Official ISO Interpretations - A Formal Process for ISO9001 Interpretation Requests

[Sidney Vianna]

Contrary to many expert opinions, ISO has decided to move forward and establish a formal process for interpretation requests on ISO 9001.

Check the attached document, available at the TC 176 website.

At present, several interpretations have already been released. One of them deals with a question that pops up here at the Cove, from time to time: Can a management rep be someone that is NOT a full time employee of the organization?

Check http://www.tc176.org/Interpre.asp

 

[Douglas E. Purdy]

Wow - What Karma!

Sidney Vianna,

I am impressed with this information you have provided! This is why I always monitor the Cove Forum and somtimes participate. [I do not know how Karma is derived, obviously - look at mine! But you have made my day with this information!!]

Now do we know if RAB or ASQ has established a process to submit requests for interpretations? Wonder if this will end up like the QS Interpretations?

Again - THANKS!

Doug

 

[Mike S.]

This is great, Sidney. I tried to give you more Karma, but this will have to do!

A quick look shows it answers a question I had on 8.3 and -- even better -- it agrees with me!

 

[db]

A quick look shows it answers a question I had on 8.3 and -- even better -- it agrees with me!

I'm not sure that is good news. You are beginning to think like ISO.

 

[Mike S.]

Eeeeek! That's it -- rain on my parade.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Please note that the TC 176 continues to populate the database with more "official" interpretation documents.

As mentioned before, some of them are controversial. In my personal opinion, RFI's 16 and 17 are very debatable.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Please note that the TC 176 continues to populate the database with more "official" interpretation documents.

As mentioned before, some of them are controversial. In my personal opinion, RFI's 16 and 17 are very debatable.

I agree with you on the debatability of the two interpretations related to informing customers or regulatory bodies when a nonconformance is discovered AFTER a product has been shipped and put into use by the customer. To accept the interpretations given, you have to be able to imagine a situation where it is NOT appropriate to notify customer or regulatory body or both. The only [far-fetched] scenario I can imagine is some inconsequential cosmetic defect which does not affect form, fit, or function, nor in any way can be interpreted as life, health, safety related. From a business standpoint, I can only imagine doing it to some customer I didn't want repeat business from, anyway.

Thanks, Sidney for keeping us abreast of the news - just like the regular news - we don't have to like it, but we should know it.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Thanks, Sidney for keeping us abreast of the news - just like the regular news - we don't have to like it, but we should know it.

Well, thank you Wes, for keeping all of these discussions honest.

I want to point out that a few new interpretations have been added to the "bank" @ http://www.tc176.org/Interpre.asp

Two that, in my opinion, are also debatable are interpretations RFI 034 and 043.

RFI 034 talks about having to monitor end user satisfaction, in addition to (direct) customer satisfaction, in a given scenario. While I agree that, from a business perspective, it makes a lot of sense to monitor end users, this is a case where an interpretation is specific to a scenario, which seems to contravene the spirit of the interpretation process.

RFI 043 explains that in some cases, in addition to complying with 7.3 for the product itself, 7.3 would be required for the design of the packaging for the product. Sure, if I am transporting a satellite worth US$200M to it's launching site, I want to make sure that the packaging for the spacecraft is adequately designed.

My problem is that, the way I see it, the process is contravening it's own rules. In the document available at http://www.tc176.org/pdf/interp_flowchart.pdf, describing the process, it reads: − [font=Arial,Arial]be [/font][font=Arial,Arial]generic[/font][font=Arial,Arial], i.e. regardless of product, type and size of organization, country or situation; [/font]

[font=Arial,Arial]it seems to me that, by creating interpretations that are "scenario specific", this Interpretation group is becoming a "judicial branch" in the process. Something that I don't believe ISO wants to get involved with.[/font]
[font=Arial,Arial][/font]
[font=Arial,Arial]Since the number of interpretations is relatively small and few have been released in 2005, it might signify lack of support/interest.
[/font]

 

[vanputten]

All voting member boides (I think about 50 of them) of Technical Comittee 176 to ISO vote on proposed interpretations for ISO 9001:2000. The end result that you see published is a result of this vote. The RFI's are the result of a consensus process.

I believe some member bodies are totally against an interpretations process becasue interpretations then require interpretation as you have pointed out. I think there are member bodies that would agree with Sidney's analysis of problems with the interpretations.

Regards, Dirk

 

[Marc]

In part to 'bump' this discussion thread... Also see: Interpretation of ISO 9001 clauses issued by TC 176