Thursday, December 31, 2009

Background and Future of ISO 9001:2008

ISO 9001 serves as the basis for benchmarking an organization’s quality management system. Quality management should not be confused with terms such as quality assurance” or quality control. Quality management measures the overall management function in determining the organization’s quality policy, its objectives, and its responsibilities, as well as the quality policy implementation through means such as quality assurance and quality control. Quality assurance measures all planned and systematic activities implemented within the organizations quality system. Quality control is the operational techniques and activities used to fulfil quality requirements (e.g., meeting a customer’s specifications or requirements for a given product or service).

Revision of the ISO 9000 standards has been under discussion for a number of years. Soon after the 1994 revisions, ISO Technical Committee 176 began the task of overcoming the standard’s manufacturing bias while, at the same time, overcoming other persistent criticisms that the standard did not adequately cover all aspects of the QMS.

The development of ISO 9001:2008 has been a particularly interesting process to behold. It is an object lesson in consensus building. ISO Technical Committee 176, with the participation of various national standards bodies, has actually managed to overcome criticisms from apparently opposite directions and written a document that appears to be acceptable to the great majority of ISO’s member bodies.

The manufacturing industry criticized the older versions of ISO 9001 for its failure to include a large range of quality management requirements in the standard. Some manufacturing industries considered ISO 9001 to be so inadequate that they developed their own expanded, industry-specific versions of the ISO 9001 standard. ISO was also criticized by non-manufacturing industries for catering to the manufacturing industries. Everything about the older versions of ISO 9001 seemed overwhelmingly rooted in a manufacturing environment.

The ISO technical committee found itself in a dilemma and then found a way out. ISO 9001:2008 appears to have actually reached a satisfactory compromise in which the language is generic enough to be applicable to industries other than manufacturing yet specific enough to satisfy the particular concerns of the manufacturing industry.

As far as actual implementation of the new standard was concerned, ISO Technical Committee 176 recommended that implementation of ISO 9001:2008 could begin as early as the fourth quarter of 1999 — one full year in advance of the standard’s scheduled publication. The ISO technical committee made this recommendation because ISO works through a lengthy consultative process to achieve a consensus. Once a consensus was obtained (in early 1999), further changes became improbable.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

ISO 9001:2008 FAQ

ISO 9001:2008 FAQ

What Is The ISO 9001: 2008 Standard?

The latest edition of the ISO 9001 standard ISO 9001: 2008, Quality Management Systems – Requirements, was officially published by (ISO) the International Organization for Standardization on November 14, 2008. It is the fourth edition of the ISO 9001 standard since it was first published in 1987.

Who Is Responsible For Revising The standards?

The ISO Technical Committee no.176, Sub-committee no.2 (ISO/TC 176/SC 2) is responsible for the revision process in collaboration with consensus among quality and industry experts nominated by ISO Member bodies, and representing all interested parties.

Does ISO 9001:2008 Have Additional Requirements Beyond ISO 9001:2000 ?

This latest (4th) edition of ISO 9001 contains no new requirements compared to the (3rd) year 2000 edition, which it replaces. What it does is provide clarification to the existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000 based on eight years’ experience of worldwide implementing of the standard and introduces changes intended to improve consistency with the environmental management system standard, ISO 14001:2004.

The clarifications and changes in ISO 9001:2008 represents fine-tuning, rather than a thorough overhaul. It focuses on changes that organizations might make to better comply with the spirit of the standard without adding, deleting, or altering its requirements. The changes are minor in nature and address such issues as the need to clarify, provide greater consistency, resolve perceived ambiguities, and improve compatibility with ISO 14001. The numbering system and the structure of the standard remain unchanged. As a result, the new standard looks much like the old standard.

ISO has grouped the changes incorporated in this ISO 9001:2008 edition into the following categories:
- No changes or minimum changes on user documents, including records
- No changes or minimum changes to existing QMS processes
- No additional training required or minimal training required
- No effects on current certifications

In contrast, the 3rd edition, ISO 9001:2000 published in 2000, represented a major overhaul of the standard, including new requirements and a sharpened customer focus, reflecting developments in quality management and experience gained since the publication of the initial version.

