Summary of ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008 Changes

[Icy Mountain]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!

Yes.

Seriously if this malpractice is going on after ISO said 'no significant changes' then it just goes to show we are all going to hell in a handcart.

And how would this differ from the ridiculous state of the ISO registrant->registrar->certification body->ISO committee circus that has existed for the past 20 years? Because of the timing of the release vs. my recertification audits I will have to update my certificate during a surveillance audit. This will cost me additionally while adding ZERO value.

This kind of micropickiness for ZERO value is just a complete waste of everyone's time. There's more than enough REAL issues to focus on.

Yet, it continues ever after (see above).

Or you can appeal the issue.

While you know I am not averse to doing this (and succeeding), sometimes it takes far less effort to meet an arbitrary requirement than to fight it.

For the transition DNV will assess that your organisation is aware of the changes made and have reviewed the quality management system to ensure it still complies after the clarifications made.

I would say that having a copy of ISO9001:2008, reviewing it in management review and having an ECO update of your QA manual to comply would indicate "organizational awareness." If you asked the vast majority of my co-workers if they knew that we were now compliant to ISO9001:2008 vs. ISO9001:2000 you would probably get a blank stare. If I make a plant-wide announcement or broadcast email, you will still get the same blank stare from a significant portion.

[RANT]
Let's be perfectly honest here. How many people in your organization know/give-a-crap that it's :2008 now and not :2000? Does their knowledge/ignorance make one iota of difference in customer satisfaction or the quality of your products? This is exactly the kind of crap that makes real quality so hard for us practitioners. There was so much eye-rolling amongst my executive staff during our management review of this "new" standard that I got dizzy.
[/rant]

A training record seems like more concrete and objective proof that they are aware. Otherwise, I get to waste even more time arguing, appealling or God forbid, answering a finding. I've already spent more time than it's worth typing this post, let alone, management review, ECO, and let's not forget the $95 for a copy of ISO9001:2008.

[RANT]
In the end, were it worth it, I would argue: Since there are no changes to the requirements, then why in the hell does anyone need to be aware of any changes at all? This whole 2008 thing is a farce that serves only two purposes:

• Make the ISO committee folks look busy so they can keep their jobs.
• Make additional money for registrars with little additional effort.

[/Rant]

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

Make the ISO committee folks look busy so they can keep their jobs.

The IAF and the TC 176 should have taken this suggestion seriously. And I was serious when I started the What about the Social Responsibility of ISO and TC176? Failure to show by example?
In a time when the World economy is experiencing a significant downturn, everyone should focus on value added activities and doing their part to get rid of wasted efforts.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

The IAF and the TC 176 should have taken this suggestion seriously. And I was serious when I started the What about the Social Responsibility of ISO and TC176? Failure to show by example?
In a time when the World economy is experiencing a significant downturn, everyone should focus on value added activities and doing their part to get rid of wasted efforts.

Now I'm not normally backward in coming forward when it comes to criticism, not even of ISO (who I volunteer for). But here's the rub ... who has got the good ideas for moving us all forwards?

There is a thread here that asks Covers to put forward their ideas for the next edition of 9001. Now far be it for me to cast aspersions on anyone putting ideas forward but the sum total in that thread is not something I would be proud to put up as the cutting edge of the assembled intellect here ... or am I doing us all down?

Which brings me back to the 2008 revision: With the significant changes from the 2000 edition ISO were requested to do as little as possible to the requirements standards as a lot of people wanted more time to make their changes and that became the brief. Now you can argue that the standard shouldn't be held back because some people don't get it .... my problem is that I reckon about 70% of the world's certified firms don't get all of it and a significant minority of those who proudly display the big 'I am certified' badge get very little of it.

So where are we? I would be happy if the Cove was a happy little oasis of deep understanding and consistency of approach (or purpose ) but we're not!

There is little consensus and some approaches espoused by some Cove members I wouldn't give house room to. I'm sure the same is true for my views.

We live in an imperfect world. Whether you are trying to reclaim the 'Q' word or fighting organizational dysfunction we just do our bit and if some people listen to these meanderings that is all I, for one, can hope for.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

Which brings me back to the 2008 revision: With the significant changes from the 2000 edition ISO were requested to do as little as possible to the requirements standards as a lot of people wanted more time to make their changes and that became the brief.

So, they should have been honest and keep the standard AS-IS and use the free Guidance Documents* to explain the clarifications. But, as you know, when you have a chance to sell millions of additional copies of your best selling product, you have to "invent" justifications of why people need to buy a copy of the document that adds NOTHING to the previous edition.

The simple truth is: if people did not understand the intent and requirements of ISO 9001:2000, they will not understand them simply by reading ISO 9001:2008, either.


*

· Implementation Guidance for ISO 9001:2008
· Guidance on ISO 9001 Sub-clause 1.2 'Application'
· Guidance on the Documentation Requirements of ISO 9001
· Guide to the Terminology used in ISO 9001 and ISO 9004
· Guidance on the Concept and Use of the Process Approach for management systems
· Guidance on Outsourced Processes

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

So, they should have been honest and keep the standard AS-IS and use the free Guidance Documents* to explain the clarifications. But, as you know, when you have a chance to sell millions of additional copies of your best selling product, you have to "invent" justifications of why people need to buy a copy of the document that adds NOTHING to the previous edition.

