Procedure binding even if not required by the standard - Where's the requirement?

[Coury Ferguson]

To impliment means to do...nuff said.

If you disagree get the paperwork (can be obtained from ANSI) and are such a hot shot, join TC176 and start changing what you don't like, or better yet start your own standards producing body and write your own.

However, if you truly believe that procedures that are part of your system documentation are just for eyewash purposes only and you don't have to do them then please don't cry, sling snot and try to appeal to an accreditation body the big fat and nasty NC's that you could potentialy earn from your head up the fanny attitude if you have a system voluntarily subjected to 3rd party audits and registration by accredited organizations.


This is as always my personal opinion

Main Entry: 1im·ple·ment
Pronunciation: 'im-pl&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin implementum action of filling up, from Latin implEre to fill up, from in- + plEre to fill -- more at FULL
1 : an article serving to equip <the implements of religious worship>
2 : a device used in the performance of a task : TOOL, UTENSIL
3 : one that serves as an instrument or tool <the partnership agreement does not seem to be a very potent implement -- H. B. Hoffman>
synonyms IMPLEMENT, TOOL, INSTRUMENT, APPLIANCE, UTENSIL mean a relatively simple device for performing work. IMPLEMENT may apply to anything necessary to perform a task <crude stone implements> <farm implements>. TOOL suggests an implement adapted to facilitate a definite kind or stage of work and suggests the need of skill more strongly than IMPLEMENT <a carpenter's tools>. INSTRUMENT suggests a device capable of delicate or precise work <the dentist's instruments>. APPLIANCE refers to a tool or instrument utilizing a power source and suggests portability or temporary attachment <household appliances>. UTENSIL applies to a device used in domestic work or some routine unskilled activity <kitchen utensils>.
Main Entry: 2im·ple·ment
Pronunciation: -"ment

Function: transitive verb
1 : CARRY OUT, ACCOMPLISH; especially : to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures
2 : to provide instruments or means of expression for
- im·ple·men·ta·tion /"im-pl&-m&n-'tA-sh&n, -"men-/ noun
- im·ple·men·ter or im·ple·men·tor /'im-pl&-"m&n-t&r/ noun

By definition from Webster Dictionary=Implement

 

[Cari Spears]

That is the definition for the noun, therefore irrelevant.

implement - verb

1) CARRY OUT, ACCOMPLISH; esp: to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures 2) to provide instruments or means of expression for

Also from Webster's.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

That is the definition for the noun.

implement - verb

1) CARRY OUT, ACCOMPLISH; esp: to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures 2) to provide instruments or means of expression for

Also from Webster's.

Thanks Cari, I must have not copied enough on the definition. I stand corrected.

 

[ScottK]

I once wrote a binding procedure for a former girlfriend.

 

[chaosweary]

Yea, we just get around that stuff by not documenting a whole lot. There are only 6 required documented procedures by the standard. The 2000standard made it a point to illuminate that a set of activities does not have to be documented to be a procedure. That being said, an external auditor never has the time on site to verify consistency of non documented procedures. I guess my thoughts are its up to your company execs to decide which procedures they want binding (to be followed) not the standard. You can write the 6 required procedures vague enough that there is really no bind there.
We always pass our external audits...

 

[RoxaneB]

Chaosweary, I think the original post was geared more towards having procedures documented above and beyond the required ones and understanding where it says that personnel actually having to find them. I believe the poster wants to know which clauses says we will actually do what we say we do.

You can write the 6 required procedures vague enough that there is really no bind there.

How so? The required procedures still state what will be done, etc... Sounds "binding" to me.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Chaosweary, I think the original post was geared more towards having procedures documented above and beyond the required ones and understanding where it says that personnel actually having to find them. I believe the poster wants to know which clauses says we will actually do what we say we do.



How so? The required procedures still state what will be done, etc... Sounds "binding" to me.

RC, you are R _ _ _ t!

As I stated in the following reply:

The original post was:

usually organizations have several procedures that exceed ól 9001's requirements with details related to their business, however, which clause do you think says that once a procedure is developed by the organizationit becomes binding even if not required by the standard, i think the closest is 4.1

My response:

do you really think that paragraph 4.1 (ISO9001:2000) is where the requirement is? In addition, do you think that even if procedures/work instructions, when written and implemented (even outside of the 6 required) are binding documents?

I think everyone has gotten a little here, even me.

In addition to another post by me:

But as you can see, there are many positions on this subject, so lets look and the basic interpretations. Sidney from DnV (Well known Registrar), Randy from BsI (A RAB and/or IRCA accredited Auditor for another well known Registrar), and others that have over 15+ years experience in this field (that most likely have been around the bush and been run over by the train), over this discussion.

At anytime, when there are "Shalls" that require procedures or documents, they must be implemented and subject to audit. In addition, anytime a Company develops Procedures (regardless to the minimum of 6 required by ISO9001:2000) they become part of the Business System and therefore, they are required to be followed and are subject to audit. They also become a Legal and binding document.

So, we can see that some of us are off-toipc. I am also taking that responsibility for getting off topic.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Jennifer, do you really think that paragraph 4.1 (ISO9001:2000) is where the requirement is? In addition, do you think that even if procedures/work instructions, when written and implemented (even outside of the 6 required) are binding documents?

I think everyone has gotten a little here, even me.

I find the most binding clause in 4.1 Note: Processes needed for the quality management system referred to above should include processes for management activities, provision of resources, product realization and measurement.

Now while that note says should and not shall, I believe it conveys the standard's intent: make the quality system such that it is in fact a system and not just a set of control activities that are centered around product/external customer service. For me, the idea that the entire standard is pretty much guidance with a few binding requirements (6 written procedures) just doesn't pass the Straight Face Test.

In other words, just because only 6 are specifically required the organzation isn't bound to only six if they decide to write more. Needing only six written procedures shouldn't be extrapolated into thinking only those six are relevant.

So that leads us back to the core question: why write and maintain a procedure if it is not important enough to make official and follow?

The thing seems to me like a misunderstanding many immature systems can have: the idea that a quality system is only that which directly results in product/external service quality. It happens all the time.

We whole-system folks instead see a larger picture, where support internal services are recognized as a part of the effort to make things go well that results in quality products/services.

 

[RoxaneB]

No need to point fingers or take responsibility...let's just get back on track.

That being said...as vanputten stated, we have had a discussion on this topic before.

I find the most binding clause in 4.1 Note: Processes needed for the quality management system referred to above should include processes for management activities, provision of resources, product realization and measurement.

Now while that note says should and not shall, I believe it conveys the standard's intent: make the quality system such that it is in fact a system and not just a set of control activities that are centered around product/external customer service. For me, the idea that the entire standard is pretty much guidance with a few binding requirements (6 written procedures) just doesn't pass the Straight Face Test.

At the end of the day, I think most of us would agree with the philosophy of "why write it if you're not going to do it", but unfortunately, a Note and its corresponding "should" are not auditable. I guess we're venturing into Common Sense Auditing. And as we all know...common sense ain't!

So that leads us back to the core question: why write and maintain a procedure if it is not important enough to make official and follow?

The thing seems to me like a misunderstanding many immature systems can have: the idea that a quality system is only that which directly results in product/external service quality. It happens all the time.

We whole-system folks instead see a larger picture, where support internal services are recognized as a part of the effort to make things go well that results in quality products/services.

Agree.

 

[Al Rosen]

I once wrote a binding procedure for a former girlfriend.

Ropes, chains, handcuffs or all of them?