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

[Marcelo]

Hey, just kidding

Anyway, although you are correct we do not know for sure... it would be very difficult to have it published on 2015.

Even if we have an NWIP this year, with the usual 36-months development process, the standard will have enough modifications (due to the SG 2 evaluation of possible changes/revisions) that the discussion will probably take some additional years.

 

[Marcelo]

the "systematic" review of ISO 9001 that was started by ISO Central Secretariat on 15 October, and which is due to be completed on 15 March 2012

Yeah, this is a problem. We may have a reconfirmed 2015 (or even 2012 or 2013 or 2014) version, due to the ISO CS requirements, with no modification.

he impending decision of the ISO/TMB on Draft ISO Guide 83

This has already gone crazy in my opinion, because people are now having to put things on hold due to a debate that has been going for some years now. Go figure.

 

[Boingo-boingo]

with no modification.

Hugely unlikely, in my opinion. ISO has to implement at least some "clarifications", via an amended standard, like they did in 2008. By doing so, they could justify the sales of additional millions of copies of the standard, as done during and after the latest revision. Let's not forget the comer$ial implications of such decision and the trickle down effects in the conformity assessment industry with fees for new certificates, deadlines, books, training, etc...

 

[Marcelo]

Hugely unlikely, in my opinion. ISO has to implement at least some "clarifications", via an amended standard, like they did in 2008. By doing so, they could justify the sales of additional millions of copies of the standard, as done during and after the latest revision. Let's not forget the comer$ial implications of such decision and the trickle down effects in the conformity assessment industry with fees for new certificates, deadlines, books, training, etc...

If its reaffirmed in the systematic review, it cannot be modified.

 

[Paul Simpson]

You are absolutely right. Right on. An organization using an elemental approach has not effectively demonstrated conformity to the requirements of 4.1.

Well hi, ISO 9001 guy (snappy name!) thanks for your agreement but just what is an elemental approach for my background info.?

 

[Marcelo]

Well hi, ISO 9001 guy (snappy name!) thanks for your agreement but just what is an elemental approach for my background info.?

He meant the idea of implementing the standard as answers for the different clauses (elements), focusing in conformity to requirements (usually forgetting the business needs and process objectives).

 

[snappy]

Far be it for me to disagree but I believe the standard demands a process approach but many ignore the requirement.
... now this is where it gets a bit subjective. IMHO the definition of what is required to operate a process approach is covered in clause 4.1 (I know it is a hobby horse of mine but you'd hate me to change tack this late in the day!)

• determine the processes needed
• determine the sequence and interaction of these processes,
• determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operation and control of these processes are effective,
• ensure the availability of resources and information necessary to support the operation and monitoring of these processes,
• monitor, measure where applicable, and analyse these processes, and
• implement actions necessary to achieve planned results and continual improvement of these processes.

I agree that the process approach is required. But how can so many organizations be certified without it? From my experience, I run into only one process-based system in every 12-20 QMSs I meet.

 

[Ka Pilo]

There is nothing about unannounced audits in ISO 19011 - they are generally, speaking, not a good idea! You will not get any value from them!

The point of unannounced audits is to see if you are doing what you say you do all the time or only on the days you expect the auditors to be there and more importantly to understand the true operational practices of the site.

 

[Antonio Vieira]

In my opinion the new version of the standard should be rated with requirements by levels.
In the actual situation of a standard so opened (we state some processes, we measure the effectiveness of them and we get a certificate) , it’s not fair to compare registered systems at the same level .
The level system would be also great for small organizations achieve continuous improvement just by fulfilling new and more exigent requirements. Also the survey audits made every year by registers would finally be of some use, and not just a visit to see that we are doing the same we have been doing last year!

 

[John Broomfield]

The point of unannounced audits is to see if you are doing what you say you do all the time or only on the days you expect the auditors to be there and more importantly to understand the true operational practices of the site.

Sorry Ka Pilo,

If you turned up unannounced to audit the work of my team I would ask you to leave without delay so we can continue our work.

Better for everyone to add authority to the audit and its report by seeking agreement every step of the way.

Besides, people cannot conceal system weaknesses from a good auditor no matter how much notice they receive.

John