Then Why Was It Necessary To Introduce This Revision?
All ISO standards – currently more than 17 400 – are periodically reviewed. To ensure that ISO standards are maintained at the state of the art, ISO has a rule requiring them to be periodically reviewed and a decision taken to confirm, withdraw or revise the documents. The review process must be initiated within 3 years of publication of a standard. The review considers several factors such as technological evolution, new methods and materials, new quality and safety requirements, or questions of interpretation and application.

The review of ISO 9001 resulting in the 2008 edition was carried out by subcommittee SC 2 of ISO/TC 176. This subcommittee, which is responsible for the ISO 9000 family, unites expertise from 80 participating countries and 19 international or regional organizations, plus other technical committees.

This review has a number of inputs that help it:

A global user questionnaire/survey

A market Justification Study

Suggestions arising from the ISO/TC 176 interpretation process

Opportunities for increased compatibility with ISO 14001

The need for greater clarity, ease of use, and improved translation

Current trends – keeping up with recent developments in management system practices.

How Does The New ISO 9001 Edition Affect Existing ISO 9001 QMS’s?

As organizations start looking at ISO 9001:2008, they will wonder to what extent the changes might affect them. To a large extent, the new standard will not result in significant change to existing quality management systems (QMS).

ISO/TC 176 was careful in not making change for change sake. In the case of editorial changes, this was especially true. This could have lead to a false impression that there was a change in requirements, carrying greater significance than was intended. In those instances, when the committee members couldn’t come to a consensus in determining if a change added or deleted a requirement, they opted to retain the existing text. They decided it was better to err on the side of caution rather than to contribute to any misunderstanding in the marketplace.

The changes that have been incorporated into this edition of the ISO 9001 standard include changes that should lead to a better understanding across a broader range of product types, including service organizations; use of deliberate wording to minimize the potential for incorrect user interpretation; and reflect nuances of similar concepts. Lastly, some of the changes to specific clauses were made based on the 2004 International User Feedback Survey. This survey was conducted after the publication of ISO 9001:2000 and had invited respondents to identify areas they most wanted to see improved.


ISO 9001 Standards – Document Repository


ISO 9001 Standards - Document Repository

All QMS and product realization documents can be stored electronically within the computerize Document Management System like ISO 9001 Document Control Sytem. This provides a set of category and sub-category headings that enable users to drill down into
the different levels of the documentation category tree.
QMS documents are created and maintained within a top level category entitled “ISO 9001 Quality Management System (QMS)“. Documents in this category follow a 4-tier approach:
• Quality Manual – company scope and process interactions within the QMS
Quality Procedures – responsibilities, controls and activities within the QMS that effect customer service
• Records – objective evidence to demonstrate our goal in achieving customer satisfaction
• Forms & Reports to support the QMS processes
Product realization documents are stored in categories corresponding to Products, Projects and Departments. Each document is unique, but can be accessed from multiple categories.
Documents created within the FablessSemi Inc CogniDox system are assigned a unique identifier using the format “PO-NNNNNN-XX”; where the “PO” prefix identifies them as FablessSemi Inc documents, the “NNNNNN” is an automatically generated and uniquely assigned numerical ID, and the “XX” suffix indicates the document type.
All Fabless Semi Inc personnel are responsible for creating document part numbers and uploading documents to an appropriate category. Selected users with additional system privileges are responsible for creating and maintaining document categories.


History and Evolution of ISO 9000 Standards

Pre ISO 9000
During World War II, there were quality problems in many British industries such as munitions, where bombs were exploding in factories during assembly. The solution adopted to address these quality problems required factories to document their manufacturing procedures and to prove by record-keeping that the procedures were being followed. The standard was BS 5750, and it was known as a management standard because it specified not what to manufacture, but how the manufacturing process was to be managed. In 1987, the British Government persuaded the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to adopt BS 5750 as an international standard. The international standard was named ISO 9000.

