ISO/CD 9001 2007-02-8 - What are your thoughts?

[SteelMaiden]

John, back in my home state, out in the boonies, I knew of several small family run businesses that were ISO 9001/2 (at that time) registered. Many of them had a part time contracted employee that implemented and managed the overall QMS, some of them even shared one employee or contractor to be the MR. In small shops, where there are not enough resources, or maybe even enough expertise, it worked out really well for this group of companies. Several of these companies had government contracts (usually state) and/or requirements within contracts to maintain a formal quality system/ISO 9001 registration because they were a regional supplier/servicer to a national company.

 

[John Nabors - 2009]

There's that pesky naiivete I was talking about. I've never been around a small org that was 9001 certified. My current employer is what I consider medium sized (about 65M US$/yr) and my previous one was a 5B US$/yr automotive Tier II. We found a way to cough up the person-power.

 

[SteelMaiden]

These places were maybe 8-25 persons. but there are some larger companies that do the same.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

1) I am wondering what the addition of 'statutory' in the phrases 'statutory and regulatory requirements' means. What does it change?

Another good question. Once again, a back to the future change. One can hope that the TC 176 adds a note explaining the difference between statutory and regulatory.

From http://akss.dau.mil/askaprof-akss/qdetail2.aspx?cgiQuestionID=10725&cgiSubjectAreaID=4

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) reports that "statutory" refers to something that is based on the passage of a statute (law) by the legislative branch, while "regulatory" is a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law. In brief: Statutory -- from Titled Law; Regulatory -- to implement statute or establish policy where law does not exist. Statutory takes precedence over regulatory. A useful reference is below: http://merriamwebster.com/

 

[tyker]

I'm glad this was a free download, I would hate to think I'd just wasted my money on this trivia. Presumably, though, when the revised version comes out, it will sell by the bucketfull.

Am I alone in seeing this proposal as just a cynical, money making device for the standards bodies? If this is the best they can do, the committee members have totally failed to justify their expense claims.

OK, it's late and I've had a bad day.

I'll sign off now and go and lay down in a darkened bar.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Tyker, I am with you. That is why I asked the question. It seemed to me that the only real change was in reviewing CA/PA and possibly the MR requirements. All the rest is semantics. Who cares if it is a regulation or a statute except for the lawyers? if someone says do it, we must do it. You are right, there will be millions of copies sold, because we will have to have the current version, and then we will have to have an upgrade audit performed and so on and so on. Let the good times roll!

 

[vanputten]

Think world wide. The question should be, "what is the meaning of 'statuatory' in all the languages of the users of ISO 9001.

It is not just an English language issue.

Please - for everyone that does not like the output of the world wide technical advisory group to ISO process, please please become a member and improve the process.

The changes are intended to clarify the intent of the requirements. If a "sematics" change affects an organization's understanding of the intent of a requirement, then any one of the proposed changes to ISO 9001 could be perceived to be more than just semantics.

I am very glad to see that people that are not directly involved already now the reason for the changes. It is important to reach conclusion based on assumptions.

Regards,

Dirk

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Think world wide. The question should be, "what is the meaning of 'statuatory' in all the languages of the users of ISO 9001.

It is not just an English language issue.

Please - for everyone that does not like the output of the world wide technical advisory group to ISO process, please please become a member and improve the process.

The changes are intended to clarify the intent of the requirements. If a "sematics" change affects an organization's understanding of the intent of a requirement, then any one of the proposed changes to ISO 9001 could be perceived to be more than just semantics.

I am very glad to see that people that are not directly involved already now the reason for the changes. It is important to reach conclusion based on assumptions.

Regards,

Dirk

Dirk, instead of being defensive, why don't you as an insider to the US TAG, answer the questions posed here? It would be much more productive. Explain, to us, please, the ISO take on statutory vs. regulatory, the outsourced MR function, why some of the 1994 edition comments are back, such as effectiveness of CA/PA.

 

[Randy]

Why not just use "legal" instead of statuatory? Legal is legal regardless of location isn't it?

"Do what is reguired to be done by applicable legal requirements"

Now of course if the location is in a place where there are no legal requirements (laws) then meeting some goofy standard may be among the least of their problems.

 

[John Nabors - 2009]

Randy-

Yup - I seriously doubt if anyone is implementing ISO 14001 in Mogadishu.

-John