Who is registered to ISO 9001:2015?

[Sidney Vianna]

Those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

I agree, Jim. Every transition since the 1994 Edition of ISO 9001 has shown the same collective behavior: A handful of organizations want to be certified on the day of the standard release, while the overwhelming majority of registrants procrastinate until the very end.

Does ISO 9001:2015 have any requirement on "knowledge management"?

 

[Paul Simpson]

Anyone notice the half way point whizzing by?

On my web site (apologies for the lack of structure, it is in development) I wanted to draw people's attention to the halfway point in making the transition from the 2008 edition to ISO 9001:2015.

I've reproduced the text here to make it easier for Covers to reply.

15 March 2017 has been and gone, it marked the halfway point for transition to certification to the latest edition of ISO 9001. If the project plan to have all certified organisations transition to the 2015 edition by 15th September 2018 is half complete then where are we compared with the gantt chart or resource plan?

Aside from the early adopters who went for ‘First to be certified’ on the very same day the standard was published there appears to be a huge bow wave building up in front of the 3rd party certification tanker. Do all those responsible for managing the transition project in their organisation have a plan? Have they updated their personal competence to cover those significant changes that the 2015 edition brings? Do they have buy in from all those ‘top management’ in 9001 called upon to demonstrate leadership and commitment? If the answer to any one of these questions is ‘no’ then there is a serious risk they will not be in the club of 1 million plus holding a certificate on the 16th September 2018.

As with all resource constrained systems the problem will become: ‘How to deliver transition audits in the 6 month period leading up to September 15th 2018 for those late adopters?’

At s2a2s our recommendation is in two parts: Get started on making any changes needed to your systems to demonstrate compliance with the new requirements, and; engage with your current CB and start to work on a programme of visits to cover transition and book those assessment dates in the diary.

Earlier posters are right about the risk of us ending up with a '2003 scenario' but I wouldn't lay the blame at the 'administrators of the program' (whoever they may be). When ISO and IAF put out the joint statement on a 3 year transition arrangement it was based on an in-depth assessment of the nature of the changes and 3 years was and remains easily achievable - heck, if some organisations can achieve certification within a couple of hours of the standard being released then we should all already be looking forward to the 2022 edition, shouldn't we?

 

[Big Jim]

Anyone notice the half way point whizzing by?

On my web site (apologies for the lack of structure, it is in development) I wanted to draw people's attention to the halfway point in making the transition from the 2008 edition to ISO 9001:2015.

I've reproduced the text here to make it easier for Covers to reply.



Earlier posters are right about the risk of us ending up with a '2003 scenario' but I wouldn't lay the blame at the 'administrators of the program' (whoever they may be). When ISO and IAF put out the joint statement on a 3 year transition arrangement it was based on an in-depth assessment of the nature of the changes and 3 years was and remains easily achievable - heck, if some organisations can achieve certification within a couple of hours of the standard being released then we should all already be looking forward to the 2022 edition, shouldn't we?

It's time for those in the ivory tower to pay attention to those down in the trenches, those of us that are dealing with their shortsightedness. The transition COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN PLANNED BETTER.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The transition COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN PLANNED BETTER.

Jim, care to share some of the suggestions you would have to make the transition better? I agree with you that there could have been a mix of carrots and sticks to incentivize registrants to move earlier. But, the reality is: give people and organizations a deadline and, invariably, most will procrastinate. It is human nature.

 

[Paul Simpson]

It's time for those in the ivory tower to pay attention to those down in the trenches, those of us that are dealing with their shortsightedness. The transition COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN PLANNED BETTER.

OK, I'll bite, Jim. Who, specifically, is in this 'ivory tower' you speak of?

What, specifically, is the problem with a transition programme that says 'you have 3 years, that should be ample time to sort it out amongst yourselves'?

The IAF / ISO TC 176 transition policy is simply a statement of the timetable to be used. Details of what is required is agreed between ABs and CBs (one of whom you work for, I seem to remember).

If some ABs and CBs were in a position to have:

• all personnel involved in the early assessments trained and deemed competent
• accreditation by the AB of the CB for assessment to 9001:2015
• as well as audits carried out by the CB against what they already knew would be in the new standard, and
• any corrective actions reviewed and signed off

.... all of this in place before the standard was issued.

If we accept all this happened then that says the transition timing isn't the problem, so what is, in your opinion?

I've been involved in transition programmes from the early 80s (even pre the 1st edition of 9001 ) - the same issues applied each time.

• the new product take up model always applies and that means you get small groups of early adopters and laggards at each end of the lifecycle
• any new auditor competence assessment identifies some variability across the auditor pool - leading to some loss of capacity
• milestones always move to the right - apart from the hard deadline (in this case 15th September 2018

The point of the article is to highlight that the time for action is now. Oh and BTW, Jim, THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT.

Enough specifics from me and I may be delayed in responding to any replies. I'm off to find an extending ladder and go off in search of an ivory tower.