ISO 9000: 1987 Version
ISO 9000:1987 had the same structure as the British Standard BS 5750, with three ‘models’ for quality management systems, the selection of which was based on the scope of activities of the organisation:
• ISO 9001:1987 Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation, and servicing was for companies and organisations whose activities included the creation of new products
• ISO 9002:1987 Model for quality assurance in production, installation, and servicing had basically the same material as ISO 9001 but without covering the creation of new products.
• ISO 9003:1987 Model for quality assurance in final inspection and test covered only the final inspection of finished product, with no concern for how the product was produced.
ISO 9000:1987 was also influenced by existing U.S. and other Defense Standards (MIL SPECS), and so was well-suited to manufacturing. The emphasis tended to be placed on conformance with procedures rather than the overall process of management—which was likely the actual intent.

ISO 9000:1994 (Year 1994 Revision)
ISO 9000:1994 emphasised quality assurance via preventive actions, instead of just checking final product, and continued to require evidence of compliance with documented procedures. As with the first edition, the down-side was that companies tended to implement its requirements by creating shelf-loads of procedure manuals, and becoming burdened with an ISO bureaucracy. In some companies, adapting and improving processes could actually be impeded by the quality system.

ISO 9000:2000 (Year 2000 Revision)
ISO 9001:2000 combines the three standards 9001, 9002, and 9003 into one, called 9001. Design and development procedures are required only if a company engages in the creation of new products. The 2000 version sought to make a radical change in thinking by placing the concept of process management front and centre (”Process management” was the monitoring and optimising of a company’s tasks and activities, instead of just inspecting the final product). The Year 2000 version also demands involvement by upper executives, in order to integrate quality into the business system and avoid delegation of quality functions to junior administrators. Another goal is to improve effectiveness via process performance metrics — numerical measurement of the effectiveness of tasks and activities. Expectations of continual process improvement and tracking customer satisfaction were made explicit.

ISO 9000:2008 (Year 2008 Revision)
The new ISO 9001:2008 was published on 15 November 2008. ISO 9001:2008 uses the same numbering system as ISO 9001:2000 to organise the standard. As a result, the new ISO 9001:2008 standard looks very much like the old standard. No new requirements have been added. However, some important clarifications and modifications have been made.

As with the release of previous versions, organisations registered to ISO 9001:2000 will be given a period to transition to the ISO 9001:2008 standard, assuming changes are needed.

