What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2015 Standard?

[Sorin]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

I apologize for the confusion. I did not mean to say that 1987 was a good standard. It was not because it was too generic in an efgfort to make it suitable for every kind of company.

My take is that every requirement shall be pushed to the limits and applied as suitable/applicable by every company.

All you need after that is to have competent auditors. That is not too much to ask now....or is it?

 

[samsung]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

Another change that I would want to see in the standard is the clear definition of the term 'CUSTOMER'.

The term 'Customer' repeats itself for about 55 times throughout the standard. For a beginner, the term appears quite vague and later becomes a daunting task beyond grasp till one receives a few major findings from the CB.

Customer is defined as the person or the organization that receives the product and somewhere it is also mentioned that 'a customer can be external or internal'. Based on the above explanations & the prescribed requirements, it's clear that 'customers' ARE internal as well as external in every case.

My point is that there should be a clear explanation of what exactly is applicable for each of the above two categories of customers. If there are two different categories of customers, why not to use different terminology for each of the categories for the ease of apprehension. Is the 'process owner' (there has to be one) any different from the 'internal customer' (or supplier)?

Now let's have a look at the various requirements that an organization has to meet in order to satisfy the 'customer'(?); e.g.

"Top management shall ensure that customer requirements are determined and are met with the aim of enhancing customer satisfaction" - So long as 'external' customers are concerned, it's OK but in case of internal ones, why should one 'determine the requirements'? Why don't they (internal product recipients, aka 'customers') themselves specify what they require? The clause may add 'Top management shall also ensure that the internal recipients of the product(s) shall explicitly specify their requirements and make them known to the concerned 'suppliers' beforehand to enable them to achieve their satisfaction" exactly as in the case of Purchasing & also in line with clause 7.2.2 (a) where the standard requires that the product requirements are defined.

"The input to management review shall include information on (b) customer feedback",
Which category of customers ? If the answer is 'both', do organizations collect & review the feedback from the 'Internal' customers along the line it does for 'externals'? If not, is it acceptable ?

Clause 7.2 'Customer related processes - again which customer ? Is it necessary to maintain records of the results of the review (of internal customer requirements) and actions arising from the review ?

Clause 7.5.4 Customer property - Is it applicable to the internal customers as well ? Intellectual property and personal data of the employees (that include many of the internal customers as well) is a common feature and every organization has to have them.

Clause 8.2 and so forth. What others have to say ?

 

[Colin]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

Whilst I agree in principle with what you are saying, doesn't the 'process approach' cater for this? It requires the organisation to identify inputs and outputs to and from the various activities within the organisation and to control them. If the output from one activity is not satisfactory as the input to the next activity it needs addressing. But please lets not go down the path of raising an N/C or complaint form and seeking customer satisfaction questionnaires. :mg:

 

[samsung]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

Whilst I agree in principle with what you are saying, doesn't the 'process approach' cater for this? It requires the organisation to identify inputs and outputs to and from the various activities within the organisation and to control them. If the output from one activity is not satisfactory as the input to the next activity it needs addressing. But please lets not go down the path of raising an N/C or complaint form and seeking customer satisfaction questionnaires. :mg:

I do agree with your comments on the inherent merits of the 'Process Approach' v/s customer satisfaction (internal & external). I have no doubts as regards to its value but what bothers many of us is the ambiguous use of the term CUSTOMER & the specific requirements related therewith throughout the standard.

The standard should therefore, IMO:

1. Differentiate between the 'invented customer' and the 'literal customer' although both may have similar requirements but with varying level of tolerance.

2. Coin a different terminology for the internal players (who receive the intended output) to send a clear message that the requirements in relation to, e.g.; clause 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.5.4 & even 8.2.1 are specifically intended for the EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS. And if the standard has a different intention than what people might consider, it may specify in a foot note that the requirements are UNIFORMLY applicable to internal as well as the external customers including the end users.

3. Make the standard uncomplicated so that the requirements are understood the way they are intended for. If everyone interprets the same thing differently, there certainly lies an ambiguity in the statement (though not the intent) itself.

Thanks

 

[Peter Fraser]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

I do agree with your comments on the inherent merits of the 'Process Approach' v/s customer satisfaction (internal & external). I have no doubts as regards to its value but what bothers many of us is the ambiguous use of the term CUSTOMER & the specific requirements related therewith throughout the standard.

The standard should therefore, IMO:

1. Differentiate between the 'invented customer' and the 'literal customer' although both may have similar requirements but with varying level of tolerance.

2. Coin a different terminology for the internal players (who receive the intended output) to send a clear message that the requirements in relation to, e.g.; clause 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.5.4 & even 8.2.1 are specifically intended for the EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS. And if the standard has a different intention than what people might consider, it may specify in a foot note that the requirements are UNIFORMLY applicable to internal as well as the external customers including the end users.

3. Make the standard uncomplicated so that the requirements are understood the way they are intended for. If everyone interprets the same thing differently, there certainly lies an ambiguity in the statement (though not the intent) itself.

Thanks

I totally agree - see In ISO 9001:2008 - Can we show an Internal Department as our Client/Customer

How about:

Product: "Goods or services produced or provided by the Organisation for the benefit of another organisation or person, often for payment."
Note a product is the “output” of the Organisation, and its processes are “the means by which the output is created”.

