Interesting Discussion Was this the fastest ever stage 2 ISO9001:2015 audit?

[Sidney Vianna]

I appreciate what you are saying, however, the committee missed their own deadlines revising ISO 9001:2015, no?

No, they didn't. If you look at the cover page of your ISO 9001:2015 standard, you will see that it was released in September 2015. With a deadline for transition on September 2018, a clear 3-year timeframe for the transition. I created the ISO 9001:2015 Revision Discussion in LinkedIn back in May 2012, when we had a Committee Draft of the document.

So, the point is: the delay and procrastination happens on the user's side.

The same can not be said about Sector Schemes which use ISO 9001:2015 as the baseline. AS9100D and the IATF 16949:2016 were released late 2016, with the same transition deadline...

 

[Kronos147]

No, they didn't.

I apologize then for my poor memory. I recall only having the FDIS in my hands until 2016. I recall obtaining the standard on the first day it was available, again in 2016. However, I do not have any objective evidence this is the case.

Like the Rolling Stones say, "what a drag it is getting old."

 

[Big Jim]

This is an area in which Sidney and I will probably continue to disagree. Both ISO and IAQG could have done more, much more, to aid in the transition.

First of all, there is a perponderance of evidence that the standard was rushed to print without ironing out many concerns. Baskar Kotte of Quality Systems Enhancements was one of may presenters at CB training a couple of months after publication. His hour long presentation detailed his concerns, all of which had been presented to TC 176 and aparently ignored. One of them is an outright mistake in 8.7 where it list "one or more" of the following ways need to be used in dealing with nonconfomring product and one of them listed is "informing the customer". It is blatenly obvious the informing the customer by itself is NEVER sufficient. The proof readers must have been asleep or inept.

Next, the committee needs to come down to the real world to see what they caused on the kick-off. The countdown started when the standard was published. Although it is true that there were published drafts, that is not enough for CBs, auditors, consultants, and organizations to be ready to run out of the gate. There should have been an appropriate length of time after publication, like maybe six months, before the three year countdown started. For the IAQG to wait a year before publishing AS9100D and still have the same time frame is beyond stupid.

I'm well aware that organizations tend to procrastinate, but to say that was the main problem is just not in keeping with the real world. More could have and should have been done at the top level. There are many in that ivory tower that need to spend more time in the trenches and have both empathy and compassion for those of us that need to make it work. Three years would be a reasonable time for transition if enough planning could have been done first. Planning from the top.

Those at the top need to pay a little closer attention to making sure that they too take accountability for the performance of the standard. Take another look at 5.1.

Climbing into my flame suit.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

One of them is an outright mistake in 8.7 where it list "one or more" of the following ways need to be used in dealing with nonconfomring product and one of them listed is "informing the customer". It is blatenly obvious the informing the customer by itself is NEVER sufficient. The proof readers must have been asleep or inept.

As most who know me, I am not shy to provide constructive criticism to the developers of standards, when warranted; but in this case (what we have already discussed here, before) I don't agree with your criticism. The standard can not be read out of context and you can not parse sentences from the whole intent. In 8.7, the previous paragraph reads: "...The organization shall take appropriate action based on the nature of the nonconformity and its effect..."

So, like you say, in MOST cases, just informing the customer that a nonconformity happened would NEVER be, in itself, an appropriate action. Then, other measures must be taken IN ADDITION TO notifying the customer.

 

[Big Jim]

Please don't try and give me reading lessons. I can read just fine. It is a clear mistake and there is no dancing around it so don't try. It is not out of context. It is clearly in context, and it is simply wrong. I'm not insulting your reading ability and I simply ask that you don't insult mine along with most other readers.

"One of more" is very clear. One of them on the list is NEVER enough by itself. It is NEVER enough to simply notify the customer.

I can envision the phone call now. Hi Sam, this is Tommy from ABC Manufacturing. We just shipped you some nonconforming material. I hope you enjoy it. According to ISO 9001:2015 8.7.1c we don't have to do anything but inform you.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Please don't try and give me reading lessons. I can read just fine.

Just to point out that this was extensively discussed @ Discussion on TC 176 and ISO 9001:2015 8.7.1 The opposing views were mine and the guy who is taking over the TC 176 SC2 chairmanship; enough said.

 

[jmech]

In some cases, it may be enough to simply notify the customer, because it may be too late to take any of the other actions listed in 8.7.1.

If the nonconformance is discovered after the product has been delivered and consumed, the other options under 8.7.1 are no longer possible.

 

[Big Jim]

There would still be a responsibility to make it right with the customer so informing the customer would not be the last remaining option. Or is there an argument that you can tell the customer and do nothing more about it? Pure folly.

 

[AndyN]

I'll weigh in here and agree that it may be perfectly satisfactory to simply inform the client about the nature of the non-conformity. When people start adding their personal preferences for how the standard was written it becomes dangerous and lord knows, we see plenty of goofy audit findings already, without the standard following that train of thought. Since the nature of a "non-conformity" hasn't been discussed, anyone who ventures to suggest any specific course of action - other than broad categories" needs to be very careful about paradigms...

 

[Big Jim]

Sidney, the topic was spun around and spun around on the occasion you linked to. Remember the audience, the users of the standard, the certified companies. They are more likely to take something at face value. The clear reading here is that one of the ways to deal with nonconforming product is to simply tell the customer.

I'll never accept that is a viable option by itself, and you should not either.