From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:21:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Year 2000 Change Easy Or Hard? /../Scalies/Naish
From: PNaish
To The List:
Charlie just made a good point about being the consultants welfare act. It is not how the individuals will interpret it as much as how the registrars and even the auditors will interpret it. I have been with 3 different auditors in the past few months. Each of whom has felt that the standard meant this or menat that in one section or another. Funny that it reminds me so much of the 1994 standard during its DIS.
There is no exact interpretation today and 2000 changes do not give the definitive answer that will save us all. I for one have spent many hours reviewing it and trying to see what it says. Having been involved with ISO implementations since 1989, I would think if it were that clear and straight forward I would be able to pick it up and know exactly what was meant. That is not the case. And from talking to auditors who have done the same they don't know either. But since no one has really been trained it is hard to say.
As to my original message I liken it to the interpretations of QS. There is much more definition as to intent in that standard than in either the old ISO or the new. And yet we are constantly faced with understanding problems. In fact from recent information, I understand a large number of the auditors who had passed the QS training and testing 3 years ago and have been working with it ever since are falling short in the new testing. Is that because the standard although more defined than ISO is still open to interpretation when it comes to applying the information.
I applaud some of the good changes that have been included in the standard. I think the idea of the focus is great. But I think that everyone is kidding themselves that a company who wants just a piece of paper on the wall won't still have it with no real improvement in their system.
QS has been around for several years and has many companies who are registered.
Some of them have peices of paper on the wall. And some of the worst offenders for not doing their part are the companies who instigated the diversion from ISO. They don't identify critical parameters and don't care if they don't have specified acceptance criteria. But their suppliers are expected to meet the criteria without the customer's meeting their side. So they do what they can. I have been in several client sites who have to plead and beg to get criteria from their QS customers but the customer are the first to point out any small deviation in their system.
By the way, I have seen several registrars who don't meet the ISO standard much less a QS standard but continue to be registrars. And I know of only one consultant who is regsitered and only a handful more who have any documented quality system. But we continue to drive the companies be they manufacturing or service down the path without thought to the effect on thier business.
ON with Y2K version so we consultants can get more work and keep ourselves busy for another 5 years until the next version comes out. (Which is another funny point since the standard are to be reviewed and updated every 5 years as I understood the standard. That must be another misinterpretation on my part since they have yet to get one done in the 5 years as per their procedures. Good thing they don't get ISO audited for following their procedures or they may get a major like some companies do when they are audited).
Phyllis
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:21:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Year 2000 Change Easy Or Hard? /../Scalies/Naish
From: PNaish
To The List:
Charlie just made a good point about being the consultants welfare act. It is not how the individuals will interpret it as much as how the registrars and even the auditors will interpret it. I have been with 3 different auditors in the past few months. Each of whom has felt that the standard meant this or menat that in one section or another. Funny that it reminds me so much of the 1994 standard during its DIS.
There is no exact interpretation today and 2000 changes do not give the definitive answer that will save us all. I for one have spent many hours reviewing it and trying to see what it says. Having been involved with ISO implementations since 1989, I would think if it were that clear and straight forward I would be able to pick it up and know exactly what was meant. That is not the case. And from talking to auditors who have done the same they don't know either. But since no one has really been trained it is hard to say.
As to my original message I liken it to the interpretations of QS. There is much more definition as to intent in that standard than in either the old ISO or the new. And yet we are constantly faced with understanding problems. In fact from recent information, I understand a large number of the auditors who had passed the QS training and testing 3 years ago and have been working with it ever since are falling short in the new testing. Is that because the standard although more defined than ISO is still open to interpretation when it comes to applying the information.
I applaud some of the good changes that have been included in the standard. I think the idea of the focus is great. But I think that everyone is kidding themselves that a company who wants just a piece of paper on the wall won't still have it with no real improvement in their system.
QS has been around for several years and has many companies who are registered.
Some of them have peices of paper on the wall. And some of the worst offenders for not doing their part are the companies who instigated the diversion from ISO. They don't identify critical parameters and don't care if they don't have specified acceptance criteria. But their suppliers are expected to meet the criteria without the customer's meeting their side. So they do what they can. I have been in several client sites who have to plead and beg to get criteria from their QS customers but the customer are the first to point out any small deviation in their system.
By the way, I have seen several registrars who don't meet the ISO standard much less a QS standard but continue to be registrars. And I know of only one consultant who is regsitered and only a handful more who have any documented quality system. But we continue to drive the companies be they manufacturing or service down the path without thought to the effect on thier business.
ON with Y2K version so we consultants can get more work and keep ourselves busy for another 5 years until the next version comes out. (Which is another funny point since the standard are to be reviewed and updated every 5 years as I understood the standard. That must be another misinterpretation on my part since they have yet to get one done in the 5 years as per their procedures. Good thing they don't get ISO audited for following their procedures or they may get a major like some companies do when they are audited).
Phyllis