ISO 9000 — a way of managing for conformance
Quality assurance, according to the Standard, is a way of managing that prevents non-conformance and thus “assures quality”. This is what makes ISO 9000 different from other standards: it is a management standard, not a product standard. It goes beyond product standardisation: it is standardising not what is made but how it is made. To use standards to dictate and control how organisations work was to extend the role of standards to new territory. To take such a step we might have firstly established that any such requirements worked — that they resulted in ways of working which improved performance.
Yet the plausibility of this Standard, and the fact that those who had an interest in maintaining it were (and still are) leading opinion, prevented such enquiries. In simple terms the Standard asks managers to say what they do, do what they say and prove it to a third party.
ISO 9000 (1994) paragraph 1: “The requirements specified are aimed primarily at achieving customer satisfaction by preventing non-conformity at all stages from design through servicing.”
To put it another way, the Standard asserts that preventing non-conformance achieves customer satisfaction. But does it? Of course it matters to customers that a product works. But there is no guarantee that the Standard will ensure even that. Furthermore, customers take a total view of an organisation — how easy it is to do business with — in respect of all things of importance to each and every customer.
ISO 9000 requires managers to “establish and maintain a documented quality system as a means of ensuring that product conforms to specified requirements”. Loosely translated this is “say what you do”. Management is supposed to “define and document its policy for quality . . . including its commitment to quality”.
What management would not declare its commitment to quality? But would they know what it means? Would they argue (as they should) that quality management is a different and better way to do business, or would they believe that ISO 9000 will take care of quality? The Standard encourages managers to think of “quality” and “business as usual” as separate and distinct. It helps managers avoid the revelation that quality means a wholly different view of management. Instead, the organisation “shall appoint a management representative who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have defined authority and responsibility” [for ISO 9000]. At a practical level this means only one executive might decide he or she had better learn a thing or two about quality. However, would being responsible for ISO 9000 lead to learning about quality or simply enforcing the ISO 9000 regime in an organisation?
Key to the regime is auditing. The Standard requires organisations to conduct internal quality audits to “verify whether quality activities comply with planned arrangements”. This can be loosely translated as “do you do as you say?” and the purpose of the audit is to see that you do. It was not until the 1994 review that the words were changed to “quality activities and related results”. It was a Standard which was rooted in the philosophy of inspection: fifteen years after its initial promulgation the promoters sought to extend the focus to results. But results or improvements assessed by what means? Inspection. By the time the Standard was adopted world-wide, quality thinking had moved a long way from the philosophy of inspection. It is now understood, at least by a few, that quality is achieved through managing the organisation as a system and using measures which enable managers to improve flow and reduce variation (which we explore in chapters 5 and 7). The defenders argue that there is nothing stopping a company having ISO 9000 and implementing methods for managing flow and reducing variation, but where are such companies? Few of the companies we researched, formally and informally, knew anything about this thinking. The Standard does not talk about it; moreover, the Standard effectively discourages managers from learning about it by representing quality in a different way.
According to ISO 8402 (quality vocabulary), quality is:
“The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.”
Everything we have learned about ISO 9000 suggests that the people who created this definition were thinking about the things which need to be controlled, those things which “bear on its ability . . .”. The builders of the Standard assumed that customer needs would be listed in contractual agreements between the supplier and customer. ISO 9000 has a “make” logic — procedures for “how you do what you do” — and a “control” logic — check to see that it is done. It is a relic of the era when contractual agreements were perceived to be an important device for regulating the behaviour of suppliers. In these ways, ISO 9000 encouraged “planning for quality”.
Planning for quality sounds plausible, but it assumes many things: that the plan is the right plan, that it is feasible, that people will “do it”, that performance will improve. It is an approach which, paradoxically, leads to poor decisions. Planners of quality systems, guided by ISO 9000, start with a view of how the world should be as framed by the Standard. Understanding how an organisation is working, rather than how someone thinks it should, is a far better place from which to start change of any kind.


Quality characteristics in ISO 9000 Standards

Quality characteristics in ISO 9000 Standards

Any feature or characteristic of a product or service that is needed to satisfy customer needs or achieve fitness for use is a quality characteristic. When dealing with products the characteristics are almost always technical characteristics, whereas service quality characteristics have a human dimension. Some typical quality characteristics are given below.

Product characteristics

1. Accessibility Functionality Size

2. Availability Interchangeability Susceptibility

3. Appearance Maintainability Storability

4. Adaptability Odour – Strength

5. Cleanliness Operability -Taste

6. Consumption Portability – Testability

7. Durability Producibility Traceability

8. Disposability Reliability – Toxicity

9. Emittance Reparability Transportability

10. Flammability Safety – Vulnerability

11. Flexibility Security – Weight

Service quality characteristics

1. Accessibility Credibility – Honesty

2. Accuracy Dependability Promptness

3. Courtesy Efficiency - Responsiveness

4. Comfort Effectiveness Reliability

5. Competence Flexibility – Security

These are the characteristics that need to be specified and their achievement controlled, assured, improved, managed and demonstrated. These are the characteristics that form the subject matter of the product requirements referred to in ISO 9000. When the value of these characteristics is quantified or qualified they are termed product requirements. We used to use the term quality requirements but this caused a division in thinking that resulted in people regarding quality requirements as the domain of the quality personnel and technical requirements being the domain of the technical personnel. All requirements are quality requirements – they express needs or expectations that are intended to be fulfilled by a process output that possesses inherent characteristics. We can therefore drop the word quality. If a modifying word is needed in front of the word requirements it should be a word that signifies the subject of the requirements. Transportation system requirements would be requirements for a transportation system, Audio speaker design requirements would be requirements for the design of an audio speaker, component test requirements would be requirements for testing components, and management training requirements would be requirements for training managers. ISO 9000 requirements are often referred to as quality requirements as distinct from other types of requirements but this is misleading. ISO 9000 is no more a quality requirement than is ISO 1000 on SI units, ISO 2365 for Ammonium nitrate or ISO 246 for Rolling Bearings. The requirements of ISO 9000 are quality management system requirements – requirements for a quality management system

