Requirements for Implementing an ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System (QMS)

[Stijloor]

Re: Requirements for implementing an ISO 9001:2008 quality management system

Heavy going, though, particularly for the newby. Unless you like reading a dictionary.

This explains. From ISO 9001:2008:

2 Normative references

The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.

ISO 9000:2005, Quality management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary

Emphasis mine.

Stijloor.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: Requirements for implementing an ISO 9001: 2008 quality management system

Do you have a copy of ISO 9001:2008 (not 2009) and also ISO 9004? If not, you should get yourself one. We cannot post them here since they are copyrighted. But you will find sources if you do an internet search for them.

Definitely read ISO 9004 before beginning, also. It contains MUCH good info that I wish were in ISO 9001.

 

[JaneB]

Re: Requirements for implementing an ISO 9001: 2008 quality management system

Definitely read ISO 9004 before beginning, also. It contains MUCH good info that I wish were in ISO 9001.

Yes, I think it's excellent and very well worth reading.

 

[John Martinez]

Re: Requirements for implementing an ISO 9001: 2008 quality management system

Definitely read ISO 9004 before beginning, also. It contains MUCH good info that I wish were in ISO 9001.

Talk about ISO 9000 being heavy. I don't recomend ISO 9004 until they have their "sea legs", especially if they are going at it alone. Crawl before walk. Walk before run.

Unless of course you have someone like JaneB helping you with your system.... Hey, free advertising.

 

[John Martinez]

Re: Requirements for implementing an ISO 9001:2008 quality management system

Heavy going, though, particularly for the newby. Unless you like reading a dictionary.

It is Fundamentals and vocabulary. Unless you have a fundamental understanding of why the requirements are there to begin with, then the organization will find itself asking "what's the value in this?"

Interestingly enough, I had a student tell me the week after a Lead Auditor course that the money for the course paid off already. He stated that he and his supplier were disagreeing over what is and is not a non-conformance. He replied "ISO 9000:2005 Non-confomance. Non-fulfillment of a requirement. You did not fulfull my requriement. Argument settled. That was worth the cost of the entire course".

Rest my case.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: Requirements for implementing an ISO 9001: 2008 quality management system

Talk about ISO 9000 being heavy. I don't recomend ISO 9004 until they have their "sea legs", especially if they are going at it alone. Crawl before walk. Walk before run.

Unless of course you have someone like JaneB helping you with your system.... Hey, free advertising.

I quite disagree. ISO makes a lot more sense when you read ISO 9004. The old version (2000) made it clear what was requirements, inside the text baxes, and what was additional useful info, outside the text box. Makes a much better read, especially when you don't have an ISO background. In fact, many of my clients use 9004 as their only internal standard. They did not even distribute 9001 to their managers. But, it is optional, not required.

 

[John Martinez]

Re: Requirements for implementing an ISO 9001: 2008 quality management system

I quite disagree. ISO makes a lot more sense when you read ISO 9004. The old version (2000) made it clear what was requirements, inside the text baxes, and what was additional useful info, outside the text box. Makes a much better read, especially when you don't have an ISO background. In fact, many of my clients use 9004 as their only internal standard. They did not even distribute 9001 to their managers. But, it is optional, not required.

I've also seen more of the opposite. People pulling their hair out trying to interpert ISO 9004 instead of, as I said, crawl before walk, walk before run.

If an organization has personel intelligent enough to walk that line, great. But if the organization has ISO 9004 and not ISO 9000:2005 then they by no means have the entire picture either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of ISO 9004. It's just telling a nube to do it right out of the gate, especially when they are going at it alone may be setting someone up for a heart burn.