 

[dsanabria]

It's time for those in the ivory tower to pay attention to those down in the trenches, those of us that are dealing with their shortsightedness. The transition COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN PLANNED BETTER.

I would place the AAQG, The IAQG and RMC on the Ivory Tower.

First Releasing AS9100 on October 2016

Second releasing the Auditor test in December - which has become a nighmare for auditor. This company that employes individual that have very little Aerospac expirence and no common sence developed a test that few auditors have passed and the passing needed to be revised down with an additional time increase.

Third the AS9120/ as9110 wrere release later.

As of now - not all CB are registered to AS9100

Only 463 auditors world wide are Qualified to AS911D

51 to AS9120

and 21 to AS9110

Note: there are 17049 companies certified to AS9100...

Yes, the Ivory Tower as defined above fell asleep nest to the lamp at the to of the Ivory tower...


But... what are they going to do to smooth out the process...

 

[Big Jim]

From what I heard, the TC 176 is planning a MAJOR revision to the ISO 9001:2022 Standard; they will drop the risk based thinking "thingy" and introduce the concept of preventative actions, not to be confused with the now defunct, obsolete, past preventive actions.

Jim, care to share some of the suggestions you would have to make the transition better? I agree with you that there could have been a mix of carrots and sticks to incentivize registrants to move earlier. But, the reality is: give people and organizations a deadline and, invariably, most will procrastinate. It is human nature.

The biggest thing would be not to start the countdown until the CBs and ABs have had an opportunity to train. Give them the opportunity to actually start in mass on opening day. For example, publish in September. Give the ABs a couple of months to get their act together and for training programs to be developed. When the ABs have things sorted out, then give the CBs a chance to get the auditors trained and sort out what they need to. Don't start the countdown until all of that is done with a guess that it would take six months, but don't just go by the guess, don't start until things are effectively set up.

One of the biggest disasters I can remember was when AS9100C was introduced. Because they drug their feet in following ISO 9001:2008, many registrants had to transition to ISO 9001:2008 while they were still in AS9100B. The registrars had trouble getting the auditors ready. Many auditors dropped out. As a result there were delays with the audits. There were many cases of auditors writing majors and not being able to make a re-visit for SIX MONTHS. The pressure for the CBs (and I mean all of them, not just a few) as well as on the auditors and especially on the clients was pure hell.

A little foresight on the part of those on the top end could have made it smoother.

They need to get their head out of the sand and come down to the trenches and see what they caused.

 

[Paul Simpson]

<snip>The biggest thing would be not to start the countdown until the CBs and ABs have had an opportunity to train. Give them the opportunity to actually start in mass on opening day. For example, publish in September. Give the ABs a couple of months to get their act together and for training programs to be developed. When the ABs have things sorted out, then give the CBs a chance to get the auditors trained and sort out what they need to. Don't start the countdown until all of that is done with a guess that it would take six months, but don't just go by the guess, don't start until things are effectively set up.</snip>

<snip>A little foresight on the part of those on the top end could have made it smoother.

They need to get their head out of the sand and come down to the trenches and see what they caused.</snip>

OK, Jim. You've chosen not to answer my specific questions directed at you but responded to Sidney's questions instead, your prerogative but it says something about you.

My earlier example of how some ABs and CBs managed to get themselves ready to certify to ISO 9001:2015 on day 1 of the 1095 day transition period obviously hasn't sunk in.

Carry on with your swipes at 'they' in 'ivory towers' and (presumably at a different time ) with their heads in the sand, just don't be surprised if I continue to call you out for general baseless ranting.

I haven't responded to your AS 9100 example because it is managed by the aerospace industry and is outside the control of ISO.

 

[dsanabria]

OK, Jim. You've chosen not to answer my specific questions directed at you but responded to Sidney's questions instead, your prerogative but it says something about you.

My earlier example of how some ABs and CBs managed to get themselves ready to certify to ISO 9001:2015 on day 1 of the 1095 day transition period obviously hasn't sunk in.

Carry on with your swipes at 'they' in 'ivory towers' and (presumably at a different time ) with their heads in the sand, just don't be surprised if I continue to call you out for general baseless ranting.

I haven't responded to your AS 9100 example because it is managed by the aerospace industry and is outside the control of ISO.

Paul, I believe that you are making reference to ISO and Big Jim is making reference to AS9XXX - which is the biggest frustration.

My posting goes into details as to the frustration and Ivory tower in the aerospace industry.

Hope this helps to clarify the matter.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Paul, I believe that you are making reference to ISO and Big Jim is making reference to AS9XXX - which is the biggest frustration.

My posting goes into details as to the frustration and Ivory tower in the aerospace industry.

Hope this helps to clarify the matter.

Thanks, dsanabria. I feel you are giving Jim more credit than I do. I joined in this discussion because it is specifically (that word again!) for ISO 9001 family of standards. There is a separate thread for AS 9100 - here.

Although AS 91xx use ISO 9001 as a base the aerospace supplier certification programme is very different from that for the vanilla standard.