Interesting Discussion Should ISO 9004 be changed from a guidance document to a requirements standard?

[Sidney Vianna]

Based on the article that Peter K Fraser linked earlier today, what is your opinion about the possibility of ISO 9004 becoming a requirements (certifiable) standard? As always, responsible comments are welcomed. A cynic person would believe that a decision to convert ISO 9004 into a certification standard could mean ISO 9001:2015 would be confirmed as-is. So, the leadership of the SC 2 would not have to overrule the votes that showed a majority of member votes against a revision of 9001.

Remember the four options being studied by the TC 176 SC2:

1. Should ISO 9004 be changed from a guidance standard to a requirements standard?
2. Should ISO 9004 remain as a guidance standard, with a new ISO 9004/1 requirements standard being created as its separate ‘partner’?
3. Should a hybrid ISO 9004 be created, the first section of which would contain requirements and the second section of which would contain guidance?
4. Should ISO 9004 remain ‘as is’, namely a guidance standard only.

 

[John Broomfield]

ISO 9004 should remain a guideline.

It could be used to validate the newer QM ideas before specifying new requirements in ISO 9001.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

In my opinion, there are serious disguised issues at hand here. The possible (but unlikely) confirmation of ISO 9001:2015 as is would signify many years before that best selling standard would be revised again. So, what would TC 176 do, of relevance, for the next few years? We all know that, outside of ISO 9001, most documents developed by the TC 176 are not well sold known. The TC 176 has to maintain it's relevance in the ISO organization and the development of a certifiable ISO 9004 could be their ticket to remain "in the news".

About the same time I created this poll here at The Cove, I also created the same poll in the LinkedIn group I own. As of now, the voting there shows a significant rejection of the idea of making 9004 a standards requirement.

​

 

[Mike S.]

I voted no. Any company that wants to can implement 9004 as a requirements standard on their own if they wanna go above-and-beyond.

 

[Cari Spears]

I can't fit enough cuss words into a sentence - this is the stuff that makes me mad about this whole registration scheme stuff.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I can't fit enough cuss words into a sentence - this is the stuff that makes me mad about this whole registration scheme stuff.

I seriously doubt the proposal to convert ISO 9004 in to a requirements standard would be approved, but just the fact that someone has proposed and the TC 176 is seriously(?) considering it, shows ( to me) a desperation of an entity that is lost to address the continual demise of it's "best selling" document, ISO 9001. I would not be surprised if this is just a smoke screen effort to "justify" the revision to ISO 9001, despite the fact that the majority of the voting members balloted AGAINST a revision.

If people knew how "political" a standard development body can be and all the discussions that happen behind the scenes, they would be surprised.

 

[tony s]

the fact that someone has proposed and the TC 176 is seriously(?) considering it, shows ( to me) a desperation of an entity that is lost to address the continual demise of it's "best selling" document, ISO 9001.

If this is the pervading tone among the ISO TCs about TC 176, then they might create a new requirement QMS standard that will significantly contribute to ISO 9001's "continual demise". Enhancing the existing, instead of creating another, might perpetuate the "best selling" management system standard. I voted no.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I voted no.

in the LinkedIn poll, out of 174 votes, 65% of respondents voted no. I suspect that most of the people who voted yes for a certifiable ISO 9004 are consultants who see this as a business opportunity.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

According to an article published today by our own @Peter Fraser, the proposal has been dropped. Read Peter's article at Is the gun aimed in the wrong direction - why trigger something that is not required? and maybe he can share with us where the news were announced at. I did not see anything at the CQI website on this.

In that article, Peter asks: "... Whose idea was this anyway? snip....snip.....How can the proposal be justified - what triggered it?"... A cynical person could believe that revenue $tream for ISO and what will SC2 do for the next few years without an ISO 9001 and 9004 revisions could be the unspoken justifications for the initiative.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Sidney

Not surprised that you couldn't find it, but see The continuing relevance of ISO 9004.

You might wonder why "none of the above should be viewed as a definitive argument for not progressing, particularly when balanced against the benefits a requirements-based ISO 9004 would bring" makes any sense, given the resluts of two votes to the contrary...