Revision Of Documents In ISO 9000 Standards


Revision Of Documents In ISO 9000 Standards
The ISO 9000 Standard requires that documents be updated as
necessary and re-approved following their review.
Following a document review, action may or may not be necessary. If the
document is found satisfactory, it will remain in use until the next review. If the
document is found unsatisfactory there are two outcomes.
The document is no longer necessary and should be withdrawn from use –
this is addressed by the requirement dealing with obsolescence.
The document is necessary but requires a change – this is addressed by this
requirement.
The standard implies that updating should follow a review. The term update
also implies that documents are reviewed only to establish whether they are
current when in fact document reviews may be performed for many different
reasons. A more appropriate term to update would be revise. Previously the
standard addressed only the review and approval of changes and did not
explicitly require a revision process. However, a revision process is executed
before a document is subject to re-approval.
This requirement responds to the Continual Improvement principle.
It is inevitable that during use a need will arise for changing documents and
therefore provision needs to be made to control not only the original
generation of documents but also their revisions.
The document change process consists of a number of key stages some of
which are not addressed in ISO 9001.
a. Identification of need (addressed by document review)
b. Request for change (not addressed in the standard)
c. Permission to change (not addressed in the standard)
d. Revision of document (addressed by document updates)
e. Recording the change (addressed by identifying the change)
f. Review of the change (addressed under quality planning)
g. Approval of the change (addressed by document re-approval)
h. Issue of change instructions (not addressed in the standard)
i. Issue of revised document (addressed by document availability)
As stated previously, to control documents it is necessary to control their
development, approval, issue, change, distribution, maintenance, use, storage,
security, obsolescence or disposal and we will now address those aspects not
specifically covered by the standard.
In controlling changes it is necessary to define what constitutes a change to a
document. Should you allow any markings on documents, you should specify
those that have to be supported by change notes and those that do not.
Markings that add comment or correct typographical errors are not changes
but annotations. Alterations that modify instructions are changes and need
prior approval. The approval may be in the form of a change note that details
changes that have been approved.
Anyone can review a document but approved documents should only be
changed/revised/amended under controlled conditions. The document
review will conclude that either a change is necessary or unnecessary. If a
change is necessary, a request for change should be made to the issuing
authorities. Even when the person proposing the change is the same as would
approve the change, other parties may be affected and should therefore be
permitted to comment. The most common method is to employ Document
Change Requests. By using a formal change request it allows anyone to request
a change to the appropriate authorities.
Change requests need to specify:
a. The document title, issue and date
b. The originator of the change request (who is proposing the change, his or her
location or department)
c. The reason for change (why the change is necessary)
d. What needs to be changed (which paragraph, section, etc. is affected and
what text should be deleted)
e. The changes in text required where known (the text which is to be inserted
or deleted)
By maintaining a register of such requests you can keep track of who has
proposed what, when and what progress is being made on its approval. You
may of course use a memo or phone call to request a change but this form of
request becomes more difficult to track and prove you have control. You will
need to inform staff where to send their requests.
On receipt of the request you need to provide for its review by the change
authority. The change request may be explicit in what should be changed or
simply report a problem that a change to the document would resolve.
Someone needs to be nominated to draft the new material and present it for
review but before that, the approval authorities need to determine whether
they wish the document to be changed at all. There is merit in reviewing
requests for change before processing in order to avoid abortive effort. You
may also receive several requests for change that conflict and before processing
you will need to decide which change should proceed. While a proposed
change may be valid, the effort involved may warrant postponement of the
change until several proposals have been received – it rather depends on the
urgency
Ensuring the availability of controlled documents
The standard requires that relevant versions of applica-
ble documents are available at points of use.
The relevant version of a document is the version
that should be used for a task. It may not be the latest
version because you may have reason to use a
different version of a document such as when
building or repairing different versions of the same
product. Applicable documents are those that are
needed to carry out work. Availability at points of use
means the users have access to the documents they
need at the location where the work is to be
