posted 31 July 2000 12:14 AM               

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

From: [email protected] (Manus)
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Date: 30 Jul 2000 16:44:58 GMT
Subject: Re: ISO9000 : 2000

>> there is no point of contact designated
>> that the companies who are interested can get solid information and
>> clarification.
>
>You could start with Dennis Arter since he is the standards chair for
>theASQ's
>Audit Division.

But Dennis is not the actual point of contact. He is actually usually booked out of town somewhere giving seminars or attending the meetings. So prompt replies would not be there.

>> The biggest problem has been even though official copies of the draft have
>> stated on them not for use in implementation, many companies, including ASQ,
>> have been providing classes on the draft standard.
>
>Because, renumbering and the like aside, the basic content of the standard is
>notgoing to change dramatically (and, frankly, has not since CD2 last Fall).
>One could very easily begin the process of reviewing/comparing their existing
>quality system to the DIS to see the major issues they need to address and
>put into action plans for how they expect to address them. There will be
>matters
>if detail to check out when the IS is published, but it isn't like there will be
>totally unforseen changes coming.

The problem is that the content in a few places HAS changed dramatically. The registrar mentioned was in attendance and was quoting the FDIS. Compared to the CD2 or DIS the changes brings up concerns of ISO dictating methodology rather than concept.

>> And now with the
>> renumbering and addition of information along
>
>First of all, the renumbering would only be relevant if some were writing
>theirquality system documentation to, word by word, track the actual
>structure of
>ISO 9001. Certainly that has been done, but it is never a recommended way to
>proceed. Write your quality system as you want it then provide a simple, one
>page mapping document between you system's structure and the
>ultimatestructure of ISO 9001.

I think you have a misconception. The ISO standard for writing your quality manual actually gives the method of structuring your manual based on the standard. Given that a number of registrars have pushed this onto companies, the restructuring of the standard every time we blink coupled with ASQ's and others jumping the gun on pushing implementing the standard, even while it is draft, is creating my concern.

>> with interpretations added to the
>> standard and it hasn't even been published(?!?)
>
>Interpretations are something one cannot stop, we can all do it. The issueis,
>who's doing the interpreting. Not ISO, but a host of organizations,
>non-profit and commercial, who feel they have an interest, professional
>and economic, in the widespread use of this standard. Consider the
>sources when you hear interpretations. Registrars, unsurprisingly, will
>have to be making them, and that's a good thing. I'd like to hear even
>more public interpretations by registrars. It would make the process of
>selecting a good one much easier!

The problem is that this is supposed to be an international standard. Also if you look at 10011, the lead assessor's standard, you are to leave out your opinions and interpretations when auditing. If the auditor is to remain objective they have to let the client do the interpreting and implementing and they are to judge if there is objective evidence that it is effective. Black and white, not grey.

>> ... where is the regulation coming from?

>Not from ISO since they have nothing to do with any registration or
>certification schemes. They are all run by organizations in specific
>countries
>who certify audfit/assessment firms who then, in turn, do the audits,
>for a fee, and grant registration certificates to those they feel meet the
>standard, as they interpret it.

But the certification bodies are to be taking direction from the ISO committees, not the other way around. But I am also not blind. The standard, pure as the intent, have become laughable. A lot of large companies have pressured their registrars and certification bodies into registering them, even though their system is not effective at the most basic of levels, satisfaction of _all_ their customers.

>> I am informing my company and our suppliers and clients to ignore most
>> everything until the actual standard is out. You cannot get registered using
>> the draft so why bother?

>Hopefully, one can bother for the reason I mentioned initially, you can
>use the draft to initiate discussion on what the new things will be that you
>and your suppliers/clients might expect under the new standard. In fact, it
>should be a great opportunity to have such discussion without the stress
>of actual registration expectations affecting the discussion. And why not use
>the draft as an opportunity to check out registrars and see what they feel
>are the key new/changed issues? Their explanations/interpretations compared
>to your own thoughts would be useful in selecting/changing/retaining a
>registrar.

It would be unethical and unfruitful to pursue discussions on a standard that is not released. As Adrian Bentnall pointed out, with the 3 year waiting period there is no point implementing or discussing something until the committee actually gives us something solid to work with, not just drafts which change.

Slan Leat!