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
  Stampede to ISO9001:2000?

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:   Stampede to ISO9001:2000?
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 03 June 2000 10:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:03:33 -0500
Subject: Comment: ISO 9000:2000 Update for NSAI /Paten

From: "Mike Paten" mpaten@mttc.org

A client of mine said they just received a letter from their registrar (NSAI) advising that they will begin offering 9001:2000 audits effective immediately.

Evidently, NSAI plans to issue a letter of conformance to ISO 9001:2000 (now) which can be automatically updated to a certificate/registration immediately upon release of the new standards.

Even though the ISO transition guidance allows companies to obtain or continue certification to the 1994 requirements for up to three years, NSAI said they will exclusively focus on assessing compliance with the new standard. In other words, all new registration audits will be to assess compliance with ISO 9001:2000. Period.

The "three year" transition many companies thought they would have according to ISO transition guidelines appears to have just got cut a whole lot shorter. Registrars have been kind of quiet on this subject. I would not be surprised to see many (if not most) registrars follow suit. Essentially this would mean - no "new" registrations to 1994 standards after issuance of the new standard. So if you're not currently ISO registered - forget the 1994 standards - or - if your 1994 certificate expires in less than three years - you now know what your "drop dead" date is for getting up to speed with the new requirements.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Of course, it's also a leap to assume all registrars will follow suit. But - it is probably worth "discussing'. What are you all hearing and/or advising your clients? Are there any registrars out there that want to "go on record"?

I have advised all of my ISO/QS 9000 registered clients to get in touch with their registrar and press them for guidance. I have also advise them to tell their management that the new standards are coming and they need to develop and implement a transition plan of their own - probably a little sooner than they thought or desired.

Mike Paten

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 03 June 2000 10:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:25:04 -0500
Subject: Re: ISO 9000:2000 Update for NSAI /Paten/Humphries

From: "Edwin Humphries" edwin@e-quality.com.au

Mike

In Australia, I know of three certifiers who are currently auditing to the published DIS, and offering certification to the 1994 version immediately upgradeable to the 2000 version on publication. I also know that our national standards organisation, Standards Australia, has published the DIS and is offering it for sale as it would the final standard - such a commercialisation of the review process would lead one to support those who feel the International Standard should be free and in the public domain!

Although I support the "ambidextrous" approach for new certifications, at least one of the certifiers is now auditing existing clients to the DIS, and issuing "negative observations" (nonconformances by another name), regardless of whether the client has agreed to the action. This certifier is, interestingly enough, tied in with the aforementioned standards body, which at least confirms a common attitude towards their clients! This all smacks of an attitude of milking as much money out of the review process as it can take (and then milking it a little more), which does not auger well for the future of QA.

In any event, I would suggest that any company receiving a nonconformance against the DIS or the final version in the next three years should treat its resolution as something to be completed within the three year period, unless the resolution will address more urgent business goals of the company. As with most other things with certifiers, companies must remember that the system must be relevant to their customers' needs and their own business objectives: if a request from a certifier does not meet one of these objectives, then argue, and you should win.

Best Regards
Edwin Humphries
edwin@e-quality.com.au

IP: Logged

eee
Forum Contributor

Posts: 19
From:Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 05 June 2000 02:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for eee   Click Here to Email eee     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IQNet, which unites leading registrars,
published "Guidelines" for transition period,
based on Communice of ISO/CASCO/IAF.
These guidelines ara available on IQNet site: www.iqnet-certification.com/guidelines.htm
To my mind they propose very smooth procedure of how to act during the transition period.

IP: Logged

John C
Forum Contributor

Posts: 134
From:Cork City, Ireland
Registered: Nov 98

posted 05 June 2000 04:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for John C   Click Here to Email John C     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm not noted for defending Registrars but I think it would be as well to avoid jumping the gun here. The implication is that some or all registrars are going to use the new release to rip off their customers. But there's nothing in what I've read above that indicates that.

Naturally, those who normally sell us standards will be willing to sell unreleased versions so we can prepare. If we had no access to DIS copies then how would we have a discussion about ISO 9000:2000? That's a non issue.

As regards NSAI's reported statement; Maybe the conclusions drawn are correct, but we should be sure first. Personally, knowing NSAI very well, I would be very surprised if they refused to grant a '94 registration to any customer who requires one, up to the actual closing date. Remember, '94 hasn't gone away yet and noone knows when '00 will be released. So what does "offering 9001:2000 audits effective immediately" mean? It can only mean that they'll audit to 2000 and issue a '94 cert, plus - for no extra cost? - useful details of how you might have failed against 2000. That's not commercialisation. That's NSAI practising what they preach and putting the customer first!
Apart from anything else, I don't see how NSAI could gain. They are very busy anyway, with business in two other continents outside Europe and booming Ireland. What do they care if they issue a '94 cert or a '00?

