P
It therefore seems Mike S that we have demonstrated the inconsistency with which requirements can be interpreted and hence the ambiguity in ISO 9001:2000. A document billed as a standard but in reality nothing of the kind. We are of course not sure that those making these interpretations are the same as those who crafted the requirements. We know that those who wrote ISO 9000:2000 and ISO 9004:2000 were different.
I got involved in the review process way back in 1995 and got so frustrated by the narrow minded mentality of some of those involved that I threw in the towel and went on to plough my own furrow. There are signs that the more open minded ones that stayed the course did have some impact when you read ISO 9000:2000 and ISO 9004, but regrettably ISO 9001:2000 had to include all the requirements of the 1994 version, not been too radical whilst bending a little to the Business Excellence school. As we know the Camel is the product of the committee that was tasked with designing a horse - it appears that TC 176 is no different.
I got involved in the review process way back in 1995 and got so frustrated by the narrow minded mentality of some of those involved that I threw in the towel and went on to plough my own furrow. There are signs that the more open minded ones that stayed the course did have some impact when you read ISO 9000:2000 and ISO 9004, but regrettably ISO 9001:2000 had to include all the requirements of the 1994 version, not been too radical whilst bending a little to the Business Excellence school. As we know the Camel is the product of the committee that was tasked with designing a horse - it appears that TC 176 is no different.
Last edited by a moderator:
