What are you referring to?
Management system standards will ALWAYS require interpretation for proper implementation and assessment against. Not according to one's likes and preferences, but to one's knowledge and envelope conditions.
Should the billing process be part of ISO 9001:2008?
- Thread starter Sidney Vianna
- Start date
P
pinpin - 2009
There is no limit set by ISO 9001 !!
How can we draw lines and exclude any processess by saying they are not part of ISO?
This Standard has told us clearly that we need to identify our processes ourselves, not only those WRITTEN on the standard.
Excluding any of the processes simplily becasue they are not SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN in the Standard is giving excuse at our peril!
Short of any of these that form integral parts of the System could not bring us steady improvement.
Of course, we would not be able to cover everything or every processes in very detailed level when we set up our System, normally in WRITTEN form. But this does not mean we can exclude any of them and saying that NOT WRITTEN therefore not included! This is absurb!
No wonder there are many that certified yet still struggling!
If I were to be the auditor, I will raise NC for processes/areas that not being controlled for effective implementation, even though they were not SPECIFICALLY written in their ISO 9001 System Manual......simply with clause 4.1 !
Anyway, just my personal opinion!
But I think there are many that agree with me.
pinpin
How can we draw lines and exclude any processess by saying they are not part of ISO?
This Standard has told us clearly that we need to identify our processes ourselves, not only those WRITTEN on the standard.
Excluding any of the processes simplily becasue they are not SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN in the Standard is giving excuse at our peril!
Short of any of these that form integral parts of the System could not bring us steady improvement.
Of course, we would not be able to cover everything or every processes in very detailed level when we set up our System, normally in WRITTEN form. But this does not mean we can exclude any of them and saying that NOT WRITTEN therefore not included! This is absurb!
No wonder there are many that certified yet still struggling!
If I were to be the auditor, I will raise NC for processes/areas that not being controlled for effective implementation, even though they were not SPECIFICALLY written in their ISO 9001 System Manual......simply with clause 4.1 !
Anyway, just my personal opinion!
But I think there are many that agree with me. pinpin
W
w_grunfeld
I advocate that if you do something that's not in the standard don't try to prove that it is
W
w_grunfeld
I am not arguing your personal opinions-anyone is entitled to hold one. But you also say that if you were and auditor you would write it up as a NC. If I were the auditee I would make sure you will not audit me ever again. In case you didn't know, auditors are also bound to audit per a standard for auditors and not per their opinions.There is no limit set by ISO 9001 !!
How can we draw lines and exclude any processess by saying they are not part of ISO?
This Standard has told us clearly that we need to identify our processes ourselves, not only those WRITTEN on the standard.
Excluding any of the processes simplily becasue they are not SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN in the Standard is giving excuse at our peril!
Short of any of these that form integral parts of the System could not bring us steady improvement.
Of course, we would not be able to cover everything or every processes in very detailed level when we set up our System, normally in WRITTEN form. But this does not mean we can exclude any of them and saying that NOT WRITTEN therefore not included! This is absurb!
No wonder there are many that certified yet still struggling!
If I were to be the auditor, I will raise NC for processes/areas that not being controlled for effective implementation, even though they were not SPECIFICALLY written in their ISO 9001 System Manual......simply with clause 4.1 !
Anyway, just my personal opinion!
pinpin
I have enclosed for readers benefit the TC 176 Official interpretations. As you can see no one ever (in the entire world) even raised the issue.If you feel strongly about it, I sugest you submit your question for official interpretation (re ISO website)
ISO 9001 was not just created one day out of nothing....it has evolved from a long history of quality engineering practice and preceding standards...like MIL-Q-9858.
When ISO requires that you map your own processes it does not mean all processes-just the processes that are within the scope of the standard.
Historically, quality has deliberately kept financial issue out of its scope,for good reason.ISO 9001 is NOT a Management Standard it is a Quality Management Standard.
It tells you how to manage quality not how to manage a company.
P
pinpin - 2009
Let us see how many agree with our fellow w_grunfeld....
pinpin
pinpin
R
ramvaidhya - 2009
Billing process definitely add more flavour to ISO. Since it is poking nose in the area of financial world, will under go lots of debate to take some shape. Touching the Grey Area of Business...Always with Deviations.
