Technical Interfaces in the design section of the 1994 version removed

[M Greenaway]

Hi all

Can anyone answer the following two questions:-

1) What did ISO9001:1994 mean by defining technical interfaces in the design section of the standard ?

2) Why is this no longer required in the 2000 standard ?

Also can anyone point to an 'official' interpretation of this ?

Regards

Martin

 

[BadgerMan]

1) What did ISO9001:1994 mean by defining technical interfaces in the design section of the standard ?

I always understood the requirement to mean that the design and development should be cross functional in nature, as needed, and the system should allow for the involvment of the appropriate functional disciplines at the appropriate stages in the process.

2) Why is this no longer required in the 2000 standard ?

I believe an abbreviated version of the requirement now falls under the heading of Design and Development Planning (7.3.1).

Sorry, but I can't help you regarding the "official interpretation".

 

[Rob Nix]

I believe it still is a requirement in ISO9K2K, at section 7.3.1 para. 3, "the organization shall manage the interfaces between different groups involved in design and development to ensure effective communication and clear assignment of responsibility"

The new wording also provides a bit of an explanation.

 

[M Greenaway]

So why did the old standard say 'organisational and technical' interfaces, but the new standard just says 'organisational' ?

 

[Rob Nix]

Don't be so technical!

 

[Wes Bucey]

So why did the old standard say 'organisational and technical' interfaces, but the new standard just says 'organisational' ?

Actually, without a specific citation, it has always been my understanding that the Committee doing the authoring has tried to use language to be more inclusive of different types of organizations, rather than using language like "technical" to invoke (evoke? - help me out, Rob!) the original manufacturing sector at which the ISO 1994 version was targeted. In this way, "technical" can be implied as just one of the various components of an organization versus a big hairy tail that wags the dog.

Consider similar consideration in "Contract Review" which had its own Section in 94 version, but the term isn't even used in 2k version. Certainly, you'll agree that the concept hasn't been abandoned, only the term.

I thought this was an interesting bit of trivia and helped us see some broadening of ISO's appeal to different market segments. Thanks for raising it, Martin.

 

[Rob Nix]

Wes, since you invocated my help, I'd say "to evoke" or "evocative of" would be more correct. Also, since "technical" smacks of (smells like) manufacturing, "redolent of" would be appropriate.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Wes, since you invocated my help, I'd say "to evoke" or "evocative of" would be more correct. Also, since "technical" smacks of (smells like) manufacturing, "redolent of" would be appropriate.

See. Shows you what an education will do for you. My original thought was "invoke" as in "invoking a demon" as opposed to "evoking a fond memory." I like "redolent" as in "redolent mound of manure" which is pretty much what my meanderings have become.

 

[M Greenaway]

So why did the old standard say 'organisational AND technical interfaces' ?

From the answers so far it seems that a technical interface is an organisational interface between 'technical' departments (whatever that might mean). In which case why say 'organisational and technical' ?

Is a technical interface something like my organisation uses AutoCAD V14, but my supplier can only read Autodesk Inventor drawings (for example, and dont quote me on whether these two software systems are in fact compatible).

 

[Wes Bucey]

So why did the old standard say 'organisational AND technical interfaces' ?

From the answers so far it seems that a technical interface is an organisational interface between 'technical' departments (whatever that might mean). In which case why say 'organisational and technical' ?

Is a technical interface something like my organisation uses AutoCAD V14, but my supplier can only read Autodesk Inventor drawings (for example, and dont quote me on whether these two software systems are in fact compatible).

I no longer even have a copy of the 94 Standard. My memory is just not good enough to winnow out such fine detail. Perhaps this is a question to direct to the Standing Committee at ISO for a definitive answer? My strong hunch remains that it is just a matter of semantics and does not have significance in how the process should operate.