Now Playing: Auditing to the DIS (For Money...)

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:58:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Conflict Of Standards Use/Naish

From: PNaish

I am seeing messages saying registrars are auditing to the DIS. This seems to be against the specific information placed in the front of the DIS indicating not to use it at this time. If this is the case that they are auditing why are the registration boards not giving the registrars non conformances? It seems to me that the registration boards are non conforming as well as the registrars. This hypocrisy of do as I say not as I do seems to be an on going and ever increasing problem.

As was previously stated by someone, this whole things smacks more and more as a money maker not a true desire to help ensure companies have good quality systems. And if the quality world continues I agree with the statement that the quality world may be short lived.

I am already having clients question the whole process when auditors try to tell them how to run their business. They also question why they have to do something that complies but the registrars don't seem to have to comply. But that's another subject left for another day.

Phyllis

 

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:52:35 -0500
Subject: Re: ISO 9000:2000 Update for NSAI /../Taormina

From: Virtuiso

I am appalled at the blatant commercialization of the DIS. There are two dynamics at work here, neither of them very professional.

First, the registrars are bolting from the blocks to see who can capitalize on the new standard first. They are auditing to an unfinished standard. They are deliberately causing clients to make changes that may have to be changed again (ergo, more auditing days for the registrar).

Second, they are propagating the myth that all companies are minimally certified and that everyone will have to change what their doing to be in conformance with ISO 9K 2K. Most of my clients are using ISO 9000 as a foundation for a program of continuous process improvement and will have little to do besides publishing a compliance matrix when the new Standard is finally released.

I have been asked me to write a book on ISO 9000-2000. While I am working on the background material, I will not finish the content until after the Standard and its supporting documents are released. It will not be the first book to market, but it will be accurate and meaningful.

I am conducting pro-bono awareness sessions with my clients in which I advise them not to worry about the impact of ISO 9K 2K until after we have seen the released Standard. Those who are on the "borderline" between ISO 9001 and 9002 should be particularly cautious until the interpretation document for "permissible exclusions" has been published and your registrar has had a chance to develop their own guidelines.

Tom Taormina

 

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:40:32 -0500
Subject: Re: ISO 9000:2000 Update /../Taormina/Vianna

From: "Vianna, Sidney"

Tom, you are being unfair painting all Registrars with the same wide brush. You state that Registrars are propagating the message that certified companies will have to undergo a massive change. Where is the objective evidence for that? I have not seen it. I could make a statement that all consultants are putting the fear of God on certified companies about the changes, so the profit from it, but that would be unfair to the hundreds of knowledgeable and professional consultants that maintain their integrity. There are many good consultants out there, that disseminate the right message about the transition to ISO 9001:2000. So, please let's be more careful, before making broad statements.

Also I would like to call your attention to the following paragraph of the ISO Document: ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N 474, Transition Planning Guidance for ISO/DIS 9001:2000, available online at http://www.iso.ch - Link was: /9000e/revisionstoc.htm

". . .It is expected that a considerable number of current users will request upgrade audits as soon as possible, to enable them to utilize their audit reports to facilitate their own transition processes. Certification/Registration Bodies should therefore schedule formal assessments to start against the revised ISO 9001 standard at the DIS stage. However, following the IAF, ISO/TC 176, ISO/CASCO agreement, accredited certificates may not be granted until the ISO 9001:2000 standard is published and compliance ensured (see annex A, items 1 -3). . . ."

So ASSESSING Systems to a draft of an International Standard is totally acceptable and endorsed by the IAF and ISO. What is not acceptable is the issuance of an Accredited Certificate to the DIS, or FDIS.

The market dictates a need for a service. Not the Registrars. Many management representatives see the ISO 9001:2000 Standard as a solution to the partly successful attempt of making top management realize their role in Quality Management and Customer Satisfaction. Unfortunately ISO 9001:1994 needed more emphasis on:

- Continual improvement
- Increased emphasis on the role of top management.
- Consideration of legal and regulatory requirements.
- Establishment of measurable objectives at relevant functions and levels.
- Monitoring of information of customer satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction as a measure of system performance.
- Increased attention to resource availability.
- Determination of training effectiveness.
- Measurements extended to system, processes, and product.
- Analysis of collected data on the performance of the quality management system.

So, they can't wait to try the new model/approach.

It will take a new mind-set for many organizations (and many auditors and consultants, too). Others, that have always understood that quality has to be focused on customer satisfaction, rather than documentation (for documentation sake) will have no problems complying to ISO 9001:2000.

Thanks and Best Regards

Sidney Vianna

>From: Virtuiso
> <snip>
> I am appalled at the blatant commercialization of the DIS. There are two
> dynamics at work here, neither of them very professional.

> First, the registrars are bolting from the blocks to see who can capitalize
> on the new standard first. They are auditing to an unfinished standard. They
> are deliberately causing clients to make changes that may have to be
> changed again (ergo, more auditing days for the registrar).

> Second, they are propagating the myth that all companies are minimally
> certified and that everyone will have to change what their doing to be in
> conformance with ISO 9K 2K. Most of my clients are using ISO 9000 as a
> foundation for a program of continuous process improvement and will have
> little to do besides publishing a compliance matrix when the new Standard is
> finally released.