P
pinpin - 2009
1) How to manage quality without managing company?:mg:
2) ISO 9001 does not tell us how to do, it requires us to identify and define what and how we need to do, by ourselves. What it says in the Standard are only some of the good practice but could not guarantee success if we merely do THAT only! That is the reason why it TELLS us to identify....ourselves, and require us to Continually Improve, that is where other processes that not SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN there should be seriously work on!
3) Intelligent bosses will look into my NC seriously instead of not getting me to audit again. Raising NC besides refering to the Standard clauses also require JUDGEMENT and EXPERIENCE, of course no personal OPINION. Auditor supposed to be value-adding instead of compliance check. Auditee pay for what? Pay auditor or checker?
4) If there is the worry that the auditee will make sure you will not be auditing them again, then just raise an OFI, just to meet the so-called "not within the Standard".... OK? Or even OFI also cannot be raised at all ?
5) I am VERY SURE, if I were to seek confirmation from ISO, the answer will be " it is the organization to identify...." ! Like what ramvaidhya says, it is a "grey area", so is it CLEARY says Billing Process is not in the scope? It isn't, neither does it SPECIFICALLY require it there. So, we have legitimate excuse to exclude it!?
6) The reason is very SIMPLE, tell your customers that billing process is not within ISO scope while your billing processes cause them trouble, you think they agree? No need to ask their Accounts or Finance personnel, just ask their Quality Management Representative, what will they answer you?
7) I know that ISO sanctioned interpretation long time ago, I used to point it to auditors that audit by book. Read RFI# 029again...in case you missed it.
8) Quality evolves, evolves from a purely managing "product" quality to a system standard that not only managing product quality, but to a QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS STANDARD. That means it tries to go beyond merely "product" quality but more than that because otherwise we will have hard time achieve "product" quality standard. And this "quality" does not confined to "product", it includes the our service to customers, include whether our bills caused them trouble, which could be reflected from customer satisfaction survey, unless the one that giving feedback is a "Quality Professional" that leaves "Billing" outside the SCOPE.
9) Auditing on Billing Process do not require very speciallized financial education, unless we do not understand what "process" is, otherwise we should be able to help auditee surface their ineffectiveness and inefficiency issues.
10) Last but not least, may be that is one of the reason that there seem to be no significant changes in 9001:2008.
pinpin
W
w_grunfeld
Not including billing in ISO 9001 = not managing company company????1) How to manage quality without managing company?:mg:
2) ISO 9001 does not tell us how to do, it requires us to identify and define what and how we need to do, by ourselves. What it says in the Standard are only some of the good practice but could not guarantee success if we merely do THAT only! That is the reason why it TELLS us to identify....ourselves, and require us to Continually Improve, that is where other processes that not SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN there should be seriously work on!
3) Intelligent bosses will look into my NC seriously instead of not getting me to audit again. Raising NC besides refering to the Standard clauses also require JUDGEMENT and EXPERIENCE, of course no personal OPINION. Auditor supposed to be value-adding instead of compliance check. Auditee pay for what? Pay auditor or checker?
4) If there is the worry that the auditee will make sure you will not be auditing them again, then just raise an OFI, just to meet the so-called "not within the Standard".... OK? Or even OFI also cannot be raised at all ?
5) I am VERY SURE, if I were to seek confirmation from ISO, the answer will be " it is the organization to identify...." ! Like what ramvaidhya says, it is a "grey area", so is it CLEARY says Billing Process is not in the scope? It isn't, neither does it SPECIFICALLY require it there. So, we have legitimate excuse to exclude it!?
6) The reason is very SIMPLE, tell your customers that billing process is not within ISO scope while your billing processes cause them trouble, you think they agree? No need to ask their Accounts or Finance personnel, just ask their Quality Management Representative, what will they answer you?
7) I know that ISO sanctioned interpretation long time ago, I used to point it to auditors that audit by book. Read RFI# 029again...in case you missed it.
8) Quality evolves, evolves from a purely managing "product" quality to a system standard that not only managing product quality, but to a QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS STANDARD. That means it tries to go beyond merely "product" quality but more than that because otherwise we will have hard time achieve "product" quality standard. And this "quality" does not confined to "product", it includes the our service to customers, include whether our bills caused them trouble, which could be reflected from customer satisfaction survey, unless the one that giving feedback is a "Quality Professional" that leaves "Billing" outside the SCOPE.
9) Auditing on Billing Process do not require very speciallized financial education, unless we do not understand what "process" is, otherwise we should be able to help auditee surface their ineffectiveness and inefficiency issues.
