Re: What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2014 Standard?
8.2.3 is the job description of a supervisor. 
Instead of firefighting
due to a lack of clear requirements and process control they are making sure the operators are monitoring their processes (and measuring as planned - see 7.1c). They are making sure the criteria used for process control (see 4.1c) are working effectively and that the operators have all the resources they need for the process to result in conforming product.
By working this way, supervisors, managers, directors and vice presidents can demonstrate their commitment to requirements (providing resources) in a way that is useful to the operators. I believe that Chrysler mistakenly called this "Layered Process Auditing" instead of monitoring or supervision.
8.2.3 can be one of the continual improvement clauses. Done well, process monitoring and measurement would certainly reduce the need for internal auditing. I have, however, seen the auditors made responsible for process monitoring and that, of course. is a travesty!
If 8.2.3 does not read correctly for you then why not propose a rewrite? This is how standards are developed. The convention is to give good reasons for deletion or addition and then to write the addition or modification.
8.2.3 Monitoring and measurement of processes
This clause is too vague. This should be revised by unfolding the reasons why do we monitor and measure, not just considering the type and extent. Why are we monitoring and measuring? When do we stop? Is anyone using the data? The answer to these questions, it is important to identify what reason is driving the measurement effort. Too often, we continue to measure long after the need has passed. Every time you produce a report you should ask: ‘Do we still need this?’
Think about why something is to be done before thinking of how, or before requiring of applying any methods.
This clause is too vague. This should be revised by unfolding the reasons why do we monitor and measure, not just considering the type and extent. Why are we monitoring and measuring? When do we stop? Is anyone using the data? The answer to these questions, it is important to identify what reason is driving the measurement effort. Too often, we continue to measure long after the need has passed. Every time you produce a report you should ask: ‘Do we still need this?’
Think about why something is to be done before thinking of how, or before requiring of applying any methods.
Instead of firefighting
due to a lack of clear requirements and process control they are making sure the operators are monitoring their processes (and measuring as planned - see 7.1c). They are making sure the criteria used for process control (see 4.1c) are working effectively and that the operators have all the resources they need for the process to result in conforming product. By working this way, supervisors, managers, directors and vice presidents can demonstrate their commitment to requirements (providing resources) in a way that is useful to the operators. I believe that Chrysler mistakenly called this "Layered Process Auditing" instead of monitoring or supervision.
8.2.3 can be one of the continual improvement clauses. Done well, process monitoring and measurement would certainly reduce the need for internal auditing. I have, however, seen the auditors made responsible for process monitoring and that, of course. is a travesty!
If 8.2.3 does not read correctly for you then why not propose a rewrite? This is how standards are developed. The convention is to give good reasons for deletion or addition and then to write the addition or modification.
They are the owner and chief advocate. This ownership responsibility should be extended beyond ensuring that effective methods are embedded in the organization and ensure that there are adequate resources to support and enable effective monitoring and measurement of processes. How would you know if the method/s or monitoring/measurement of processes are effective? That’s why...MR John Broomfield
The “where are we now?” and “how do we get there?” is easy if you know “why”. It is relatively easy to monitor and measure but the difficulty lies in understanding exactly why this and why not that. I didn’t say that I read it not correctly, I was only trying to say the possible missing piece of the puzzle that might enable better quality of service delivery.