I expect I'm right but I suppose I could be wrong and, if not NSAI there may be some registrars who think it's an opportunity to get more work. I suggest that anyone concerned about being pushed into '00 against their will, should ask first and if they don't like the answer, take their business elsewhere and tell the registrar why.

There are many things wrong with the administration of ISO 9000, and companies/business should be on guard and figuring how to deal with them. I don't believe this is one of them.
rgds, John C

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 05 June 2000 08:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John i agree with you. Know NSAI well also. have not had the conversation with them, but my gut tells me...they are auditing to the new standard to get the client used to it before it is dumped on them, issuing "opportunities/observations" to help you prepare, not nonconformances. this helps the client get used to the new requirements, etc. they did that in 1994.....

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 05 June 2000 08:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
also gets the auditor used to it !!!!!!

IP: Logged

isodog
Forum Contributor

Posts: 51
From:Vernon Hills, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 06 June 2000 11:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodog   Click Here to Email isodog     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have personally confirmed the DNV and UL registrars will honor the three year transition, both for registered companies and new registrants.
It doesn't make sense for a company new to registration to use the 1994 revision, but they may.

There is no rush (darn!) It would be better for us consultants if there was.

Dave

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 07 June 2000 09:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From: "Nina Khatib" nkhatib@irwin-ind.com
To: Marc
Subject: ISO9001-2000
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:50:31 -0400

I believe that the courtesy transition period given to companies is more than enough. At our company, we want to start early. In order to do that, we are studying the best approach to deal with the changes. This might seem like a silly question, but is there a formula to do it? I suggested we do it in the following manner:

_ Rewrite the revised clauses
_ Get them approved
_ Target them to where they belong in the manual
_ Develop work instructions/Forms to help in the implementation and to prove that we are complying.

If you have better or different approach, I would be more than grateful if you share it with me and my colleagues.

Thanks,
Nina Khatib

IP: Logged

isodog
Forum Contributor

Posts: 51
From:Vernon Hills, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 08 June 2000 12:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodog   Click Here to Email isodog     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Check with you registar. I know UL is distibuting a transition guide. If you contact them, they will pobably send you one
gratis.

However, the first thing you need to do is to decide whether to follow the new numbering system or develop a cross refeence list. Lots of pros and cons here! Also it isn't all additive. The requirements for the quality manual is a lot less, and a about 10 fewer "Documented Procedures" are required. "Statistical Techniques is missing. So you need to decide how to handle the additions (i.e. departmental objectives, proactive customer satisfaction evaluation and continual improvement, etc.) and the deletions. Yikes!

One way I'm toying with is to use your system to convert your system. How about this. With your registrars permission, of course, train your managers, supervisors, employees and your regular internal audit team in the new standard and then start auditing to it. When the nonconformaties show up, use your corrective action pocedure to correct them just as you've been doing all along. After a year of this, ask your registrar to audit you to the revised standard. A low key conversion that uses the tools you already own. Opinions?
Dave

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 31 December 2000 10:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Cross reference get's my vote.

IP: Logged

StvFran
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 2
From:Dracut, MA USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 16 January 2001 03:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for StvFran   Click Here to Email StvFran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I went through a full blown recertification audit on December 18th 3 days after the 2000 version was approved and we decided to go for certification to the 94 standard. I used TUV and they had no problems with that. The only thing they stressed is that my cert will expire on Dec 15 2003 3 years from the approval of ISO 2000.

IP: Logged

David Mullins
Forum Contributor

Posts: 248
From:Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 16 January 2001 05:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Mullins   Click Here to Email David Mullins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Certification/Registration is generally only valid for three years anyway, so, win-win.

------------------

IP: Logged

Ron Byrge
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 6
From:Cincinnati, OH USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 17 January 2001 03:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ron Byrge   Click Here to Email Ron Byrge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As of yesterday, the RAB's guidance still states that Registration to the 1994 revision may continue for 3 years after publication of the new Standard. This, of course, is ludicrous. It is our intent to continue issuing Registrations to the 1994 revision for the next 18 months, while recommending to our clients they get things in order for the 2000 revision. This will be our stance until RAB says we can't do that anymore.

------------------
Ron Byrge
Operations Manager
CwC Registrar, Inc.
http://cwcregistrar.com

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!