posted 21 November 2000 05:47 PM               

Secondly I'd recommend we wait and see what is in the actual 9001:2000 standard.

As an aside, I asked the Australian Quality Council (who administer the Australian Business Excellence Awards - similar to Baldrige) about them providing consultancy work and advice in areas of business improvement, and determining whether to improve things or not. I asked what would happen if they consulted with two ISO 9001:2000 registered/certified companies who were subsequently sued in relation to inactivity of correcting problems upon the advice of the consultant, and used this in mitigation to deminish their compensation liability.

Then the two companies used their registration/certification to attempt to further mitigate their position, based on their Registrar having conducted a surveillance audit of the premises only several days prior to the event. The two companies claimed they believed their legal position in relation to the risks associated with their "product" was sound, given that their external auditor had given them a clean bill of health.

Does the inclusion of legal requirements in 9001:2000 open a can of worms in terms of liability, litigation and mitigation, not just for the immediate company, but for external agencies?

posted 21 November 2000 05:54 PM               

Thanks.

Alf