ISO 9001 News ISO 9001:2025 - What should be changed in the next Edition of ISO 9001? - REVISION PROCEEDING- August 2023

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Has a vote to confirm resulted in multiple additional ballots to push an early revision for any other ISO standards?
Good question to show what is behind the poll-a-palooza. The obvious answer is no. Heck, the ISO TMB even allowed 13485 not to follow the HLS/HS. Some cynical people could say that is because 13485 has a much smaller commercial impact than 9001. Anyone who thinks the push for an early revision is not driven by commercial interests does not have a clue.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I think we need only to look at ISO 9001:2008 to see the answer here. It represented a distinction without an appreciable difference.
Exactly. And I have already mentioned this a few times at The Cove. The 2008 Edition was an “amendment”. In all practical terms, it was identical to the 2000 Edition. But ISO insisted that the revised document had to be purchased, the IAF mandated a 2-year transition period, new certificates had to be issued, mandatory training was enforced, etc. All for nothing. From an environmental and sustainability standpoint was a huge waste. But, if you are in the all important committee, you drink the kool aid.
 

Big Jim

Admin
I think we need only to look at ISO 9001:2008 to see the answer here. It represented a distinction without an appreciable difference.

Essentially, all they did was clean up some ambiguous topics. They even went out of their way to publish that there were no new requirements. It was an improvement because of cleaning things up but it sure didn't advance anything.

It is a shame that they created some more ambiguous topics with the 2015 version.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
Has a vote to confirm resulted in multiple additional ballots to push an early revision for any other ISO standards?
I don't know. I only work in two ISO committees.

To be clear, this 'multiple ballots' trope is a myth. There have been precisely two ballots about revising ISO 9001. One is the systematic review in December 2020 and the latest one was in June 2023.
 

jmech

Trusted Information Resource
I don't know. I only work in two ISO committees.

To be clear, this 'multiple ballots' trope is a myth. There have been precisely two ballots about revising ISO 9001. One is the systematic review in December 2020 and the latest one was in June 2023.
Thanks for clarifying that.

"To be clear, this 'multiple ballots' trope is" supported by ISO's own publications:

Initial ballot (systematic review):

"Ballot supports the SPOTG's recommendations to confirm ISO 9001:2015" - second ballot:

ISO 9001 Ballot results - final ballot (which will definitely not require any additional study despite also being a close vote):


TC176 appears to be acting outside ISO procedures (although maybe not contrary to them) and changing the rules on the fly. When the development of a design specification was announced in May 2022, the announcement stated that TG5 would develop a draft design specification, SC2 would review and comment on the draft design specification, TG5 would revise it based on the comments, it would then be subject to ballot by SC2, and "Once an approved Design Specification has been achieved, SC2’s members will then be consulted on the need to initiate an early revision of ISO 9001." From the following link (emphasis added):
The TG5 report (see document SC2/N 1585) indicated that there was no single major driver for an early revision; however, the volume of elements, when taken together, suggests the need for one.


The SPOTG considered that there was a need for all the differing elements to be presented in a more structured form, before it would agree to consult and ballot SC2 members on the need for an early revision to ISO 9001. Consequently, the SPOTG has invited TG5 to develop a “Design Specification” for a future revision of ISO 9001, to bring all these elements together.


(Please note that the ISO/IEC Directives do not address the development of a Design Specification, but that TC 176 has adopted this as good practice, in advance of the development or revision of a standard. It also does not imply that a revision of ISO 9001 will automatically happen at this stage.)


It is expected that the development of a draft Design Specification will take approximately 6 months.


The draft Design Specification would then be circulated to SC2 members for review and comment.


TG5 will then analyze any comments received and prepare a revised Design Specification.

The revised Design Specification will then be subject to a ballot by SC2’s members.


Once an approved Design Specification has been achieved, SC2’s members will then be consulted on the need to initiate an early revision of ISO 9001.

Instead, "the Design Specification has been recently circulated to the members of SC 2 for information" (not review and comment; TG5 also did not mention making any revisions based on comments) and only an ad-hoc meeting of SC2 followed by SPOTG meeting were held to decide to move to a ballot for early revision of ISO 9001 (the design specification was never subject to ballot by SC2's members, contrary to the earlier publication by ISO).

Paul, can you understand why people are not happy when those supportive of revision are taking a path not described in ISO procedures, without a known precedent, and then do not keep commitments they make along the way?
 

Randy

Super Moderator
To me, in the end the number of ballots voted on doesn't me a *hit, the only things that really matters is what actually passed and what changed, everything else is crap :poop:
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
Thanks for clarifying that.

"To be clear, this 'multiple ballots' trope is" supported by ISO's own publications:

Initial ballot (systematic review):

"Ballot supports the SPOTG's recommendations to confirm ISO 9001:2015" - second ballot:

ISO 9001 Ballot results - final ballot (which will definitely not require any additional study despite also being a close vote):


TC176 appears to be acting outside ISO procedures (although maybe not contrary to them) and changing the rules on the fly. When the development of a design specification was announced in May 2022, the announcement stated that TG5 would develop a draft design specification, SC2 would review and comment on the draft design specification, TG5 would revise it based on the comments, it would then be subject to ballot by SC2, and "Once an approved Design Specification has been achieved, SC2’s members will then be consulted on the need to initiate an early revision of ISO 9001." From the following link (emphasis added):


Instead, "the Design Specification has been recently circulated to the members of SC 2 for information" (not review and comment; TG5 also did not mention making any revisions based on comments) and only an ad-hoc meeting of SC2 followed by SPOTG meeting were held to decide to move to a ballot for early revision of ISO 9001 (the design specification was never subject to ballot by SC2's members, contrary to the earlier publication by ISO).

Paul, can you understand why people are not happy when those supportive of revision are taking a path not described in ISO procedures, without a known precedent, and then do not keep commitments they make along the way?
The SC2 process is completely in line with ISO and IEC processes, as outlined in the Directives. It has an additional element of a design specification to let SC2 members know what the scope of work for any revision will be. The design specification is for members to decide whether the work is worth it or not.

I can understand people not being happy with the ballot results. The evidence you have presented does not indicate SC2 is operating outside the 'path' it should follow. You have looked at exactly the same evidence and come to a completely different conclusion. I cannot help you further.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
I thought two qualified as multiple, but maybe not in some worlds.

But usually in most legitimate organizations I am familiar with, there is one vote and unless fraud is proven, the result of the vote stands.
 
Top Bottom