10) Last but not least, may be that is one of the reason that there seem to be no significant changes in 9001:2008.
pinpin
ISO 9001 with or w/o billing cannot guarantee success.
I'll make one last attempt to argue my point , after whicj I rest my case.
The thread is not about whether billing is an important process or not , only if it should be part of ISO9001, and as it is evidently not, should it be nevertheless be part of the QMS.
My answer is that a STANDARD is created for the exact purpose to serve as a set of common practices accepted by all, and to eliminate countless second party audits that existed before ISO9001.
Those who remember , and were around at the time, MIL-Q-9858 was a 5 page document. In 1987, one of the leading US aerospace companies that subcontracted the company I worked for as quality manger, asked me if I knew what MIL-Q-9858 was and was I capable to bring our quality system to be certified to it?
I said sure, we already comply with most of it and produced my copy of te specification to show I know what I am talking about.
They smiled and placed a 500 page book on my table and told me : "not that 9858" -this is our way of doing 9858, you have to comply with this!
ISO 90001 is intended to eliminate these situations. Many industries produced their own beefed up versions .There are plenty of good and BENEFICILAL things in TS16949, AS9100, ISO13485, to name just a few, Quality Mangement Standards.When I audit an ISO9001 QMS I am NOT sugesting OFI's from other standards, even though they are outright quality issues much closer than billing. (btw none of the above is concerned with billing).
So there is no end to good ideas how to improve, when it is felt that iso9001 is not sufficient ,there are industry groups that fill in the gap, I am just opposing the idea of everybody writing their own standards
I rest my case
The line has to be drawn somewhere
D
Desara01
I did not have a chance to read all of the posts here, but someone asked earlier about metrics on the billing process and we have a couple that we track at my company.
Hope someone finds this helpful.
Cheers - Pen
- Timeliness of billing (we want to invoice customers as quickly as possible. We want to invoice within 24 hours - that's the current standard. This improves cash flow).
- Accuracy of invoices. A customer-facing metric. This includes not only credits where we over invoiced but also creating a second invoice because we didn't invoice for the full amount.
- Hours/time to produce an invoice (not the same as #1).
Hope someone finds this helpful.
Cheers - Pen
P
pinpin - 2009
Yes, not including billing in 9001 is = not managing company!
It "should" be in, because it is "important".
Look at clause 7.2: "Customer-related processes", where can you draw the line? You can't isn't it? You mean billing customer is not customer-RELATED?
In fact, the line drawn by most quality professionals were by their own, not SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN IN 9001!
When we implement TS, we were told we MUST control Billing, even though it is not SPECIFICALLY written in TS Standard. We did not find excuse, we accept it, we control it! Bcoz it is IMPORTANT TOO!
Without MONEY we don't have resources to run QUALITY!
Without MONEY, we don't have MOTIVATION to work!
9001's intent is PRODUCE GOOD QUALITY PRODUCTS TO MEET CUSTOMER/...REQUIREMENTS, to achieve this, we REALLY NEED TO MANAGE EVERY ASPECTS OF OUR ORGANIZATION, OTHERWISE, WE CAN'T PRODUCE GOOD QUALITY PRODUCT!
So we must make sure our billing is effective and efficient, otherwise 9001 certificate don't benefit us! We can produce the best product but our inefficient billing and collection process stifles us! We ever had cash flow problem. Why, bcoz our customers complain (partly an excuse to pay us and delay payment) our billing problems.
9001 wants CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT, wants us to identify processes, .... we at first implement according to what almost all the quality professionals preached (i.e. billing, finance and accounts not included as they are of Financial Auditors and Accountants' job, not within 9001...), then we found we still have lots of problems, especially with these areas and areas involved with these, they don't want to take part bcoz they said 9001 has got nothing to do with them, so we have problem achieving our company's overall objectives!
To avoid all these arguments and excuses, even though it has been mentioned in clause 4.1 and its note, it will be great if ISO can SPECIFICALLY write somewhere in the Standard to tell all of us that besides those SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Standard, shall identify other processes that are important to the organization to continually improves, not limit to "product" quality. Otherwise, it end up being used as an EXCUSE for not implementing !
Then no more argument!
Anyway, the poll here till today shows that the mojority are with you, cheer!
pinpin
Similar threads
- Locked