Customer: "An organisation or person that receives a product from the Organisation."

I suspect that is how most folk think, and it is also how most sections of ISO9001 use the terms.

 

[samsung]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

I totally agree - see In ISO 9001:2008 - Can we show an Internal Department as our Client/Customer

How about:

Product: "Goods or services produced or provided by the Organisation for the benefit of another organisation or person, often for payment."
Note a product is the “output” of the Organisation, and its processes are “the means by which the output is created”.

Customer: "An organisation or person that receives a product from the Organisation."

I suspect that is how most folk think, and it is also how most sections of ISO9001 use the terms.

That makes better sense. A 'saleable product' must be differentiated from the 'product intended for' or what results from the Product Realization Process'. Infact the 'Product Realization Process' may generate number of 'products' through a series of operations. In reality, the two 'products' with differing characteristics are always identified by two different but unique names for the sake of avoiding confusion. Why can't the standard differentiate between the two ? I'm sure all the requirements related to the 'product' can't be uniformly applied to the 'output' of the process or something that generates as a result of PRP.

"a customer is an organization or person that receives a product" means a 'beneficiary'. Why not term the internal customers as 'beneficiaries' in order to differentiate them from the 'literal customers / end users?

All requirements of this International Standard are generic and are intended to be applicable to all organizations, regardless of type, size and product provided.

In view of its complex terminology, I still wonder if it can be successfully implemented at schools.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

That makes better sense. A 'saleable product' must be differentiated from the 'product intended for' or what results from the Product Realization Process'. Infact the 'Product Realization Process' may generate number of 'products' through a series of operations. In reality, the two 'products' with differing characteristics are always identified by two different but unique names for the sake of avoiding confusion. Why can't the standard differentiate between the two ? I'm sure all the requirements related to the 'product' can't be uniformly applied to the 'output' of the process or something that generates as a result of PRP.

Again, the problem is that the standard is using the term "product" for two different things (as we already agree it does for "customer") - the "Goods or services produced or provided by the Organisation for the benefit of another organisation or person, often for payment" on the one hand, and "the output (things that are produced) from the processes involved in creating the final product" on the other.

"a customer is an organization or person that receives a product" means a 'beneficiary'. Why not term the internal customers as 'beneficiaries' in order to differentiate them from the 'literal customers / end users?

I am not sure that would help, or even that it is always true. The concept of an internal supplier-customer relationship is just a good reminder that we all depend on other people to do their jobs so that we can do ours.

In view of its complex terminology, I still wonder if it can be successfully implemented at schools.

Only if they can clarify what "product" and "customer" means in this context - and there are a few possible answers. It is less cut-and-dried than for a company which sells widgets. I wonder if a certification body always asks an organisation who it thinks its "customer" is?

 

[samsung]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

The concept of an internal supplier-customer relationship is just a good reminder that we all depend on other people to do their jobs so that we can do ours.

That's OK. I too support this 'school of thoughts'. What is confusing here is not the intent, but the term customer used in a philosophical manner to denote both the supplier as well as the recipient so far as internal transaction is concerned but the moment we look beyond the organizational boundaries, the terminology changes and so does the meaning.

The way the message is conveyed, it appears as if every other in the organization, at one hand, is a 'customer' while a 'supplier' on the other (including the top management as it also 'receives' and 'supplies' constantly).

It may take a beginner years to comprehend what the standard intends to communicate at all. It's quite difficult for him to delineate it with the real world scenario.

BTW, what's the relation between two 'actual' (external) customers ? I can say 'None'. The meaning of a term should not change with its placement. The 'customer' has only one face and should therefore be recognized from a factual standpoint to make it distinguishable.

 

[JaneB]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

Whilst I agree in principle with what you are saying, doesn't the 'process approach' cater for this? It requires the organisation to identify inputs and outputs to and from the various activities within the organisation and to control them. If the output from one activity is not satisfactory as the input to the next activity it needs addressing. But please lets not go down the path of raising an N/C or complaint form and seeking customer satisfaction questionnaires. :mg:

Yes, good answer.

1. Differentiate between the 'invented customer' and the 'literal customer' although both may have similar requirements but with varying level of tolerance.

Why should the Standard be written in a way that ONLY applies to commercial organisations and ONLY deals with external customers? I disagree.

I'm sure this sounds simply logical, fine and dandy when your experience is only the former, but there are many different possible permutations out there! One of the strengths and things I like about the Standard is its flexibility.

I wonder if a certification body always asks an organisation who it thinks its "customer" is?

All the good ones do.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?

Why should the Standard be written in a way that ONLY applies to commercial organisations and ONLY deals with external customers? I disagree.

I'm sure this sounds simply logical, fine and dandy when your experience is only the former, but there are many different possible permutations out there! One of the strengths and things I like about the Standard is its flexibility.

I don't think that is what Samsung is saying. Introducing the concept of an "internal customer" into the standard, and at the same time talking of customer-oriented processes, customer requirements, customer satisfaction etc must make it very difficult for someone to pick up the standard for the first time and i) work out what it means and ii) how to apply it to what they do.

All the good ones do.

So maybe some don't...?!