performed. It does not mean that users should possess copies of the documents
they need, in fact this is undesirable because the copies may become outdated
and not withdrawn from use.
This requirement exists to ensure that access to documents is afforded when
required. Information essential for the performance of work needs to be
accessible to those performing it otherwise they may resort to other means
of obtaining what they need that may result in errors, inefficiencies and
hazards.
In order to make sure that documents are available you should not keep them
under lock and key (or password protected) except for those where restricted
access is necessary for security purposes. You need to establish who wants
which documents and when they need them. The work instructions should
specify the documents that are required for the task so that those documents
not specified are not essential. It should not be left to the individual to
determine which documents are essential and which are not. If there is a need
for access out of normal working hours, access has to be provided. The more
copies there are the greater the chance of documents not being maintained so
minimize the number of copies. A common practice is to issue documents to
managers only and not the users. This is particularly true of management
system documents. One finds that only the managers hold copies of the
Quality Manual. In some firms all the managers reside in the same building,
even along the same corridor and it is in such circumstances that one invariably
finds that these copies have not been maintained. It is therefore impractical to
have all the copies of the Quality Manual in one place. Distribute the
documents by location, not by named individuals. Distribute to libraries, or
document control centres so that access is provided to everyone and so that
someone has responsibility for keeping them up to date. If using an intranet,
the problems of distribution are less difficult but there will always be some
groups of people who need access to hard copy.
The document availability requirement applies to both internal and external
documents alike. Customer documents such as contracts, drawings, specifica-
tions and standards need to be available to those who need them to execute
their responsibilities. Often these documents are only held in paper form and
therefore distribution lists will be needed to control their location. If documents
in the public domain are required, they only need be available when required
for use and need not be available from the moment they are specified in a
specification or procedure. You should only have to produce such documents
when they are needed for the work being undertaken at the time of the audit.
However, you would need to demonstrate that you could obtain timely access
when needed. If you provide a lending service to users of copyrighted
documents, you would need a register indicating to whom they were loaned so
that you can retrieve them when needed by others.
A document that is not ready for use or is not used often may be archived.
But it needs to be accessible otherwise when it is called for it won’t be there. It
is therefore necessary to ensure that storage areas, or storage mediums provide
secure storage from which documents can be retrieved when needed. Storing
documents off-site under the management of another organization may give
rise to problems if they cannot be contacted when you need the documents.
Archiving documents on magnetic tape can also present problems when the
tape cannot be found or read by the new technology that has been installed!
Electronic storage presents very different problems to conventional storage and
gives rise to the retention of ‘insurance copies’ in paper should the retrieval
mechanism fail.
Ensuring documents are legible and identifiable
The standard requires documents to remain legible and
readily identifiable.
Legibility refers to the ease with which the informa-
tion in a document can be read or viewed. A
document is readily identifiable if it carries some
indication that will quickly distinguish it from
similar documents. Any document that requires a reader to browse through it
looking for clues is clearly not readily identifiable.
The means of transmission and use of documents may cause degradation
such that they fail to convey the information originally intended. Confusion
with document identity could result in a document being misplaced, destroyed
or otherwise being unobtainable. It can also result in incorrect documents
being located and used.
This requirement is so obvious it hardly needs to be specified. As a general
rule, any document that is printed or photocopied should be checked for
legibility before distribution. Legibility is not often a problem with electron-
ically controlled documents. However, there are cases where diagrams cannot
be magnified on screen so it would be prudent to verify the capability of the
technology before releasing documents. Not every user will have perfect
eyesight! Documents transmitted by fax present legibility problems due to the
quality of transmission and the medium on which the information is printed.
Heat sensitive paper is being replaced with plain paper but many organiza-
tions still use the old technology. You simply have to decide your approach.
For any communication required for reference, it would be prudent to use
photocopy or scan the fax electronically and dispose of the original.
Documents used in a workshop environment may require protection from oil
and grease. Signatures are not always legible so it is prudent to have a policy
