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

[Marcelo]

Please will you give us the context for those teams, tell us more about the task force doing the work, how you learned this, etc.?

Hi Dirk

Sorry, I should`ve removed the mention of teams, forgot about it.

Anyway, that work was performed by a request to TC 176/SC 2 to create a task group to consider new concepts and ideas for inclusion in a future revision of ISO 9001.

The group was subdivided in 5 teams, each one tasked with analysing differents concepts and ideas (and even the revision of existing ones).

Regarding how I got this, well, the usual way - I'm an expert member in several WGs in ISO (I'm not an expert member in TC 176 yet, on ly in the Brazilian mirror, but I'm an expert member on TC 210 WG 1 which is quality systems for medical devies and we have to track what is happening in TC 176 because ISO 13485 is based on ISO 9001).

 

[mguilbert]

just a hypothetical idea but integrating the 9000 and 14000 would be better so as the industries would have more concern on the matter of both quality and the environment.

might as well also integrate health and safety.

im not saying to immediately remove those stated above but if example industries which have those above can apply for a single standard which incorporate all those, ie, higher level of standard compare to the 3 individuals

As stated at the 2012 International ISO Confernence during open discussion the company can add what every it wants to its ISO 9001 cert. Remember they could have named it "Great Management System" instead of "Quality...". They are only certifying your management system not your product see except below

"Here is a quick quiz: Which of these could land you in hot water with ISO?

A. Advertising that your products are "ISO certified"

B. Announcing your company is "ISO 9000 Registered"

C. Noting in your annual report that your company is "ISO 9001:2008" registered, when you are owned by a holding company that provides no products or services itself

Actually, all three would be in violation of ISO's guidelines on promoting various forms of ISO certification. Here is why:

A. ISO certification does not apply to specific products. In fact, about the only you can say about a product is that the management system used by the company producing the product was certified. If you think that won't fit on your product package, you're probably doing yourself a favor since a reading of the stipulations implies that even noting certification on the product package can be misleading to consumers. It does allow you to make reference to your certification by process only." see link for more info http://the9000store.com/iso-registered-marketing.aspx

Also you would cost the supporting cast as well as ISO many dollars if you created one vast all encompassing standard. Think of the audit hours lost, consultations lost, reference material revenues lost, not to mention ISO charges for each registration and CB, for each standard. The ISO 9001 standard typically costs around $100 not to mention the cost for the other standards. I personally like their current approach of allowing companies to pick and choose which standards they want to be certified to and making them more compatible.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

How about ideas for Elimination of Waste, Simplification, Standardization and Automation as agenda items for Management Review instead of just Continuous Improvement? Thanks

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

Re: Split top management: At the beginning and at the end.

Specific Guidelines for controlling outsourced process vs processes that are conducted at remote locations?

Also why not introduce the Control Plans in the ISO standards?

 

[MichelleN]

I think that if you feel that you need to use the standard as a cudgel, changing the standard probably won't help much. If people don't honor the requirements, there's a management problem that probably won't be overcome until management does something about it.

Jim,

I've never meant to use the standard as a cudgel and I've never done that. I am trying to say that the standard is too general right now and it may give way to interpretation.
I should also add that John is right, in those cases presented by me it is indeed a leadership problem...

Thanks

 

[JaneB]

How about ideas for Elimination of Waste, Simplification, Standardization and Automation as agenda items for Management Review instead of just Continuous Improvement? Thanks

To me, these seem overly prescriptive and slanted toward manufacturing - many if not all of my services-based clients would absolutely struggle if they were forced to have these as agenda items!

'Continuous improvement' leaves it up to the organisation itself to determine where it should best improve.

 

[SpongeMouse]

...ISO certification does not apply to specific products... It does allow you to make reference to your certification by process only." see link for more info http://the9000store.com/iso-registered-marketing.aspx

Also you would cost the supporting cast as well as ISO many dollars if you created one vast all encompassing standard. Think of the audit hours lost, consultations lost, reference material revenues lost, not to mention ISO charges for each registration and CB, for each standard. The ISO 9001 standard typically costs around $100 not to mention the cost for the other standards. I personally like their current approach of allowing companies to pick and choose which standards they want to be certified to and making them more compatible.

i agree there, but in my point, there are many elements that corresponds to each other, though not that specifically, but say comp X has already have those 3 systems in place, ie OHS, ISO and 14k, then what if a standard that could be simplified as one, thus auditing (ext and internally) would also be on a single process for the 3, and not just for the individual, anyway, the company X has already in place all of the 3 mentioned.

as my observation, there are matrix's that indicated similarities in principle (see attached), this example makes me just think of the possible scenarios that such 3 systems can be integrated as a single entity.

those 3 process = quality (products and services, environ mgnt, and occupation condition)

thus, integration is possible.

 

[SpongeMouse]

I have a question with regard to 4.2.3 b): if the company doesn't indicate anywhere an interval for reviewing internal procedures and therefore (some of) the procedures are maybe 8-10 years old and there is no indication of such review how can an internal auditor raise an audit nonconformance for this requirement taking into consideration the exact wording from b)?? Especially when a manager (the audit manager!!) answers: it is /was not necessary. "As necessary" there was not a very good choice in my opinion.

4.2.3 Control of documents
b) to review and update as necessary and re-approve documents

controlling of documents is a living thing, dynamic and not static, in any angle, it still evolves. as process changes, anything, if not most of it, also do change (direct and indirect process, docs etc). that is why the QMS indicates all the time, "reviews", "changes", "revisions", etc.

as the organization is dynamic, all the things are also included and not fixed.

 

[SilverHawk]

ISO/TC 176 SC 2 WG24 will be meeting in Bilbao, Spain from June 18 - 22, 2012 to look into the revision of ISO 9001 standard.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

Thank you. Maybe continual improvement SHALL be implemented instead of continuous improvement?