The ISO 9000 ecosystem - a clear(?) vision for the future of the ISO 9000 family

[Sidney Vianna]

More confusing language for those trying to consider if they want to obtain ISO and join our "ecosystem".

If you are referring to the paper which triggered this thread, remember: it is almost 8 years old and the gentleman who wrote is long gone from the chairmanship position.

One paragraph that caught my attention when I re-read it, says:

But much, much more is necessary to make the ecosystem viable – things like tools, case studies, white papers, standard implementation collateral, communication vehicles and feedback mechanisms -- all elements that sustain and invigorate the primary standards, make them more robust and easy to use, and propel them into new application domains, adapting as they go.

As we realize that such "collateral" documents would mean that fewer consultants, books and implementation services would be used by organizations deploying the standards, we know that such proposal would be DOA (dead on arrival), as the TC 176 is highly influenced by consultants, which means they would not vote for the development of material that would make their (paid) services less demanded.

But the actual proposal makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe this is one of the reasons this gentleman's chairmanship position did not last very long.

 

[Jim Wynne]

How do you see this now that it is 2018 and ISO 9001:2015 is the current standard which essentially added "Risk"?

I'm retired now, and frankly I haven't been paying too much attention to the 2015 revision. I did go over the draft when I was still working, though. I don't think anything has really changed.