ROM Quotations
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 The New Elsmar Cove ForumsCayman Systems Information Forums
 ISO 9000
 ISO 9000 Misconceptions (Page 3)
|
| This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: ISO 9000 Misconceptions |
|
barb butrym Contributor |
posted 31 July 1998 08:19 PM
  
Michael, evidence can be stated simply in the procedure for instance..."when the purchaser has entered the data as prompted on the screen, he/she reviews the entry for accuracy, then keys to enter the posting." the entered data is the evidence.... Same goes for contract review of verbal orders....' order entry records the information on the screen as provided by the customer, and requests any additional information as prompted. Then reads back to verify, resolves any descrepancies, then enters the order. Key to the success of both is the content of the form on the screen. Simple enough, eh? |
|
Christian Lupo Contributor |
posted 03 August 1998 08:24 AM
Michael, I never said that there HAD to be an actual signature on a PO to constitute approval. However this is an acceptable method, that is easy to verify and implement, especially if the company does not use a computer system. A computer system with limited access is acceptable. In the example I provided, the purchasing system WAS NOT computerized. I must confess that I encourage my own companies personell to use signature and dates whenever possible on hard copies. It is a practice that has served me and other well throughout their career. Those who work in heavily regulated industry (medical device) would agree. Unfortunatly, a handshake and a smile do not constitute approval anymore. |
|
Don Winton Forum Wizard |
posted 03 August 1997 04:18 PM
My apologies for not responding to this thread sooner. I have a client that is preparing for a State inspection and the last couple of days have been hectic. Christian, ãapprovedä does not mean a signature is required, nor does the standard require ãsignaturesä unless you are a ãregulatedä industry. The companyâs procedures shall state when review and approval is accomplished. No more, no less. Of course, objective evidence is required, but this evidence should be the companyâs, not the assessors. As far as continuous improvement is concerned, that is a different story. When a company decides to adopt a quality standard as their business core principle, the company decides which practices are best for them, with the primary goal being ãto stay in business.ä Customer satisfaction, making money, etc. Barb, preconceptions are not to be allowed or to be tolerated. I agree. The assessors job is to obtain objective evidence of ãcompliance or noncompliance.ä No more, no less. I have stated earlier that when an assessor ãsuggestsä things required for compliance, this is a no-no. I also agree that some (not all, by no means) consultants may try to mold a companyâs policies and procedures to their (the consultant's) mold, not the standards. Things adopted by the company may not add value, but an assessors job is not to determine this. Again, ãcompliance or noncomplianceä is the issue for them. Barb, a company with 5 or 10 employees do not need reams of paperwork or unnecessary documents to comply (see misconceptions above). As a matter of fact, other than the costs, small companies are the easiest to register. That is the magic and magical purpose of ISO 9000. It IS that flexible. There is much benefit to using ISO 9000 to improve a business operations. This is determined by the company, and company only. The purpose of the list was to highlight what those who do not know try to know. By the way Marc, DCAS was my most driving force to be in this business (doing things right, not by the so-called rules). I have a good story I will forward at a later time. |
| This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 All times are Eastern Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Contact Us | Elsmar.com
Your Input In These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.