What does the revised standard ISO 9001:2008 mean to Jim "Q" public

[vanputten]

Hello Tyker:

I agree that the cost of the clarification to ISO 9001 may not be worth the benefit.

However, posting a critical comment about where the profits go based on cynicism, and not fact, may not be too beneficial for the Cove.

In the US, national and international TC176 members pay their own way to meetings. There is a proposal on the table to charge annual dues to pay for some of the international travel.

 

[Colin]

I too agree about the financial cost not being worth the changes but I suspect that the environmental cost of the changes is even higher.

What about all of those air and road miles travelled by the committee members and think of how many pages of paper are going to be re-printed when people change ISO 9001:2000 into ISO 9001:2008 in their quality manuals and procedures plus all the training course notes and slides that will be changed too.

 

[tyker]

Hello Tyker:

I agree that the cost of the clarification to ISO 9001 may not be worth the benefit.

However, posting a critical comment about where the profits go based on cynicism, and not fact, may not be too beneficial for the Cove.

In the US, national and international TC176 members pay their own way to meetings. There is a proposal on the table to charge annual dues to pay for some of the international travel.

I'm afraid I don't fully understand your second sentence. If you feel my comments were in some way detrimental to the Cove, feel free to refer them to the moderators.

I just don't care who pays for TC 176 meetings. The money spent to come up with the 2008 revision has, in my opinion, been wasted. My complaint is that their efforts will result in many organizations, including my own, shelling out a lot of cash to buy a standard, the amendments to which are worthless.

 

[little__cee]

My complaint is that their efforts will result in many organizations, including my own, shelling out a lot of cash to buy a standard, the amendments to which are worthless.

I asked our auditor yesterday if we needed to purchase the new standard and keep a copy in house and he said no. I won't be buying a new standard!

 

[breeza]

I asked our auditor yesterday if we needed to purchase the new standard and keep a copy in house and he said no. I won't be buying a new standard!

I will be having an external auditor from our national certfying body end of the year, so do I need to change our manual and quality policy again, coz we just revised and published our policy or we are allowed to keep the wording and documentation and change over a given period (24 months)?

 

[Peter West]

I thought that there was usually a certain timelag from when the Standard is issued to when it is expected to be fully implemented (the new changes, if abny, that is).

Don't quote me on that but that is just what I have overheard at various places. Maybe the Cove Elites can confirm

 

[vanputten]

Hello Tyker:

Below are are excerpts from two of your postings. Does each posting mean the same thing?

"I know someone has to pay for the technical committee members' holidays but I've got better things to do with my employer's cash."

"I just don't care who pays for TC 176 meetings. The money spent to come up with the 2008 revision has, in my opinion, been wasted. My complaint is that their efforts will result in many organizations, including my own, shelling out a lot of cash to buy a standard, the amendments to which are worthless."

If you wanted to share your concerns with how the revision waste users' money, then say that. But to accuse TC 176 members of profiting from standards sales is a different message. You made a critical comment on TC176 based on assumptions of how profit from standard sales are used.

 

[KReynolds]

I work as a consultant and ISO is only one of my many hats. One client I work for is taking this opportunity to completely revise their documentation. It was to 9001:1994 and patched to 2000, but has been a source of problems as it was still structured around the 1994 standard. Their last external audit had several non-conformances that were because of their documentation - the auditors helped in explaining how they were their worst enemies because of it.
Their recertification audit is coming up early next year and will be to the 9001:2008, so they have an impetus to get it done (possible more work for me).

 

[charanjit singh]

As per the schedule announced for the release of ISO 9001"2008, the standard is expected to be issued by end 2008. It is also stated that certifications issued to ISO 9001:2000 shall not be valid 24 after the release of the new document, which implies that certificate issued say in Dec 2008 just before the release will become invalid by end of 2010 instead of 2011 as it would otherwise.

Now if the new version does not have any change in the requirements as such - has only clarifications - what is the big idea of making the certifications invalid after 24 months instead of 36 months as the normal course?

Could someone please throw some light on this?

 

[howste]

During the 24 month period all existing certifications must transition to 2008. The new 2008 certificate would have the appropriate ending date 3 years after the certification/recertification date.