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

[Helmut Jilling]

Hi Patricia, things are fine down under with wonderful cool/cold weather this time of year.

My boss (at that workplace) said my flow charts were too ‘cluttered’ and to cut them down to the bear minimum which was a waste of time of course.

But I’ll learn from that and keep going as and when I can.

I now work for an organisation whose procedures are a combination of swim lanes and text. Sooooo much emphasis on format and sadly it’s a case of ignore the first 5 pages of a procedure before the reader gets to the meat. Its difficult to change something you inherit.

An accurate sequence and interaction model remains elusive and gravity is strong. I think it will take some 3D software to do it accurately.

Thank you for continuing your contributions to the Cove.

Perhaps you are thinking like an Engineer....perhaps they should be simplified so they are relevant to your internal customers, the OTHER managers who will be using these documents...keep them simple enough that even a manager can understand them!

 

[pldey42]

Thanks Pat and my other friends,
I am working as an MR to a Japanese automotive MNC where the work culture itself is so demanding and challenging. Everything is directed towards MR. whatever is happening within organization must be reviewed by MR. He must have all solutions, reports and even analysis too. So, how do the New ISO will going to make MR's life a real job with comforts (not so much ) and workloadfree

The new version of ISO 9001 won't by itself make it easier, just as the old version did not prescribe the level of detail that's making your life impossible.

Please don't see the standard - nor auditors - as masters; rather, use the standard as a framework for defining processes that work.

But if it helps, maybe you could point to the new version and say, "Look it doesn't demand a management rep and there's no prescription in it for my role (not that there was, but never mind) - so let's please do something that works for everyone, doesn't overload me with work that I can delegate, and allows me to do my real job which is to focus our organization on quality. Oh, and since my role was not prescribed in this way anyhow, let's not wait for the new version and get sane process management in place now, because it won't put our current certification at risk. And if the auditors don't get it, let's either train them properly or get competent auditors."

By the way, I believe that both India and Japan tend to operate very hierarchical management cultures (the West does too, but they're a bit easier to subvert I suspect), so this might be easier for me to say than for you to do. It might be a long game.

Hope this helps
Pat

 

[IMPraveen]

Hey Pat,
Your Highness. everytime you give me the exact solution as desired. Thanks

 

[pldey42]

Aw shucks. Glad to be of some assistance.

Pat

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The first one is preventive action. The TC 176 should re-phrase the requirements associated with preventive actions, so it can be meaningfully implemented in the real world. At present, the requirement is unclear and difficult to assess compliance against.

Another suggestion I have is for emphasis on process and system effectiveness. 8.2.3, for example, is completely disregarded by many organizations.

I started this thread over 6 years ago. We now know that the first wish was granted. Wonder if the TC 176 SC2 WG24 will acknowledge the Cove in the ISO 9001:2015 document.

As for process effectiveness, the "process approach" will now be mandatory. But, just because it will be mandatory does not mean that everyone will do it.:mg:

 

[Paul Simpson]

I started this thread over 6 years ago. We now know that the first wish was granted.

You and I have discussed this for more than the 6 years of this thread, Sidney. I prefer to think of it not as 'gone' but better explained - even if we have no clue as to what whirlwind 'risk and opportunity' will bring down on us.

Wonder if the TC 176 SC2 WG24 will acknowledge the Cove in the ISO 9001:2015 document.

Not sure how many Covers are on WG 24 but I have certainly pointed a few people this way over the years.

As for process effectiveness, the "process approach" will now be mandatory. But, just because it will be mandatory does not mean that everyone will do it.:mg:

A bit like the comment for preventive action. I agree the wording has changed (at least so far) but the spirit is exactly the same. From 2000 onwards tha approach has been in the requirements (under clause 4.1, you know, the one everyone glosses over! ). The fact that there is now a requirement under 5.1.1 for 'Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the quality management system by:' ' e) promoting awareness of the process approach;' means absolutely nothing unless the process approach is defined somewhere - preferably in the requirements section or at least in normative (ISO 9000) definitions.

 

[Marc]

January - 2015 - ISO9001:2014 - errr.... ISO 9001:2015!

As a member of the US TAG to TC 176, I am extremely interested in this thread. We have already started collecting potential revisions. I will gladly take any and all suggestions to our March meeting in Dallas. Thanks for priming the pump!

I remember this - The TC 176 person who used to visit here had to become "Anonymous"... It was Verboten for a TC 176 person to associate with us mere mortals here at Elsmar. Take for that what you will...

Anyway - Considering the status of ISO 9001:2015 (was originally supposed to be ISO 9001:2014, I think) at this point, this thread is dead for all intents and purposes.

If you read through this discussion thread, it is interesting to look at our "wants" and expectations going back to 2008, and look at the changes we know have been made (can you say "Risk Based Thinking"?). Yes, it's not "official" yet, but we know what it's going to be other than some minor pi$$ing matches over minor wording.

The thread will remain open for discussion for a while in case any of you want to comment on any of the posts.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: January - 2015 - ISO9001:2014 - errr.... ISO 9001:2015!

Hi, Marc. There isn't a ban on people posting on here who are members of either TC 176 or any national mirror committee like the US TAG or, in my case, the UK BSI QS / 1. I've been on QS / 1 and (off and on) TC 176 for over 7 years now.

There are some rules. I can't represent my views as that of any working group but I can report the results (without divulging who thought what and when - or at least not too much detail! ). I regularly point TC 176 members to Elsmar and LinkedIn threads as examples of what the 'real world' is thinking.

One of the problems is lack of time. Most of the good people on standards development are busy people and can't get dragged into interminable debate - particularly as the ISO process is prescribed and formal. So we can flag up good ideas but can't insist on them if other members of the working group don't agree.

 

[Marc]

Re: January - 2015 - ISO9001:2014 - errr.... ISO 9001:2015!

Paul,

I'm sure it isn't a big deal, especially these days. I quoted the "20110108 Request" post because I remember the frantic request that his/her posts be deleted. I didn't delete the posts (too many good ones which would have disrupted the discussion continuity), but I did change the name and essentially anonymized all the posts that person made.

That was in January 2011 - Four years ago. The times, they are changing...

 

[Marc]

Which wish was granted?

I started this thread over 6 years ago. We now know that the first wish was granted. <snip>

Which wish was granted?