What Takes So Long?

The labor-intensive road to ISO 9001:2015

Wed, 09/10/2014 - 13:22

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last two years, you can’t help to have noticed that the ISO 9001 standard is in the middle of its revision process. Seems like people have been talking about this revision for ages. And, it’s not even a whole new standard. They’re not starting from scratch. They’re changing an existing document that’s supposed to replace the one that’s been around since 2008—which everyone knows wasn’t that much different from the one that came out in 2000.

ADVERTISEMENT

In this 21st century, where just-in-time enterprise resource planning systems have been honed to rival the precision of Olympic time keepers and the speed of Alpine downhillers, why does it take so long to revise this document? It’s less than 30 pages long, including the front matter and annexes! What gives?

Believe it or not, there’s genuine and deliberate justification for the time it takes. And, most of it has to do with making sure that the document has integrity and has been developed using a consensus process that ensures global involvement by technical experts representing myriad industries and fields of interest. It takes time to get it right.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Comments

Sorry, my eyes glazed over in the middle of the second page. I think this article might contain some wisdom, so I'll try again soon.

Finished it.

One international, two standards, three organization, but first of all STANDARDS: if ISO were adaptable enough, which is a basic feature of living beings, we wouldn't talk so much about HOW ISO release their standards but we would be more concerned of their contents. Which we apparently don't care for, so far, until we're compelled to put them in place. Along the years and apart from published figures, ISO 9001 has revealed itself a quality black hole: some kind of Masoch's creature. 

Both comments reflect a reasonable frustration with an undeniably cumbersome process. There are two points to be garnered. One, the market should have a better sense of why the process takes so long. And two, most of the delays reflect a genuine commitment to ensure participation and parity in the consensus building process for a standard that affects millions of users.

Nothing Google Docs, discipline and web access couldn't fix.

Somewhere along the line, "instruments" became "devices". Please provide the fascinating story of the brave, bold individuals who sacrificed their time for that foundational shift.

What's your response to all the intelligent folks who know that injecting Risk into ISO 9001:2015 is at best unauditable and IMHO an impending train wreck?

In the words of the great bard: "There's the rub." There isn't global uniform access to technology - and, frankly, some things are more effectively worked out face-to-face. Changes in terms are an attempt to bring better alignment with multiple standards. And risk-based thinking may be challenging to audit, but will probably pay dividends for the users in the long run.

Add new comment