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

[Sidney Vianna]

A very interesting article and links to the full position paper and a draft of a future ISO 9000 document is available via the CQI website @ http://www.thecqi.org/Community/Standards-development-group/Future-revision-of-ISO-9000/

 

[vanputten]

In sharing the following, I am not implying I side with any one organization or direction for 9001.

I would say that CQI will have some difficulties in attaining their goal with the Quality Management Principles work already in progress and with the work on the High Level Structure (HLS) text that is being proposed to be the basis for all standards based on 9001. If the HLS work is approved, all ISO published standards, that are based on ISO 9001, will be revised with the standardized text. This may effect the 2015 timeline referred to in this thread.

This week the US Standard Group (US TAG to TC176) is having their semiannual meeting in Washington D.C. The QMP's and the HLS are core topics being discussed.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If the HLS work is approved, all ISO published standards, that are based on ISO 9001, will be revised with the standardized text. This may effect the 2015 timeline referred to in this thread.

Dirk, my understanding is that if the ISO TCG has it's way, ALL future ISO Management System Standards will have to follow the common structure. So, this goes beyond ISO 9001 and it's industry augmentations (AS9100, TS16949, ISO 13485, etc.) and would affect standards such as ISO 14001, ISO 22000, ISO 27001, ISO 50001, etc.

We have a thread going on that subject: The Future Structure of ISO Management System Standards.

 

[samsung]

A very interesting article and links to the full position paper and a draft of a future ISO 9000 document is available via the CQI website @ http://www.thecqi.org/Community/Standards-development-group/Future-revision-of-ISO-9000/

In fact few day ago I started a thread What could be the Leadership strengths of an organization and until then I wasn't aware of the 'full position paper and a draft for future ISO documents' attached by you, but somehow I wanted to know what are those typical attributes that keep the organizations ahead of their competitors and two of the things (agility and learning attitude) that I firmly believe in as being the cornerstones of the organizational sustainability are quite consistent with the 'Concept of Management System' as described in this draft:

An organization’s capability to deliver desired outcomes depends on its leadership’s ability to align its mission, vision, values and culture with the strategies, policies, processes and resources it employs to achieve them.
Organizations that sustain their capability:
a) are adaptive to their external environment;
b) continually enhance their capability to change/adapt;
c) develop collective as well as individual learning;
d) use the results of learning to achieve better results.

Indeed a great add on and is sure to get due recognition upon its official release.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

A very interesting article and links to the full position paper and a draft of a future ISO 9000 document is available via the CQI website @ http://www.thecqi.org/Community/Standards-development-group/Future-revision-of-ISO-9000/

One of the CQI propositions in the hyperlinked article is

Removing the model of a process-based management system as it is flawed in several ways

I am not sure what is the thinking behind that, but I would estimate it would be a tough sell for the TC 176. After barraging the Quality community for 12 years that a process approach is a worthy principle to rally behind, to simply say: oops, we don't like process-based management systems anymore will drive the ISO 9001 registrant community up the wall, in my estimation. There will be riots on the streets...

 

[howste]

One of the CQI propositions in the hyperlinked article is

Removing the model of a process-based management system as it is flawed in several ways

I am not sure what is the thinking behind that, but I would estimate it would be a tough sell for the TC 176. After barraging the Quality community for 12 years that a process approach is a worthy principle to rally behind, to simply say: oops, we don't like process-based management systems anymore will drive the ISO 9001 registrant community up the wall, in my estimation. There will be riots on the streets...

As I read their proposal, my understanding is that they are not proposing to remove the concept of process-based management systems. This would certainly cause an uproar in the whole community.

What they are proposing is to remove the diagram (Figure 1 in ISO 9001) that claims to be a "model of a process-based management system." They claim that the diagram is flawed, and bring up nine arguments to support their claim. I agree with at least half of them, and have used some of the same arguments here in The Cove to convince people that the diagram should not be used in their quality manual to model their process interactions.

 

[samsung]

They claim that the diagram is flawed, and bring up nine arguments to support their claim. I agree with at least half of them, and have used some of the same arguments here in The Cove to convince people that the diagram should not be used in their quality manual to model their process interactions.

For our benefit, could you please bring up what are those nine arguments to support why the diagram is flawed.

Thanks.

 

[Peter Fraser]

In sharing the following, I am not implying I side with any one organization or direction for 9001.

I would say that CQI will have some difficulties in attaining their goal with the Quality Management Principles work already in progress and with the work on the High Level Structure (HLS) text that is being proposed to be the basis for all standards based on 9001. If the HLS work is approved, all ISO published standards, that are based on ISO 9001, will be revised with the standardized text. This may effect the 2015 timeline referred to in this thread.

Dirk

I don't doubt that you may be right! I agree that Guide 83 (ref the HLS) is likely to restrict standards development - it seems to have been written on the basis that ISO9000/9001 is more or less perfect now, which reduces the chances of getting any radical changes in future, even if they are justified. One of the key messages the CQI paper is putting forward is the need for a standard or a template for the design of a management system, so that 9001 etc are clearly seen as a means to assess a particular aspect of an organisation.

PS I was one of the authors of the CQI paper, and I'll try to answer any other questions that come up. (John Broomfield may also pitch in...)

 

[Peter Fraser]

What they are proposing is to remove the diagram (Figure 1 in ISO 9001) that claims to be a "model of a process-based management system." They claim that the diagram is flawed, and bring up nine arguments to support their claim. I agree with at least half of them, and have used some of the same arguments here in The Cove to convince people that the diagram should not be used in their quality manual to model their process interactions.

Howste

Exactly so! We do not believe that "the process approach", or the key elements of process management, are well enough understood and explained, and the diagram is an extreme example of this.

 

[Peter Fraser]

For our benefit, could you please bring up what are those nine arguments to support why the diagram is flawed.

Thanks.

Samsung

"The diagram of a process based quality management system in ISO 9000, ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 is seriously flawed for several reasons:
- an organization is too complex for it to be modelled in such a way;
- the elements within the ellipse imply processes but in fact they are simply the headings of sections 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the standard. Some of the requirements are deliberately placed in section 8 because the only section where exclusions are permitted is section 7; hence product measurement and nonconformity control, which should be part of product realization, are included in section 8 and not section 7;
- management responsibility is not a process but a series of obligations;
- separating measurement, analysis and improvement implies that the output from product realization is not measured because product measurement is addressed in section 8 of the standard not section 7;
- the continual improvement element that sits outside the ellipse implies it’s outside the system when it is already addressed by the measurement analysis and improvement element and indeed the requirements of section 8;
- the diagram omits other stakeholders upon which the delivery of outputs depend such as suppliers, employees and investors;
- there is no indication of the influence of the business environment mentioned in clause 0.1 of the standard;
- only a very limited number of “information flows” and “value-adding activities” are shown;
- the use of the terms “customer” and “product” is compromised by conflicting definitions in section 3 of ISO 9000."