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

[Sidney Vianna]

sounds like so much political manuevering to me.

I believe most users of the Standards have no idea of how political the standard development process is. For example, why was the ISO 9001 revision delayed to 2009? Especially if the "clarifications" are so minor in nature? The answer was blowing in the Irish wind....

 

[BradM]

I did want to say "thank you" to Dirk. I truly appreciate the time you spent in your responses, and sticking with a possible "unpopular" viewpoint.

I too, have been enlightened in being involved in volunteer organizations. However, I have also recognized in these situations when I was being rail-roaded, and had become a flower on the wall. I'm not suggesting that is the case here, as I am not involved.

I am not knowledgable/expert enough in these procedures to comment one way or another. However, I do speak as a layman.

Unless the changes are slam-dunk obvious, I would shy away from ISO 9001 changes. Yes, there are some grey areas, but I would rather let the process provide interpretation for the different areas/industry/etc., then struggle with understanding and applicability. This then necessitates another revision. Pretty soon, the document will have a life of it's own, and require a fleet of experts to interpret.

 

[vanputten]

I agree with most of the comments about the standard writing process. I agree with SteelMaiden that the methods used go against the 9001 standard.

SteelMaiden - I made the comments I did about members becaue there are thousands of Cove members, in lots of countries, but I see many responses to be centric around single nations/countries/languages.

These comments are exactly why I ask people to get involved. The eintrie process is not effective and certianly not efficient. We could have many people volunteer for the US TAG and may not affect the entire world wide process. Zimbabwe's vote is equal to the US vote is equal to the German vote is eqaul to the French vote is...... All votes from member bodies are equal.

Also, it is easy for someone to identify themsleves as TAG members and then be pelted with questions were the person asking wants certainty. The TAG member is then put in a position to possibly explain, justify, or defend ISO, the standard, or the methods of producing a standard. This is one reason why TAG members will not identify themsleves. It puts a big target on them.

This is also one of the inherent problems with the interpretation process. Users want certianty with application and interpretation questions. Questions involving application are not accepted by the interpretation process. Only questions related to the intent of the requirements are accepted. An interpretation can easlily cause more confusion and require and interpretation on the interpretation.

It is a slippery slope for me to want to participate in the TAG, help others, and take a chance at having to defend a national or internationtal position. Sidney is the only other TAG member on the Cove (that I know of.) Isn't that interesting? The largest and best online discussion about 9001 only has 2 TAG members actively participating and identifying themsleves as TAG members.

Questions related to the US TAG also assume that the US voted in favor of a specific change, program, or document. How do Cove members know how individual TAG members voted? How do Cove members know how their country voted?

The process at the international level is incredibly political. I do not attend the international meetings. I think it is easy to understand why one may not know what goes on at the international level. Do we know what goes on in our organizations at the Board level? Do we know what goes on at the CEO and VP level? I am not saying this justifies the lack of communciaiton but it may give us some insight as to why member at the national level may not know what is happening at the international level.

The following comments are sarcasm in response to only one of the previous postings: The reason section 7 is called Product Realization is becasue other words did not translate well into other languages. It is too bad that time is spent on the meaning of words and their translation when it is such a simple issue. Multi-cultural issues across the entire world, for all industries, businesses and organizations are usually simple.

Regards,

Dirk

 

[SteelMaiden]

well, more power to the TAG members. I know that it is hard to find volunteers. (more than you could ever know) Unfortunately, I am unwilling to take on this kind of commitment. My volunteer activities take up all the time I can afford to take away from my family as it is. So, I am not going to be disrespectful of the volunteers involved with ISO revs, but I am really disappointed that the ISO organization does not follow its own standards of operation.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Sidney is the only other TAG member on the Cove (that I know of.)

Dirk, thanks for your candid comments, but, just as a clarification, I am not a TAG member. I am sure that, based on my experience with similar groups, there are a number of people trying to do the right thing but the process, like you said, is inefficient and dysfunctional. The price to reach consensus and hear all interested parties is steep. Especially if you don't have the patience of a buddhist monk.

PS Another Cover that is also a member of the TAG (SC3, if I am not mistaken) is Paul Palmes.

 

[vanputten]

Hello Stell Maiden: Me too. Sometimes it takes the wind right out of my sails.

By the way, since I have posted at least 2 pages of ramblings, I might as well go for another page....

The Cove should know that I represent my employer at the TAG meetings. But I also represent the Cove. I think the Cove provides the best insight into issues that ISO 9001 users have. Where else can the writers of 9001 get such a broad perspective on the trials and tribulations that 9001 users have? I say no where.

One of the common respones to TAG work is that it is done for profit or that the output has no significance. So at alomst every US TAG meeting, I stand up and caution the TAG from producing a product that has no perceived improvement or value to our customers. The members of the Cove are our customers. I try to influence the US TAG's thought on publishing a 2009 version of ISO 9001 that only add the word "statuatory." The common response by general users is, "What good is that?"

I agree. I try to share the thoughts and issues discussed at the Cove. I try.

One could review the subjects of dicussion at the Cove with the changes to 9001. Do they match? I do not think they match.

Regards,

Dirk

 

[Randy]

Try to hit 'em with some common sense Dirk.

 

[vanputten]

Hello Sidney:

I thought you were a member of the TAG 207 or a different TAG group. My bad. Your depth of knowledge certainly would lead us to think you are a member at the international level.

Paul Palmes is on of the leaders of the US TAG to ISO/TC 176, SC2. For readers, that is the United States Technical Advisory Group to ISO / Technical Committee 176, Subcomittee 2. This TC is responsible for the United State's position on Quality Systems.

http://www.tc176.org/About176.asp

Thank you all for allowing me to ramble on for multiple pages about the upcoming ISO 9001:2009.

I will try to help where I can.

Regards,

Dirk

 

[Randy]

I looked at the 207 thing, but my work load and having to pay to volunteer turned me off.

 

[tyker]

The introduction to ISO 14001:2004 states:
"The second edition of this International Standard .......... has taken due consideration of the provisions of ISO 9001 to enhance the compatibility of the two standards ......."

The preamble for the proposed revision of ISO 9001 states that the changes are:
" for clarification and compatibility with ISO 14001."

How many attempts does it take to make the standards compatible?