New Standard Revision - So subjective and full of interpretation

[Marc]

Originally posted by Dawn:

We have had assessment and 3 surveillance audits now; all with different auditors.

We were wrote up last time because we didin't have a prioritized reduction plan concerning how we would keep scrap down and we were not to use our corrective action plan to do it.

You were written up for not having a prioritized reduction plan for ISO 9001?

 

[Jon Shaver]

Probably "prioritized scrap reduction" was a quality objective & no plan was in place to achieve that objective. Ya need one - what is scrap, how do you measure it, who decides action, follow-up?

 

[Marc]

A recurring theme...

 

[vanputten]

Are people talking about the standard, conformity assessment to the standard, or implemenation of the standard? Keep in mind these are 3 different things.

Language is never precise. The Koala bear eats, shoots, and leaves. The Koala bear eats shoots, and leaves. The Koala bear eats shoots and leaves.

The most sold peice of literature ever has millions of people worldwide trying to interpret it. The Bible.

So is it the standard you are complaining about? Conformity assessment to the standard? Or organizations' understanding and implementation of the standard?

By the way, the TC blah, blah, blah is always looking for help. It is a volunteer group. Please join and be part of the solution.

Thank you, Dirk

 

[Jim Wynne]

Language is never precise. The Koala bear eats, shoots, and leaves. The Koala bear eats shoots, and leaves. The Koala bear eats shoots and leaves.

Language poorly used is seldom precise. It is as precise as we choose to make it. Your examples prove that. If I were casting the sentence, it would read "Koala bears eat shoots and leaves."

The most sold peice of literature ever has millions of people worldwide trying to interpret it. The Bible.

Just because it's the all-time bestseller doesn't mean that it's the all-time most understandable, or that it should be. What does Biblical exegesis have to do with a poorly-written international standard?

So is it the standard you are complaining about? Conformity assessment to the standard? Or organizations' understanding and implementation of the standard?

I think it's clear that the complaint was about the standard.

By the way, the TC blah, blah, blah is always looking for help.

That's the way to clear things up- yada, yada, yada.

 

[Marc]

Are people talking about the standard, conformity assessment to the standard, or implemenation of the standard? Keep in mind these are 3 different things.

Language is never precise. The Koala bear eats, shoots, and leaves. The Koala bear eats shoots, and leaves. The Koala bear eats shoots and leaves.

The most sold peice of literature ever has millions of people worldwide trying to interpret it. The Bible.

So is it the standard you are complaining about? Conformity assessment to the standard? Or organizations' understanding and implementation of the standard?

By the way, the TC blah, blah, blah is always looking for help. It is a volunteer group. Please join and be part of the solution.

I agree with you. I'd like to see more people volunteer and get involved.

Within the context of this thread (which I resurrected because it is a recurring theme), I see the current issues to parallel the old issues with the addition of the subjectiveness of the 2000 standard brought (the change from "Show me proof you doing this" to "Tell me about how you're doing this"). But I don't see the standard as the major issue. I see it as I always have - The problems are in the iterpretations.

You mentioned the Bible and I do believe it is a good way to illustrate the issue of interpretations of written 'words'. In college I took a number of religious courses including 'comparative religions' in which we traced the path of religious scriptures from a number of religions going back to the 'original' texts (scrolls, etc.). Tie that in with the evolution of languages over time and you have an interesting stew out of which have come the interpreted texts we have today (in the case of christians it's the King James bible). And even that book is so widely interpreted that there are hundreds of 'sects' each of which interprets the same words differently. That said, ISO 9001 is a relatively recent document so one would hope that verbiage and interpretation would be less of an issue.

While I did not, and do not, think the change in the standard was wise, especially with respect to the interpretative issues, we have what we have in so far as the content of the standard goes. I think juliedrys, in her post a few years back, said the issue is interpretations.

I have long held the belief that interpretations play a big part. This is a real 'oldie', but go to This Old Page and scroll down to where it says "What Part Do I Play?

EDIT: Well, now I'm not a happy camper - I had about three more paragraphs typed in and somehow I screwed up and deleted the entire second half... Wow - THAT threw me! Bummer...

OK - I brought up that old page because for a long time during implementations I perceived myself as as much of a 'lawyer' interpreting the standard as anything else. Auditor interpretation has long been an issue. I remember in about 1995 a company I worked with did their procedures in flow charts and the auditor had to be convinced that they were 'procedures'. Flow charts were not in the auditor's paradigm of what a procedure was. Now days, flow charts are part of the norm.

Well, I had several more paragraphs - this thread got me to thinking - but after loosing a bunch of what I wrote, and since it's getting late having some other things to do, I'll end here. To summarize, I think it's less of an issue of the words in the document than it is the auditor's 'qualifications' / interpretations.

Yet, I've never really complained with the consideration that trying to write a 'standard' that can be applied to any company (not to mention any TYPE of company) is nearly impossible. This is the reason for TS 16949 and AS9100. There has to be text more specific to their industry to lessen the interpretative aspect of compliance.

 

[vanputten]

I do not believe that language is as precise. How do you know the sentence should be "The Koala bear eats shoots and leaves?" I was trying to communicate that the Koala bear ate the bamboo shoots and then left the area. The Koala bear eats shoots, and leaves.

The precision of language requires context, psychology, and emotion. Language can be visual, written, aural, etc. Language is filtered by the viewer, listener, reader, receiver.

Here is an example of the precision of language. This thread refers to interpretations. Are we talking about the ISO sanctioned and published interpretations? You know, there is a process of submitting questions for review and interpretation. This process requires all ISO member bodies to receive requests for interpretation and for the member body to try to resolve the issue within that country. If the member body cannot resolve the request for interpretation, then the request goes to all member bodies for review and response. The responses (votes) are tabulated and an official interpretation is published.

Or are we talking about how, in general, users interpret the standard? Or are we talking about how those in the conformity assessment world interpret the standard?

Please don't forget that the ISO 9000 series is published in multiple languages. The text must translate into the official languages for ISO standards. This is not just an English interpretation issue.

"With relative ease, I could sit down with the current standard and word it so as to not change the meaning, but remove the subjectivity from it." It would be great if you would do this for all of us. Many, many poeple from around the world have been trying to do this since before 1987. When you are finished, please ensure it translates into French and Spanish. I will take it with me to the next US Technical Advisory Group meeting and present it.

Thank you, Dirk

 

[Bob Schiller]

I generally work on implementation programs in the ISO 9000 group of regulations, including QS,TS, QSR etc. The auditor problems expressed can be avoided, in my mind by assuring that the ISO coordinator in the company is well trained in the standard and ready to defend his/ her procedures. When an auditor is required to defend their statements, and knowing that the company representative is well versed in the requirement will in most times stop this type of overboard comments from the auditors
Bob Schiller

 

[Paul Simpson]

The auditor problems expressed can be avoided, in my mind by assuring that the ISO coordinator in the company is well trained in the standard and ready to defend his/ her procedures.

While I understand the principle I prefer to use the term "explain" instead of "defend." To my mind half the problem with the ISO certification process is that it is confrontational. Auditors are seen as "attacking" a system which is "defended" by forces of good - namely the company.

When an auditor is required to defend their statements, and knowing that the company representative is well versed in the requirement will in most times stop this type of overboard comments from the auditors

Same thing. I was taught in the early days of my assessment career that you have to explain any non compliances raised so that the company understands

• Where (physically) the observation was made
• What part of the company documentation the finding relates to
• What element of the standard the requirement relates to

If you take this to the logical conclusion - if an auditor cannot explain a non compliance in each of the areas above then a non compliance does not exist.

Radical?