of printing the name under the signature. Documents subject to frequent
photocopying can degrade and result in illegible areas.
Although a new requirement, it is unusual to find documents in use that carry
no identification at all. Three primary means are used for document
identification – classification, titles and identification numbers. Classification
divides documents into groups based on their purpose – policies, procedures,
records, plans, etc are classes of documents. Titles are acceptable providing
there are no two documents with the same title in the same class. If you have
hundreds of documents it may prove difficult to sustain uniqueness.
Identification can be made unique in one organization but outside it may not
be unique. However, the title as well as the number is usually sufficient.
Electronically controlled documents do not require a visible identity other than
the title in its classification. Classifying documents with codes enables their
sorting by class.
The ISO 9000 Standard requires that documents be updated as
necessary and re-approved following their review.
Following a document review, action may or may not be necessary. If the
document is found satisfactory, it will remain in use until the next review. If the
document is found unsatisfactory there are two outcomes.
The document is no longer necessary and should be withdrawn from use –
this is addressed by the requirement dealing with obsolescence.
The document is necessary but requires a change – this is addressed by this
requirement.
The standard implies that updating should follow a review. The term update
also implies that documents are reviewed only to establish whether they are
current when in fact document reviews may be performed for many different
reasons. A more appropriate term to update would be revise. Previously the
standard addressed only the review and approval of changes and did not
explicitly require a revision process. However, a revision process is executed
before a document is subject to re-approval.
This requirement responds to the Continual Improvement principle.
It is inevitable that during use a need will arise for changing documents and
therefore provision needs to be made to control not only the original
generation of documents but also their revisions.
The document change process consists of a number of key stages some of
which are not addressed in ISO 9000 Standards.
a. Identification of need (addressed by document review)
b. Request for change (not addressed in the standard)
c. Permission to change (not addressed in the standard)
d. Revision of document (addressed by document updates)
e. Recording the change (addressed by identifying the change)
f. Review of the change (addressed under quality planning)
g. Approval of the change (addressed by document re-approval)
h. Issue of change instructions (not addressed in the standard)
i. Issue of revised document (addressed by document availability)
As stated previously, to control documents it is necessary to control their
development, approval, issue, change, distribution, maintenance, use, storage,
security, obsolescence or disposal and we will now address those aspects not
specifically covered by the standard.
In controlling changes it is necessary to define what constitutes a change to a
document. Should you allow any markings on documents, you should specify
those that have to be supported by change notes and those that do not.
Markings that add comment or correct typographical errors are not changes
but annotations. Alterations that modify instructions are changes and need
prior approval. The approval may be in the form of a change note that details
changes that have been approved.
Anyone can review a document but approved documents should only be
changed/revised/amended under controlled conditions. The document
review will conclude that either a change is necessary or unnecessary. If a
change is necessary, a request for change should be made to the issuing
authorities. Even when the person proposing the change is the same as would
approve the change, other parties may be affected and should therefore be
permitted to comment. The most common method is to employ Document
Change Requests. By using a formal change request it allows anyone to request
a change to the appropriate authorities.
Change requests need to specify:
a. The document title, issue and date
b. The originator of the change request (who is proposing the change, his or her
location or department)
c. The reason for change (why the change is necessary)
d. What needs to be changed (which paragraph, section, etc. is affected and
what text should be deleted)
e. The changes in text required where known (the text which is to be inserted
or deleted)
By maintaining a register of such requests you can keep track of who has
proposed what, when and what progress is being made on its approval. You
may of course use a memo or phone call to request a change but this form of
request becomes more difficult to track and prove you have control. You will
need to inform staff where to send their requests.
On receipt of the request you need to provide for its review by the change
authority. The change request may be explicit in what should be changed or
simply report a problem that a change to the document would resolve.
Someone needs to be nominated to draft the new material and present it for
review but before that, the approval authorities need to determine whether
they wish the document to be changed at all. There is merit in reviewing
requests for change before processing in order to avoid abortive effort. You
may also receive several requests for change that conflict and before processing
