ISO wants Feedback: ISO Survey on USE of ISO 9000:2000 Series of Standards

[Sidney Vianna]

ISO wants feedback

ASQ Standards Group
Press Release

For Immediate Release
January 19, 2004

Attention US Users of ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000
US Feedback Sought for ISO Survey on
USE of ISO 9000:2000 Series of Standards

Now is the time for US organizations to register their comments and/or concerns on the use of the year 2000 editions of the ISO 9000 series of standards — it is critical that ISO gets feedback on actual user experience on the application of the ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000 standards.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee (TC) 176, Sub-committee (SC) 2, Quality Systems, has asked for international participation in a survey of user experience with ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9004:2000. A website questionnaire has been designed to determine users' concerns and recommendations with regard to these standards, their suitability and their application.

This is an excellent means of providing your feedback to the international ISO group that developed the ISO 9000 series of standards as it determines the level of success in meeting user needs..

Since US organizations will be providing feedback along with a full range of other ISO member countries, it is essential that all US concerns encountered with the use of these standards be recorded so that US interests are protected. To be represented, comments must be submitted through the ISO survey located on the Internet at:
http://isotc.iso.ch/webquest/tc176/index.html

It should only take approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey and anyone who has some knowledge or experience with the standards may participate. Where you indicate concerns, participants will be prompted to suggest improved wording of the clauses, if you wish to do so.

Since there is no limit to the number of people who may respond from any one organization, it is imperative that actual US users of the standards take the time to participate in order that all US concerns are adequately represented in the evaluation.

Your participation is vital!

When completed, the results of the survey will be widely disseminated; e.g., through the ISO/TC 176/SC 2 web site at *** DEAD LINK REMOVED ***

 

[Pennington]

TC 176 ISO 9000 Survey

Take great care with this survey because the questions are ambiguous and poorly crafted. Just look at these for starters:

Question: Were you able to integrate ISO 9001:2000 with other management systems. The simply answer is no because ISO 9001:2000 is not a management system it is a standard and in any case the standard could not prevent us integrating anything, but what did the questioner intend? Did he want to know if we had integrated quality systems and environmental systems?

Question: Does ISO 9001:2000 have a major impact in preventing nonconformity. Again the simple answer is no because ISO 9001:2000 is a standard, but what did the questioner intend? Did he want to know if the process we put in place that met ISO 9001:2000 had a major impact on preventing nonconformity, if so why no say so?

Question: Do you have experience with ISO 9004:2000? The simply answer is yes because we have read it, but if we answer no does that mean we have not read it or does it mean we have not applied it. So what did the questioner intend- Did he want to know if we have applied any of its recommendations, if so why not say so?

Many will gloss over the inaccuracy in the questions and provide answers without understanding what information the questions are intended to produce. I therefore have little faith in the accuracy of the results. How say you?

 

[Wes Bucey]

Take great care with this survey because the questions are ambiguous and poorly crafted. Just look at these for starters:
. . .
Many will gloss over the inaccuracy in the questions and provide answers without understanding what information the questions are intended to produce. I therefore have little faith in the accuracy of the results. How say you?

Excellent observation, Pennington! Welcome aboard!
It often strikes me that important matters such as the phrasing of questions (to prevent them from being ambiguous, or worse, "leading" or self-serving) are seldom considered when constructing customer service questionnaires.

Without referring to the actual document, I can surmise, based on your comment, that it does NOT contain a place for comments on the construction of the questionnaire, itself.

What would you suggest as an alternate to completing a flawed questionnaire if you had an ardent view on the topic?

 

[Pennington]

ISO TC 176 Survey

Thanks Wes - its always nice to get positive feedback.
The link that Sydney provided no longer works so to get at the survey try http://isotc.iso.ch/webquest/tc176/NewReply.xsql?TEMPLATE_ID=1

It does contain free text entry boxes for you to submit your views but I would imagine that the nerds doing the data analysis won't look at anything that appears not to answer the question asked - anyway there is no harm in trying to influence the survey designers.

Since posting the thread I have been advised by those in the know that there will be further surveys as we mover closer to revising the standards.

 

[Greg B]

Hi All,

I just gave my two cents worth to the standards board and wish I had taken more time to evaluate each of the clauses before seeing the Survey. I agree that, like the standard, some of the questions are ambiguous but in general a lot of information should be collected if people take the time to review the clauses and thier specifc gripes or likes. I might sit down and do the survey at home with the view of doing a thorough review because in the long run it could benefit me.

It is like voting - if you dont vote then you don't get to bit*h about who gets elected. The same here if you don't have say don't winge about the next standard upgrade. (JMHO)
Greg B

 

[Marc]

This is a bit off topic, but as a reminder - If anyone finds a post with a Dead Link in any post in any thread, please let me know so I can delete it or change it - You can use the Report This Post button in the uppper right corner of the post box.

​

Thanks!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Data, oh mighty data

An interim report of the results is attached. I am happy that the US participation has been high. Some stats that I find interesting:

Over 60% of respondents work for organizations that use ISO 9001 as one of the selection criteria for their suppliers. And, of those, 52% are generally satisfied with the performance of suppliers that have demonstrated (somehow) conformity to ISO 9001. PS Before anyone jumps to conclusions, it does not mean that 48% are dissatisfied with the supplier's performance.

For your perusal.

 

[Marc]

Did anyone here provide feedback?

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Did anyone here provide feedback?

But of course... Most of us have an idea or two about what ISO9001 should look like. Nothing will be achieved by not forwarding such ideas.

/Claes

 

[Pennington]

Did anyone here provide feedback?

I gave some feedback and I suppose the analysts have done their best with the 882 respondants - pretty small sample considering over 500,000 ISO 9001 certifices issued. Note that the biggest response came from the USA and in the UK which has the highest number of certifices from English speaking nations, there were only 51 respondents - tends to indicate apathy or perhaps ISO 9000 has had its day so why bother?

But note the intro in the report
"We are issuing this interim report at this time, to support the submission of the ISO Guide 72 "Justification Study" for the amendment to ISO 9001 and the revision to ISO 9004 (document SC2/N682) to ISO/TC 176."

80% of the 882 said they were satisfied with the ISO 9000 2000 family but this statistic is meaningless as we don't know what they expected from the standard. However, as 80% were satisfied there would appear no justification for change but TC 176 do not tell us what the criteria for change is. It is interesting but probably not statistically significant that
"Almost every sub-clause (of clause 4.1) indicated aspects of concern to users. These were mostly associated with lack of understanding of outsourcing and the process approach."

As the family was supposed to promote the process approach, this is a very telling comment that makes me suspect that on this point alone there is sufficient justification for amendment.