ISO 9001:2006 - What is the future of ISO9000?

[M Greenaway]

Dont know if this will generate any interest, but here goes.......

Imagine you are on TC176 and you are involved in the re-write of ISO9001 for re-issue in 2006.

What would you put in ?

What would you take out ?

 

[HFowler]

Martin,

For starters, I would try to do a better job consolidating requirements. For instance, instead of scattering customer focus requirements and continual improvement throughout the satndard, I would put them under single clauses.

If the process approach is continued, I would provide better guidance documentation. I would follow the same format in each clause such as 5.6 Management Review and 7.3 Design and Development and show the required inputs and outputs.

I would take out anything having to do with ISO 14000, infrastructure, and work environment.

Best Regards,
Hank Fowler
and

 

[David Mullins]

first an apology

Firstly I'd wack in an apology for the structure, repetition of requirements and (as Hank said) scattering of requirements.

Then I'd restructure under the headings:
1. Administrative.
2. Productive.

The scope of the standard would read "If you don't like the requirements in this standard, or don't understand them, please visit Elsmar.com ". That'd bring ya some business Marc!

 

[M Greenaway]

Perhaps in the evolution to be ever more generic, and ever more unspecific all it will need to say is:-

'Do whatever you have to do to keep your customers happy'.

 

[RoxaneB]

'Do whatever you have to do to keep your customers happy'.

....while taking into account:
- Environmental issues
- Regulatory and statutory requirements
- Stakeholders' concerns
- The Laws of Physics

Seriously though, I agree with putting the requirements for Customer Satisfaction together. However, I would the requirements for Continual Improvement in a separate clause.

Customer Satisfaction is one of the reasons for pursuing Continual Improvment, but C.I. also includes improved process efficiency, better morale amongst employees (Internal Customers), and $$$!

While Infrastructure and Work Environment do touch upon ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 concerns, they do not delve too deeply into these fields. Rather, ISO 9001:2000 requires an Organization to acknowledge the fact that items such as lighting, ergonomics, airflow, noise, pollution, etc may have an impact upon the quality of the product/process.

There still is room for improvement (crossing my fingers for ISO 9001:2006), but ISO 9001:2000 has come a long way in evolving to more than just production-based quality issues. It now looks at business-based quality issues. Management's decisions on everything from new equipment to new workstations to installing skylights in the roof can potentially impact the quality of the final product.

 

[Alf Gulford]

I don't imagine my reply will fly very far but the first thing I would do is divide it into 20 sections (say 4.1 thru 4.20) of a vertical nature and leave well enough alone.

The second thing would be to make it against some kind of ISO law to blend 9001 with 14001 (would that make it 11.5001?), which I firmly believe will happen if I'm not completely in control.

There are probably some other changes but I'd better think them through before I spout off any more.

Alf

 

[M Greenaway]

Nice one Alf.

As a manufacturing organisation the 20 clauses of the 1994 standard fitted very nicely with what we did as well !

I went to an OHSAS 18000 seminar about a year or so ago, it was given by one of the major writers of this standard. He stated that it was not the intention of the standard writers to create an integrated Quality, Environmental and H&S standard, only to align the standards (i.e. give them similar structure).

Clearly a combined standard would be even more generic in nature. I am wondering if this search for 'singularity' in the management systems world is creating standards which are so unspecific they are practically useless, and cannot really be termed a 'standard'.

 

[eee]

Firstly, they should delete a curious set of 6 procedures

 

[Marc]

Any new thoughts on the Future of ISO 9001?

 

[RoxaneB]

Any new thoughts on the Future of ISO 9001?

Ah, so you've got me back reading this again....makes for a nice break during my current External Audit (the Auditors are currently in their wrap-up meeting and getting the paperwork finalized, blah blah blah).

Anyway...the External Audit has allowed me to focus on the Standard and think of my Christmas Wish List for the next release.

Personally, I like the way it currently structured...it is in-line with a PDCA methodology which works hand-in-hand with our Business Management System. If one was to look at our system, one would see a first level of SDCA, followed by 4 levels of PDCA. The format of ISO 9001:2000 fits, for the most part, very well with us.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of overlap in the Standard. For example, a bit of production maintenance here, a little bit there. Quite often during an audit, I'm checking off N/A on several checklists to get to the relevent portions covered in several clauses...lots of paperwork from an auditor's standpoint.

The 6 required procedures are somewhat questionable. I agree with the N/C, Corrective, and Preventive Action requirements. Control of Documents...well...I guess, but I still find it amusing that I need a document on how I control my documents. A procedure for Records Control is somewhat pointless...a master list, however, conveys so much more. Internal Audits is the one I don't quite understand...if the tools are provided to do the audit, why is a procedure required. The fact that they are done are reviewed at Management Review, as required by the Standard. Do we really need a procedure telling us how IA's are done within an organization? Perhaps...or maybe I'm just assuming (bad move, I know) that we'll all use common sense when it comes to scheduling, implementing, and conducting IA's.