Note 2 in 7.1 - Interpretation of 'may'

[Douglas E. Purdy]

NOTE 2 The organization may also apply the requirements given in 7.3 to the development of product realization processes.

I have been pondering the 7.3 requirements and the various responses from The Cove Members and one of the issues that I have been wanting clarified was where does 7.3 end and 7.5 begin. While re-reading the standard the other day, the Note (2) in 7.1 caught my eye. Does this 'may' give an organization the out to not have 7.3 in their scope if all they do is manufacture product to customer specifications?

Doug

 

[howste]

The short answer is yes. If you are not responsible for design & development of product, then you can exclude 7.3 from your scope.

It may be a little trickier than that though. I have done consulting work for several companies that initially claimed that they were not responsible at all for design, and planned to exclude 7.3. Each company built parts and/or assemblies to customer specifications & drawings. In a couple of cases though, I later found that they were building tooling which the customers paid for. The tooling, because it was sold to the customer, was considered product and the requirements of 7.3 applied to its design and development.

 

[Randy]

"May" means you don't gotta but might oughta.

 

[Wes Bucey]

"May" means you don't gotta but might oughta.

Very aptly put!
"May" meaning "permission" sure isn't a valid definition in the Standards, is it?

 

[Randy]

It's kinda like "should". With words like "may" and "consider" prove me wrong.