OK. I can live with it - not a very elegant definition of "system": "set of interrelated or interacting elements." but then it was developed by a committee.
i'd still say a six sigma process meets that definition - wouldn't you?
If you wanted to restate the question you should have done it inline, so I don't have to climb back up the thread and so that my already-posted response doesn't fall out of sync with the question. This is not fun, nor does it show any signs of becoming fun.
I didn't ask you what I think is a controlled process. I asked you what objective evidence YOU would accept - what objective evidence would indicate to you the client organization is applying the process approach.
My experience is totally different. Most organizations realize that, in this very competitive marketplace, one can not afford to have relationships that don't add value. Experienced auditors have a wealth of knowledge, which, when properly shared, can be bring significant benefits to multiple stakeholders.
And, if adding value to audits was a not a global concern, can you explain, then, why the TC 176 published the How to Add Value during the audit process paper?
I'll chime in. Fun this is NOT. There have been numerous very direct questions asked of ISO guy, with very unclear or unconnected answers/responses, given.
I think we could have avoided a lot of hassle by avoiding repeating jargon from the beginning and talked more about the actual subject.
I have an idea. Why don't you post a paper on the subject in the Reading Room? Then maybe you could answer our questions at your own pace, and provide some practical, useful, real world guidance that we could actually apply in the workplace. This thread is devolving into a coy game of egos.
I think we could have avoided a lot of hassle by avoiding repeating jargon from the beginning and talked more about the actual subject.
I have an idea. Why don't you post a paper on the subject in the Reading Room? Then maybe you could answer our questions at your own pace, and provide some practical, useful, real world guidance that we could actually apply in the workplace. This thread is devolving into a coy game of egos.
Patience, patience, please. (BTW, at least some of the jargon is the "language of the standard." ISO 9001 has a few technical terms people don't realize are technical. So in being precise, sometimes, it seems jargony and verbose. Some of the verbosity might be mine own, but it's hard for one to judge without knowing the language of the standard.)
I don't know what to say about the reading room suggestion just yet. This poll is open until the end of the month. (I've personally declared it Elsmar Cove month, if you can't tell.) Until then, I like the discussions going on, especially the most recent developments where I hope others will participate in a little . . . learning storm.
I didn't ask you what I think is a controlled process. I asked you what objective evidence YOU would accept - what objective evidence would indicate to you the client organization is applying the process approach.
I know that, Jennifer. Can we learn a little on the way? We will arrive at your answer, I promise. Let's not just put it on ME to educate YOU. (I'm trying to incorporate some accelerated learning techniques here.) Play along, will you?
If you wanted to restate the question you should have done it inline, so I don't have to climb back up the thread and so that my already-posted response doesn't fall out of sync with the question. This is not fun, nor does it show any signs of becoming fun.
Patience, patience, please. (BTW, at least some of the jargon is the "language of the standard." ISO 9001 has a few technical terms people don't realize are technical. So in being precise, sometimes, it seems jargony and verbose. Some of the verbosity might be mine own, but it's hard for one to judge without knowing the language of the standard.)
I don't know what to say about the reading room suggestion just yet. This poll is open until the end of the month. (I've personally declared it Elsmar Cove month, if you can't tell.) Until then, I like the discussions going on, especially the most recent developments where I hope others will participate in a little . . . learning storm.
I have just about had enough of this thread - I am running out of patience. If I want jargon, I can peel back the covers of the ISO Standards. But I am asking YOU for plain-speak: for clarity and practical examples that would reinforce your points of what would satisfactorily indicate your client company is applying the process approach.
Patience, patience, please. (BTW, at least some of the jargon is the "language of the standard." ISO 9001 has a few technical terms people don't realize are technical. So in being precise, sometimes, it seems jargony and verbose. Some of the verbosity might be mine own, but it's hard for one to judge without knowing the language of the standard.)
I don't know what to say about the reading room suggestion just yet. This poll is open until the end of the month. (I've personally declared it Elsmar Cove month, if you can't tell.) Until then, I like the discussions going on, especially the most recent developments where I hope others will participate in a little . . . learning storm.
OK here's my . The problem is not with people struggling with the language of the standard it is with quality (or environmental, health & safety, whatever) being able to take a standard requirement and put it in words that make sense to the users.
So even something as basic as process approach (to standard users) needs to be broken down into key components (all outlined in clause 4.1 BTW) and translated into real world speak.
Oh, and don't start with the auditors. It's like improving product quality by putting in more inspectors.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.
. The problem is not with people struggling with the language of the standard it is with quality (or environmental, health & safety, whatever) being able to take a standard requirement and put it in words that make sense to the users.
