is it a standard if it is not read and understood in a standard manner?
Taking the view that wasn't a rhetorical question, of course it is. You cannot expect to be fully responsible for how all the many readers and users of a Standard read it.
I think that those are reasons for non-compliance. I do not think that they are reasons for a standard being written too ambiguously.
You may be missing the key point that this Standard, unlike the vast majority of Standards out there, is a
generic standard. ISO 14001 for environmental management systems is another.
There's a huge difference between a generic standard and the others. In my view that it is generic is excellent. Otherwise few of my clients (just as an example) would have any interest in it nor would get value from it.
As well as overlooking that, many people (if not the majority) in the forum are in the manufacturing/automotive fields, and are overly 'blinded' or their perception blinkered by that. But the Standard itself is no longer mainly intended for that, and specifically points that out. But then again, too many people don't actually read the Standard, don't bother to read the guidelines, don't bother to understand it... and then criticise it. And blaming the Standard for one's lack of understanding/experience/knowledge is just plain silly.
As Andy stated, most people never pay any attention to the Guidance documents provided and how words and phrases are defined, so they "interpret" (in other words they make stuff up because they don't know).
<snip>Understanding how things are defined helps to minimize misunderstanding and the need to make stuff up (interpret).
On top of everything else people try to make it hard, they go out of their way to make it difficult.
True Randy.
A good auditor, while they might have a different opinion or even a better vision, will focus on the effectiveness of the system and it's relation to the requirements and not ones own personal opinions.
Very true. Their own opinion or vision is (or should be) not part of the picture. An auditor of strong faith in their own opinion, beliefs or personal interpretations and preferences is never a good auditor. I pity the people who get such an auditor and/or who don't have the opportunity to understand how different things are when audited by a good one, and don't understand that they can do this. (Just had the opportunity to watch a good one at work for another client surveillance audit, and it was quite a pleasure to watch him audit, even when his previous experience was somewhat challenged by some innovative features the client had introduced into their - I emphasise
their - system).
a good management rep. can take hold of a system and move it forward even in the face of adversity.
As Andy states, most organizations take this lightly. Not always the case & some circumstances cannot be overcome however, if the MR is good they can have an impact. That is why I feel it's important to follow the guidance laid out in the standard.
Yes indeed. A focus on the importance of the 'management rep' is one of the things I put a lot of focus on when deciding whether to take a client. Why? Because it's a good 'finger in the wind' indicator of their approach to quality management and achieving certification. There are downsides to consulting, but the ability to decide not to take on a 'no win/big struggle' job is not one of them.
As Boris says:
This stuff is tough, it is difficult. Not the writing of a manual or even the drawing of an org chart with a wonderful new position of 'Management Representative' on it but, as for any other discipline and within any organization it is a fight for sufficient resources and attention for quality.
Because, guess what, everyone else in the organization thinks finance or training or IT is important and needs attention and the poor guy / gal at the top only has the same 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week to spend on the whole of the business.
Sidney again puts his finger on the key point too:
Confidence in the system performance should be the end goal here.
Yes. It should be.
