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
<SNIP> If exposing what I consider ineptitude and terrible strategic decisions by a committee that, in my opinion, are clearly veering away of the expected path, makes me a troll, so be it. People don't like being exposed for supporting an entity that is clearly losing sight of it's mission. I don't care. History is full of examples of entities that were so refractory to external feedback that drove themselves into oblivion.</SNIP>
General comments that provide your perception of ineptitude and errors in decision-making are more than fine. They can even be useful to some people in TC 176 who share your views. This forum used to be a bellwether for how well TC 176 is doing with its work. Now? :unsure:

Where opinions flip over into trolling is when they become personal and are about people and not strategy/decision-making. I am happy for people to disagree with me. When someone posts on here about my motivation or questions my principles I will call it out and report the post ... for all the good that does. :cool:
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
That document is so full of malarkey that I couldn't bear to read it all before lunch, lest it ruin my appetite for some tasty leftovers (which probably violate some UN or ISO goal as it contains beef from methane-producing cattle)!
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
From where I sit, The Cove remains as the undisputed premier web space for management system professionals to exchange opinions and knowledge around the business world. Many of us, much more seasoned and now able to discern and expose some of the atrocious blunders in terms of strategy and direction brought about by the TC176. Many of us here with over 30+ years in this business but no longer tied to employers can't remain silent about most of the issues detracting from and damaging 9001.

Thankfully the committee gives us all the evidence we need to show an entity in a high degree of disarray and denial. Case in point, the TG for ISO 9001 Brand Integrity. A group, I have no doubt, many people in ISO wished would have never been created, as it publicly admits serious questioning about the value of ISO 9001 and it’s associated conformity assessment scheme. The lack of publicly available information from this group deliberations is damming for ISO, the IAF and the whole certification sector.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
Sydney you continually provide interesting and disturbing information. What can we do about the standards? I agree that we need some oversight for Quality Reliability and Safety. (Boeing only one example). And I’m sure that you and others Audit because you think there is value.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
From where I sit, The Cove remains as the undisputed premier web space for management system professionals to exchange opinions and knowledge around the business world.
I used to agree with you. That was in the days when debate was civilised, even if heated. It was expertly steered by Marc and I fell foul of his rules a few times and accepted it, even if I thought the arguments I was challenging were idiotic.

Today leaders and Admins are as immoderate as some of the posters. :cool:

Many of us, much more seasoned and now able to discern and expose some of the atrocious blunders in terms of strategy and direction brought about by the TC176. Many of us here with over 30+ years in this business but no longer tied to employers can't remain silent about most of the issues detracting from and damaging 9001.
Aah, the old 'years of experience' argument. What if your years of experience don't give you access to the background information, the arguments and the content of the debates that preceded any decision? You can still criticize the outcome but you can't (or at least shouldn't) question the values of the individuals who have taken part in the process.
Thankfully the committee gives us all the evidence we need to show an entity in a high degree of disarray and denial. Case in point, the TG for ISO 9001 Brand Integrity. A group, I have no doubt, many people in ISO wished would have never been created, as it publicly admits serious questioning about the value of ISO 9001 and it’s associated conformity assessment scheme. The lack of publicly available information from this group deliberations is damming for ISO, the IAF and the whole certification sector.
A sweeping opinion. I had hoped to see more from the Brand Integrity Group by now. To be clear, this is a TC 176 group, is not directed by ISO and does not have any control of IAF actions. Nor is IAF able to control the BIG's work.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
What can we do about the standards?
Standard development processes should be introduced to the XXI century. Protocols follow the same archaic protocol when fax machines were a novelty. We should be even using AI as an aid for standards development.

The blunders of TC 176 have been many and are exhaustively recorded in this forum.

As for the integrity of the audit process, unfortunately, as I have mentioned numerous times, the trivialization of certification has led to talent exodus from the sector. The only viable way to reengineer it would be to emulate what the European Notified Bodies have been forced to endure in order to get rid of charlatans and scam artists. But, I know, it is not going to happen. Certification of management systems can no longer be equated to supplier confidence.
 

jmech

Trusted Information Resource
I had hoped to see more from the Brand Integrity Group by now. To be clear, this is a TC 176 group, is not directed by ISO...
The Brand Integrity Group is part of ISO TC 176. What do you mean they are not directed by ISO? They are part of the ISO structure but they can do whatever they want and ISO has no responsibility for what they do (or fail to do)?
ISO 9001:2025 - What should be changed in the next Edition of ISO 9001? - REVISION PROCEEDING- August 2023
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
The Brand Integrity Group is part of ISO TC 176. What do you mean they are not directed by ISO? They are part of the ISO structure but they can do whatever they want and ISO has no responsibility for what they do (or fail to do)?
View attachment 30116
I don't have the necessary time to explain the whole of the standards development process (the link is a good starting point), the role of the ISO Technical Management Board and the relationship between the ISO Central Secretariat and individual Technical Committees. I stand by the post you have quoted. BIG recommendations are approved by the standards bodies that are members of TC 176.
 

AuditReadyAnyTime

Registered
Documented information (aka records) protection equates to data integrity. Now, if you are concerned with ethical management of data, there is no standard in the world that will be able to stop fraud if the organization culture either promotes or allows that to happen. People will do unethical, immoral things and break laws in some circumstances.

AS9100 has requirements for ethical behavior. I doubt a single NC has been written (internally or externally) against that requirement.
Records protection is one thing. The creation of the record is another. Specifically, the creation of a record where raw data is recorded. This is not so much an ethical thing as it is a lazy thing. Raw data should be recorded in real time. Additionally, If a result is being read from a meter, then it should be recorded exactly as it is seen on the meter (Not converted to another unit in one's head then transcribed; Not written down on a sticky and then transcribed later); You would think these 2 examples would go without saying when working in highly regulated environment within a QMS.
 
Top Bottom