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

Paul Simpson

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.
Semantically you are, of course, correct. I was just attempting to correct the myth that there have been multiple attempts to overturn the December Systematic Review result. There haven't. The ISO process requires Technical Committees (TC) ans Sub-committees (SC) to ballot their members on decisions.

There are many Covers and others who misread this as another vote on revision. Not the case. Heavens, even semantic @Mike S has implied that.

Exactly, Bev. Keep voting until you get the result you want, then STOP! Obviously the voters didn't know what was best for them and their overlords did.

I often wish that certain people and organizations get exactly what they deserve. That is the case here.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
:rolleyes:

I will also say (not imply) that I personally believe there was collusion on the part of officials that had much more to do with money and power than looking out for the good of their customers.
 

Big Jim

Admin
:rolleyes:

I will also say (not imply) that I personally believe there was collusion on the part of officials that had much more to do with money and power than looking out for the good of their customers.

If nothing else, things sure look suspicious when there is a lack of transparency. I'm sure that some of the things that appear to muddy the water as it appears from the outside may not seem so from the inside.

However, it is wise to avoid anything that even gives the appearance of mischief.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
The ISO/IEC Directives “mandate” a degree of transparency during the development of international standards. That’s why they normally allow for copies of WD’s (Working Drafts), CD’s (Committee Drafts) and DIS (Draft International Standards) to circulate freely, but and apparently the Design Specification cannot be made publicly available. Why? Because!

Much less the records that show the “validation” of the released product like the one supposedly performed in 2014/2015 for the ISO 9001:2015 revision. I am sure that an extensive round of audits were carried out to demonstrate that risk based thinking was clear and auditable, as mandated by the Directives aforementioned. :sarcasm:It just so happens such records cannot be transparently shared.

The problem for the TC176 SC2 is the fact that with the ease of information sharing these days, ordinary users of the standards make their voices heard more incisively. If you take upon yourself the challenge of defending questionable decisions by committees you will find out that your committee life bubble perspective will be challenged.
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Leader
Admin
I dream of a world where standards are free. :notme:
I wouldn't mind paying if you could get a complete document, but they split them up into as many separate standards as possible (see example below), so you have to pay more.

Example:
  • ISO 11462-1:2001 Guidelines for implementation of statistical process control (SPC) — Part 1: Elements of SPC
  • ISO 11462-2:2010 Guidelines for implementation of statistical process control (SPC) — Part 2: Catalogue of tools and techniques
  • ISO/TR 11462-3:2020 Guidelines for implementation of statistical process control (SPC) — Part 3: Reference data sets for SPC software validation
  • ISO/TR 11462-4 Guidelines for implementation of statistical process control (SPC) — Part 4: Reference data sets for measurement process analysis software validation
  • ISO/TR 11462-5 Guidelines for implementation of statistical process control (SPC) — Part 5: Quality data exchange format for SPC software
Then within Part 1 there are the following Normative references:
  • ISO 3534-1:1993, Statistics — Vocabulary and symbols — Part 1: Probability and general statistical terms.
    ISO 3534-2:1993, Statistics — Vocabulary and symbols — Part 2: Statistical quality control.
    ISO 3534-3:1999, Statistics — Vocabulary and symbols — Part 3: Design of experiments.
    ISO 9000:2000, Quality management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary.

And the following Terms and definitions:
  • ISO 3534-1:2006 Statistics — Vocabulary and symbols — Part 1: General statistical terms and terms used in probability
  • ISO 3534-2:2006 Statistics — Vocabulary and symbols — Part 2: Applied statistics
  • ISO 3534-3:2013 Statistics — Vocabulary and symbols — Part 3: Design of experiments
  • ISO 9000:2015 Quality management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary
And this does not include other standards that might be cited in Parts 2 through 5.
 
Last edited:

Randy

Super Moderator
I wouldn't mind paying if you could get a complete document, but they split them up into as many separate standards as possible (see example below), so you have to pay more.
Yep, it's amazing they never did that with ISO 14001 since it came out in 1996.

They haven't done it with ISO 45001 yet either.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
Ok.

I'm done here.

There was a time under Marc's stewardship when debate was managed and balanced and moderators intervened when posts became personal. It seems that is no longer the case and moderators, Admins and 'Leaders' are almost as vitriolic as the most rabid posters.

It may be that the OP doesn't understand the significance of an accusation of collusion. Similarly in other posts there are accusations that the technical experts representing their countries are driven solely by personal gain.

Where are the moderators?

That last question is rhetorical. I have no interest in contributing to the discussion on these threads any longer.
 
Top Bottom