Structure of 9000:2000: what is this process model?


Jase Eyre

Hi there folks

Nice to know you're all out there...

I just wanted to get a feel for people's perceptions about ways to adopt to the requirements of the CD2/DIS revisions of ISO 9001.

In particular, the structure of 2000 is entirely different to that of 1994. I know that many companies have based their QMS manuals around the 20 elements of 1994. Any plans afoot to change the QMS structure to account for the reduction to 4 elements in 2000 (I see a lot of interest in correspondance matrices about the place)?

And what about the process model? How do I allay potential fears among some staff that the transition to 2000 is not some covert attempt at Business Process Re-engineering? Examining business processes in detail can have a disconcerting effect on some people, suspicious (often with justification)that such scrutiny is a precursor to something other than quality assurance...

Are the 2000 revisions as radical as they seem at first bite?

Jase E.


Fully vaccinated are you?
I don't think for most companies this is a giant step in another direction. And I believe people are going overboard on what's going on. There is a switch with an emphasis on continuous improvement and such, but if you're already compliant to the 1994 version you just make a matrix up. It's much like taking a book and switching sequence of chapters while most of the 'guts' stay the same. You can take the old index and in a spread sheet cross reference the old to the new. It comes back to addressing each line item, so to speak.

There's some verbiage about legal stuff and more safety stuff, but it isn't earth shaking.

Do you have the CD2 draft?

Jase Eyre

Thanks for your reply Marc.

An interesting response.I deliberately ('oh, sure...') framed my questions to this group as I have had the questions asked of me lately: ie."what the hell is goin on here?!?".

You mention that the changes are not earth shaking. I agree. But there are some who would have the earth shake anyway (and furiously at that!), and those who fall apart at the mere mention of movement. We are registered to 1994, but a certain atrophy has set in of late: the 2000 revision is seen by some as a bitter but essential panacea for these ills, a mechanism around which corporate revitalisation may revolve. Others, of course, fear any change to the status quo and jump at the shadows cast by 2000. A wired-in response engendered by bad experiences in the past, and quite understandable. One person's atrophy is another's stability.

And here's me, meat in the sandwich, between the "Hey, lets change everything!" crowd on the one hand, and the "Please don't hurt me" crowd on the other.

Solution? I don't rightly know, but I'm attempting to placate both camps in some way by focussing on the process model. To the "Lets change!" crowd I can say: "OK, we'll fundamentally alter the QMS structure to integrate process and coordination management into the quality system". Apparently, this seems radical. To the "Please don't" crowd I can say: "Everything's OK. It's the same as before. All we are doing is simplifying things a little bit. Please don't worry". They don't really believe me, but at least I'm not mouthing off to them about 'necessary change'. Besides, they can handle simplification. It sounds comforting...

A very fine line to walk, granted. You made mention that people are going overboard on what's going on. I get the feeling that this is because some people are seizing on a moment of transition to push for bigger things - and good on them for trying; the problem arises when these people fail to take into account the legitimate concerns of others who do not share their aspirations for change. The appearance of 9001:2000 has merely given a focus to previously obscured concerns.

Any thoughts?

Jase E.


Fully vaccinated are you?
My position to my clients (who, believe me, want to 'know') is simply: "As soon as I know you will know. In the mean time, I supplied you a copy of CD2 - please read it. I cannot tell you at this minute exactly what, if anything, we will have to do differently. Changing the model is not 'the deal'.

Not trying to be an ass - just is that it's that simple. I think you're reading too much into it right now. You can't 'comply' until you know what it is. To placate your 'clients' you might want to suggest alcohol and/or drugs (hey - our possible future president Bush is a former coke freak - a rich one by his parents, but none the less - Can you say Silverado Savings and Loan???)...

Bottom line is I would tell them that the 'spec' is not finalized and that they will have to wait until you know. You're right in you analysis - and yes - you get to be the tight rope walker.

Don Winton

Gotta go with Marc on this one. Do not over adjust to the new standard until it is finished and gets out of the DIS phase. Until, keep informed of developments and track the changes as they go along. I would not change anything in my current system until the new version is released. Just stay on top of it and reassure your associates it will be fine.


Andy Bassett

Hello Jase

For what its worth, i read an article in Quality world last month where one particluar consultant was giving ISO 9000:2000 a terrible slagging.

I think i better go back to the proposal and have another read, but on first view i felt all the changes were positive. At the very least the language is becoming more user friendly. It actually calls suppliers suppliers (instead of sub-contractors) or the organisation the organisation (instead of the supplier).

I think when we work with ISO on a day to day basis we come blase about how important these small changes are.

Additionally i find the other changes quite positive, especially the emphasis on Continuous Improvement. I consider this as fact.
1. I would be very lucky to get a company certified that has a 25 year old dog-eaten wooden 12 inch rule NOT CALIBRATED.
2. Its NOT difficult to get a company certified that has no Continuous Improvement philosophy or mentality beyond rectifying defects.

Personally i think the changes are positive.

Andy B



You make several interesting comments in your post. The first is that some individuals in your company look at the 2000 standard as a panacea to what's ailing with your QM system. If that's what they're hoping for they are going to be sorely disappointed. If the system isn't working, changing it isn't going to make it any better. You also have the "let's change" folks at your heels. Well, if they want change so they don't have to fix what's already in place, they are barking up the wrong tree. And, as for the fear mongers, nothing will ever placate them, and ISO 9001:2000 is just one big scary monster to gripe about.

All standards are only tools. They are not cure alls, and they definitely aren't a panacea for everything that's wrong. Their utilization comes from understanding how to use them properly, and their limitations. Just implementing a QM system isn't going change a thing unless one uses it, finds and fixes the shortcomings, and then builds on that as a foundation for continuous improvement (I could just barf). This goes for ISO, QS, VDA, 16949, etc. So, quit worrying, everything in due time, and work on what's in place. When the time comes to change, then "just do it."

barb butrym

Quite Involved in Discussions
Go with Marc.....the registrars are just hanging back...and once its will have plenty of time to comply as the auditors get comfortable with it...there are no earth shattering changes...lots of clarification...a putting together of stuff that should be together and a few new points
that may not even apply...... Remember..if it doesn't apply say so.

David Guffey

I am very pleased to read this dialog. In our ASQ section, we have been having very similar discussions. "What do we change?" "When should we do it?" "What is 'it'?"
Some of us (a minority, admittedly) are urging a "do nothing" posture until the standard is released and conversations occur with registrars.
I am treating this much the same as I do a print change. I study the drafts, make suggestions, gain ideas, but do not produce to the change until the print is released.
Top Bottom