The simple truth is: if people did not understand the intent and requirements of ISO 9001:2000, they will not understand them simply by reading ISO 9001:2008, either.

Wrong side of the bed, Sidney?

Couple of points. All of which I believe you know anyway.

1. ISO reviews and / or revises standards periodically
2. At the review the decision was taken to revise because some of the words didn't translate well and some clarification was needed
3. Just because a standard is revised doesn't mean you have to buy it
4. If you are going to buy a new copy of 9001 it may as well be the most up to date one
5. The people involved in the process didn't have a huge amount to do in terms of work - and they would have been at most of the meetings anyway!
6. A guidance document 'tagged on' to a standard is generally ineffective (IMHO)

Agreed with your last point.

Any comments on the lack of direction from here for the new 9001 (2014 edition)?

As that was the main point of my post.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

Wrong side of the bed, Sidney?

Unnecessary comment. Just because we don't agree on something, it does not mean that I am grumpy.

ISO reviews and / or revises standards periodically

Yes.

At the review the decision was taken to revise because some of the words didn't translate well and some clarification was needed

I am sure the fact that, by revising the standard, and generating tremendous levels of revenue had nothing to do with the decision to revise amend the standard, instead of simply reaffirming the 2000 Edition .

Just because a standard is revised doesn't mean you have to buy it

What are you proposing? Pirate it? So, are you saying that CB's could certify an organization to ISO 9001:2008, but not enquiring if they have a copy of the document?

The people involved in the process didn't have a huge amount to do in terms of work - and they would have been at most of the meetings anyway!

Not sure what to think. Are you saying that the TC 176 meetings will happen, irrespective of the need for it?

A guidance document 'tagged on' to a standard is generally ineffective (IMHO)

So, why do we have them?

Any comments on the lack of direction from here for the new 9001 (2014 edition)?

The only comment I have, at this time, is to reinforce my suggestion, when I started the What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard? thread, that people should provide specific comments on how to rewrite/revise the document, instead of simply criticizing the current one. As usual, people like to complain, but few offer constructive suggestions on how to improve something.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

Unnecessary comment. Just because we don't agree on something, it does not mean that I am grumpy.

I'll take that as a yes, then!

I am sure the fact that, by revising the standard, and generating tremendous levels of revenue had nothing to do with the decision to revise amend the standard, instead of simply reaffirming the 2000 Edition .

Such cynicism, Sidney.

What are you proposing? Pirate it? So, are you saying that CB's could certify an organization to ISO 9001:2008, but not enquiring if they have a copy of the document?

Simply. As I have said before on the Cove. Just because you are putting your system up for assessment to 9001 doesn't mean you need to buy a copy of it. The assessor needs a copy, sure. Also if you have a copy of the 2000 edition and your CB and ISO tells you no substantive requirement changes then your old copy is still valid. Especially if you have a lot of other guidance as to changes. If you buy a copy you buy the new one. Just because a 2009 Honda is available doesn't mean you have to get rid of your 2000 model ... does it?

Not sure what to think. Are you saying that the TC 176 meetings will happen, irrespective of the need for it? So, why do we have them?

Simply that the incremental cost of developing the 2008 edition is not that great.

The only comment I have, at this time, is to reinforce my suggestion, when I started the What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard? thread, that people should provide specific comments on how to rewrite/revise the document, instead of simply criticizing the current one. As usual, people like to complain, but few offer constructive suggestions on how to improve something.

We've made it back to my point. In a lot of Forums around the Internet people are happy to throw rocks from the sidelines, while telling you how wonderful they are (present company excepted, Sid). Yet when you tell them: 'Hey guys, I've given the link to this thread to a few people on TC 176 and they're interested in your views ... what do you get? Three tenths of not a lot!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

Simply. As I have said before on the Cove. Just because you are putting your system up for assessment to 9001 doesn't mean you need to buy a copy of it. The assessor needs a copy, sure. Also if you have a copy of the 2000 edition and your CB and ISO tells you no substantive requirement changes then your old copy is still valid. Especially if you have a lot of other guidance as to changes.

We agree on that.

I would like to make a comment about this post of yours. Actually, you was the one who dodged my question. Not the other way around.

 

[amanbhai]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

Are we feeling contended for comfortable having no changes in our system?

 

[Qualqueen]

Re: Summary of Changes - ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 9001:2008

As I have said before on the Cove. Just because you are putting your system up for assessment to 9001 doesn't mean you need to buy a copy of it. The assessor needs a copy, sure. Also if you have a copy of the 2000 edition and your CB and ISO tells you no substantive requirement changes then your old copy is still valid. Especially if you have a lot of other guidance as to changes. If you buy a copy you buy the new one. Just because a 2009 Honda is available doesn't mean you have to get rid of your 2000 model ... does it?
Simply that the incremental cost of developing the 2008 edition is not that great.

I've got to disagree Paul. old copy is still valid. :mg: The old copy is now obsolete and to say you don't need the current revision in your system is leaving yourself open for a N/C don't ya think??????????