ISO 9001 certification (registration) requirements - No commercial product or service

[BradM]

Re: ISO 9001 certification (registration) requirements - No commercial product or ser

This is a good thread... Can we all play nice??

To me, what I am sensing is that we have different opinions on exactly what is being certified. Let's assume we have ten equally experienced/ competent auditors, five on each side. Side A feels they can view the documentation system and assess they have a competent/effective system (no product required). Side B feels there is no way to assess a competent system without having evidence of quality product/service (product required).

Is this accurate? I think it's a very worthy topic to discuss/debate. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what the opposing opinions are.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: ISO 9001 certification (registration) requirements - No commercial product or ser

Is this accurate? I think it's a very worthy topic to discuss/debate. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what the opposing opinions are.

Brad, the basic discussion here is if an organization that has not realized product yet can be CERTIFIED (not assessed). Under the accreditation rules of engagement for management system certification, I believe they can not.

Having documents in place will never equate to an effective and deployed QMS. Some people mistakenly believe that a QMS is a collection of documents.

I should add that is perfectly OK for an R&D organization to be certified. As long as they clearly identify what their "product" and customers are.

 

[JaneB]

Re: Back on track?

It's no secret that American business management suffers greatly from a lack of leadership skills. I think Sidney was calling a spade a spade....

Hmm. Jim, you are not responding to the actual issue - the actual statement of Sidney's that I took issue with.

Instead, you try to set up various strawman topics ("business management suffers greatly from a lack of leadership skills"... "bad management has pounded great companies into near-oblivion" etc). And then attack as though I had argued against these points of view (presumably very strongly held by you).

I didn't.

That "take the topic/s you want to sound off about and duck the one you don't" is a technique oft used in politics. But I'm surprised at you using it, as it's also a failure in 'Critical Thinking 101'.

Jim, do please read carefully what was said by Sidney, and what I said in response. It's not the strawmen you're trying on.

I doubt you can provide undeniable, irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that what Sidney actually said is 100% true. In all cases. Without exceptions. (In fact, it'd be an interesting piece of research to try & construct to reach those conclusions.)

But if you can or wish to attempt it, then pray do so. I'd be most interested in seeing it. I suggest in another thread, so that this one doesn't get so off-topic.

And, Jim, being polite, if you disagree, rather than resorting to personal denigration or derogatory comments, would be welcome as acceptable professional behaviour. I don't throw insults your way when I disagree with something you say, and I'd prefer you extended me the same courtesy.