From: ISO 9000 Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:01:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Permissible Exclusions ISO9000:2000 /Reid/Monnich/Trudeau
From: "Trudeau, Pat"
According to ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N 485 (if this version dated 26 April 2000 is still current) Section 3.3 Permissable Exclusions paragraph 3 states "The fact that a specific activity (such as Design and Development, or Purchasing) is outsourced, or carried out by a different entity, is not in itself adequate justification for the exclusion of that activity from the QMS. Overall responsibility for and/or coordination of that activity, may remain with the organization."
PAT
**************************************
From: ISO 9000 Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:06:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Permissible Exclusions ISO9000:2000 /../Scalies/Deibler
From: Bill Deibler
If development groups are required to be a part of registration, a significant number of companies will refuse to comply.
For example, many high-tech company ISO registrations are for ISO 9002:1994. These companies have been resistant to pursuing ISO 9001, and have opted for other models for quality to support their engineering practices (for example, software engineering and the CMM).
There is a MUCH greater commitment when a company applies design control in an engineering department. This is quite demanding Charley. I have been doing ISO implementations in a variety of industries since 1989, and I have found 9001 in software and systems providers to be the most challenging. 900X has always made sense to manufacturing folks, but has required a lot of interpretation in other disciplines (software and 9000-3 for example).
I think this can of worms is a huge one. I can't imagine a registrar turning away business because some multinational, multibillion dollar firm carves design out of the scope of registration. I can't imagine that accreditation bodies or forums would be so foolish as to push this policy.
This is a debate that has only begun. There will be tremendous resistance in many companies that are 9002 registered and had no intention of pursuing 9001 (even though they have R&D and/or Engineering functions).
There are many, many, many companies in the Silicon Valley and US that have gone the 9002 route and DELIBERATELY avoided 9001. Do you think that the registrars/accreditation bodies will choose to hold a gun to the head of these guys? This is certainly the current position from the RAB....but I honestly don't think they realize what fight they are about to get into.
It truly will be interesting.......and I think the user community will have a few things to say to those issuing guidance on this subject. I can hear the ringing in my ears...
my 2 cents.
Bill
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:01:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Permissible Exclusions ISO9000:2000 /Reid/Monnich/Trudeau
From: "Trudeau, Pat"
According to ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N 485 (if this version dated 26 April 2000 is still current) Section 3.3 Permissable Exclusions paragraph 3 states "The fact that a specific activity (such as Design and Development, or Purchasing) is outsourced, or carried out by a different entity, is not in itself adequate justification for the exclusion of that activity from the QMS. Overall responsibility for and/or coordination of that activity, may remain with the organization."
PAT
**************************************
From: ISO 9000 Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:06:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Permissible Exclusions ISO9000:2000 /../Scalies/Deibler
From: Bill Deibler
If development groups are required to be a part of registration, a significant number of companies will refuse to comply.
For example, many high-tech company ISO registrations are for ISO 9002:1994. These companies have been resistant to pursuing ISO 9001, and have opted for other models for quality to support their engineering practices (for example, software engineering and the CMM).
There is a MUCH greater commitment when a company applies design control in an engineering department. This is quite demanding Charley. I have been doing ISO implementations in a variety of industries since 1989, and I have found 9001 in software and systems providers to be the most challenging. 900X has always made sense to manufacturing folks, but has required a lot of interpretation in other disciplines (software and 9000-3 for example).
I think this can of worms is a huge one. I can't imagine a registrar turning away business because some multinational, multibillion dollar firm carves design out of the scope of registration. I can't imagine that accreditation bodies or forums would be so foolish as to push this policy.
This is a debate that has only begun. There will be tremendous resistance in many companies that are 9002 registered and had no intention of pursuing 9001 (even though they have R&D and/or Engineering functions).
There are many, many, many companies in the Silicon Valley and US that have gone the 9002 route and DELIBERATELY avoided 9001. Do you think that the registrars/accreditation bodies will choose to hold a gun to the head of these guys? This is certainly the current position from the RAB....but I honestly don't think they realize what fight they are about to get into.
It truly will be interesting.......and I think the user community will have a few things to say to those issuing guidance on this subject. I can hear the ringing in my ears...
my 2 cents.
Bill