ISO 9001:2000 Section 1.0 Requirements

[ScottK]

To expand on this subject...

1) Clause 3... An auditor is interpreting that one require a 'terms and definitions' section in the quality manual. I disagree. Those are terms and definitions of the standard not a QMS or QM requirement.

2) what about "Clause 0" or the introduction? Same auditor keeps referencing "Clause 0".
Seems to me "Clause 0" describes the philosophy behind the standard. There are no requirements.
I think he's trying use "Clause 0" like OSHA uses the General Duty Clause

thoughts?

 

[Stijloor]

To expand on this subject...

1) Clause 3... An auditor is interpreting that one require a 'terms and definitions' section in the quality manual. I disagree. Those are terms and definitions of the standard not a QMS or QM requirement.

2) what about "Clause 0" or the introduction? Same auditor keeps referencing "Clause 0".
Seems to me "Clause 0" describes the philosophy behind the standard. There are no requirements.
I think he's trying use "Clause 0" like OSHA uses the General Duty Clause

thoughts?

Hello ScottK,

The auditor is way off base. He/She is probably used to seeing quality manuals modeled after the ISO 9001 standard. That is not required and not necessary. The standard is pretty clear on the requirements, and that's it. It's OK to (professionally) push back!

Think for a moment what the purpose is of the quality manual. What are you trying to convey to existing and prospective customers? It should serve your company well, not the auditor.

Stijloor.

 

[ScottK]

Hello ScottK,

The auditor is way off base. He/She is probably used to seeing quality manuals modeled after the ISO 9001 standard. That is not required and not necessary. The standard is pretty clear on the requirements, and that's it. It's OK to (professionally) push back!

Think for a moment what the purpose is of the quality manual. What are you trying to convey to existing and prospective customers? It should serve your company well, not the auditor.

Stijloor.

yes - I'm pushing back.
no doubt.
It just makes me doubt that the auditor understands the spirit of the standard.

 

[Stijloor]

yes - I'm pushing back.
no doubt.
It just makes me doubt that the auditor understands the spirit of the standard.

Hello ScottK,

I wonder too sometimes....not all companies understand that they do not have to agree with "audit conclusions." They do not push back because they are afraid that the auditor starts "looking" for more stuff.... Both parties want to be pleased, don't want to make waves, and as a result we've got the situation we're in right now. Many discussions on The Cove dealt with this very topic. Don't want to make waves myself right now....

Stijloor.

 

[vanputten]

In my opinion, if I were to include "the spirit" of the standard in my efforts, I would absolutely include every word on every page in my thoughts.

I would not question if the auditor understands the spirit of the standard. Certainly the spirit would include sections 0, 1, 2, and 3. A pure conformity activity may not.

It would question if the auditor understand the conformity assessment strucuture, not the spirit.

Regards,

Dirk

 

[Aaron Lupo]

Hello ScottK,

I wonder too sometimes....not all companies understand that they do not have to agree with "audit conclusions." They do not push back because they are afraid that the auditor starts "looking" for more stuff.... Both parties want to be pleased, don't want to make waves, and as a result we've got the situation we're in right now. Many discussions on The Cove dealt with this very topic. Don't want to make waves myself right now....

Stijloor.

I agree that most companies are afraid to question the CB/NB auditor, that is why when I do an audit I tell them if I have a finding and you don't agree let me know and I will be more than happy to discuss. If you can show me where I am wrong I will be more than happy to not write the finding. Please challenge me it keeps me honest and on my toes.