes of the scrap it is currently low on our priority list as it is within established process parameters.

9001:2000 might go on about the analysis of data and planning for improvement, but in the words of the '94 version, if the magnitude doesn't warrant action, there will be no action, regardless of which version of the standard you are looking at.

NOTE - Good business practice (and some customers) demands continuous scrap reduction (and cost down benefits to customers). Does any standard need to tell us that?



Fully vaccinated are you?
Just to upset the cart a bit, remember that in the real world not every 'nonconformance' merits a corrective action. And often the result of a corrective action is to do nothing. Each 'nonconformance' has to be evaluated with respect to its merits: severity, fit-form-function issues, etc.

And sometime it's a matter of "We'll have to live with it." Let's say you have consistent nonconformances in a human process - a deburr operation on a plastic plug used to hold carpet in the trunk. The issue is cosmetic (the burr is on the edges of the head and the part is soft plastic). Evaulation shows it is not going to be cost effective to automate the process so it will continue to be a human process. And we all know no human process is always 100% correct. Or maybe you do decide to automate the process but it will cost 500,000 and take a year to get the equipment in and up and running. In the mean time?

Just a few comments to bring 'reality' into the equation.


Fully vaccinated are you?
Quality is a word void of definition by the fact that there are so many disjointed definitions. It is definitely not a science.


Thanks Marc

Reality is often overlooked, or so it seems to me, especially after reading the content of your reply.

I know Quality is a huge issue where I work, and they are all so busy arguing about what the manual says, or who is in charge, or who has the best implimentation ideas, that the rest of us just have to carry on as best we can.

I felt that 'Quality' was unattainable, that it must be so complex and convoluted a subject that there was no hope of ever getting there.

Since reading bits and pieces in the forum, the lectures at Uni and doing quite a lot of extra reading I have discovered that it is not a science, and any Quality guy (or gal) in their right minds keeps it simple, to the point and doesn't try to make themselves into a Quality guru. There may be a lesson in this for the lads at work, but I think they will be so busy arguing over the nitty gritty, that it will be easier to take what I have learnt and try to implement it at grass roots level.

Thanks for all your help and support, I'll be back ..... with more questions, no doubt!

See ya

Kate Thomas

[This message has been edited by k.t (edited 09 September 2000).]

Al the Elf


I would extend the comments of David and Marc into the area of communication. Having made the decision to do or not do something about scrap rates, invoking appropriate corrective and preventative action along the way, it becomes critical to communicate the reasons. Currently under our ISO900X:1994’s we struggle to contextually do this - no surprise as the key starting point has always been management policy (which is old, mouldy and vague) and most decisions are actually justified against current customer requirements (which for us are highly dynamic).

We believe the real power for us of ISO9001:2000 is the elevation of the delivery of customer requirements to the top of the pile, and we will need all members of the organisation to constantly reinforce (mainly via communication - DIS Clauses 5.5.4 and 6.2.2) this by explicitly stating how their decision e.g. to solve scrap or not, is aligned to customer requirements.

I might add that we haven’t yet sorted out how we are going to do this without a bureaucratic mess, so any suggestions from the forum would be most welcome.

Cheers, Al.
Top Bottom