The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  ISO 9001/4:2000
  How Much Is Really Different?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   How Much Is Really Different?
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA

posted 05 May 2000 06:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Some thoughts:

Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:28:18 -0500
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Subject: Re: Q: Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K /Humphries/Hartman


Edwin Humphries stated,

> There seems to be a widespread view that the new version of ISO9K will
> provide all sorts of challenges for companies to do things differently. In my
> view, the only companies so challenged will be those that took a shortcut to
> ISO9K in the first place.

I believe that he has captured the real impact of the new revision. I have been performing my own comparison between the 1994 version and the ISO/DIS, as well as comparing our documented system to the ISO/DIS requirements, and have come away with the following summary:

There is not much difference between the two versions of ISO, even in the flow of "elements". Yes, they may be under different headings, but if you look just at the individual elements themselves - the basic flow of the 1994 version is there (granted there are a few exceptions, but not to the degree that many are attempting to depict). And yes, there are a couple of "new" requirements. But just as Mr. Humphries has defined, if your company has implemented a management system developed around the intent of ISO 9001 (and not one that is merely compliant with the letter of the law) then you probably have these elements already in-place.

BTW: For those looking for a matrix depicting the relationship between the elements of the 1994 version and those of ISO/DIS, look no further than ISO/DIS 9001 Annex B. If fact, our company is currently planning on using this matrix in lieu of re-writing/re-numbering our current documentation.

Have fun, and remember: Change is GOOD, for without it there is no continual improvement.

David Hartman


Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:33:14 -0500
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Subject: Re: Q: Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K /Humphries/Whitcomb

From: Gary Whitcomb


I read you latest posting. While you make some interesting points, especially about the new version being dubbed as the "Consultant Employment Act", I would like to call your attention to a statement you made "How could a good quality system not look at, for example, customer satisfaction, and provide, even by exception, a means of monitoring it? Surely an effective method of dealing with customer complaints and feedback provides an excellent method of assessing customer satisfaction, and correcting it? This was required in the 1994 version of the Standard, and implied in the 1984 version."

In the '94 version, paragraph one: SCOPE says: "The requirements specified are aimed primarily at achieving customer satisfaction by preventing nonconformity at all stages from design through to servicing".

In the new version DIS/ISO 9000-2000 SCOPE sets a somewhat different tone by stating: "Monitoring of customer satisfaction, as stated in b) requires the evaluation of information relating to customer perceptions of whether or not the organization has met the customer requirements". (DIS/ISO 9001,1.1)

IMHO the new version is requiring organizations to do more than just monitor customer satisfaction, after-all perceptions are different from satisfaction(s), and satisfactions are a different focus from nonconformities. I doubt many organizations have asked or measured customers perceptions. I think most organizations are going to have to put more thought and some measurements in place that were not in place to meet the requirements of ISO 9000-2000.

So, I am not so sure we have misinterpreted the standard as much as we have yet come to fully understand all of the nuances of the requirements.



Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 18:35:48 -0500
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Subject: Re: Q: Misinterpretation of ISO9K-2K /Humphries/Arbuckle

From: Don Arbuckle

I cannot agree more with Mr. Humphries assessment of this situation.

As a consultant, I am constantly aghast at the way some organizations are trying to take advantage of the situation (the release of the new version) as a way to extricate more money from businesses that don't know any better. I warn of the onslaught of companies trying to scare businesses into purchasing their products and services under the guise of "You need it for the new version!" I have seen a number of survey companies and data collection software companies using this approach as well as consulting firms who are looking to capitalize on the release.

Thanks you Mr. Humphries for pointing this out for others in the group!!

Don Arbuckle

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!

Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!