you will need to decide which change should proceed. While a proposed
change may be valid, the effort involved may warrant postponement of the
change until several proposals have been received – it rather depends on the
urgency
Ensuring the availability of controlled documents
The ISO 9000 standards requires that relevant versions of applica-
ble documents are available at points of use.
The relevant version of a document is the version
that should be used for a task. It may not be the latest
version because you may have reason to use a
different version of a document such as when
building or repairing different versions of the same
product. Applicable documents are those that are
needed to carry out work. Availability at points of use
means the users have access to the documents they
need at the location where the work is to be
performed. It does not mean that users should possess copies of the documents
they need, in fact this is undesirable because the copies may become outdated
and not withdrawn from use.
This requirement exists to ensure that access to documents is afforded when
required. Information essential for the performance of work needs to be
accessible to those performing it otherwise they may resort to other means
of obtaining what they need that may result in errors, inefficiencies and
hazards.
In order to make sure that documents are available you should not keep them
under lock and key (or password protected) except for those where restricted
access is necessary for security purposes. You need to establish who wants
which documents and when they need them. The work instructions should
specify the documents that are required for the task so that those documents
not specified are not essential. It should not be left to the individual to
determine which documents are essential and which are not. If there is a need
for access out of normal working hours, access has to be provided. The more
copies there are the greater the chance of documents not being maintained so
minimize the number of copies. A common practice is to issue documents to
managers only and not the users. This is particularly true of management
system documents. One finds that only the managers hold copies of the
Quality Manual. In some firms all the managers reside in the same building,
even along the same corridor and it is in such circumstances that one invariably
finds that these copies have not been maintained. It is therefore impractical to
have all the copies of the Quality Manual in one place. Distribute the
documents by location, not by named individuals. Distribute to libraries, or
document control centres so that access is provided to everyone and so that
someone has responsibility for keeping them up to date. If using an intranet,
the problems of distribution are less difficult but there will always be some
groups of people who need access to hard copy.
The document availability requirement applies to both internal and external
documents alike. Customer documents such as contracts, drawings, specifica-
tions and standards need to be available to those who need them to execute
their responsibilities. Often these documents are only held in paper form and
therefore distribution lists will be needed to control their location. If documents
in the public domain are required, they only need be available when required
for use and need not be available from the moment they are specified in a
specification or procedure. You should only have to produce such documents
when they are needed for the work being undertaken at the time of the audit.
However, you would need to demonstrate that you could obtain timely access
when needed. If you provide a lending service to users of copyrighted
documents, you would need a register indicating to whom they were loaned so
that you can retrieve them when needed by others.
A document that is not ready for use or is not used often may be archived.
But it needs to be accessible otherwise when it is called for it won’t be there. It
is therefore necessary to ensure that storage areas, or storage mediums provide
secure storage from which documents can be retrieved when needed. Storing
documents off-site under the management of another organization may give
rise to problems if they cannot be contacted when you need the documents.
Archiving documents on magnetic tape can also present problems when the
tape cannot be found or read by the new technology that has been installed!
Electronic storage presents very different problems to conventional storage and
gives rise to the retention of ‘insurance copies’ in paper should the retrieval
mechanism fail.
Ensuring documents are legible and identifiable
The standard requires documents to remain legible and
readily identifiable.
Legibility refers to the ease with which the informa-
tion in a document can be read or viewed. A
document is readily identifiable if it carries some
indication that will quickly distinguish it from
similar documents. Any document that requires a reader to browse through it
looking for clues is clearly not readily identifiable.
The means of transmission and use of documents may cause degradation
such that they fail to convey the information originally intended. Confusion
with document identity could result in a document being misplaced, destroyed
or otherwise being unobtainable. It can also result in incorrect documents
being located and used.
This requirement is so obvious it hardly needs to be specified. As a general
rule, any document that is printed or photocopied should be checked for
legibility before distribution. Legibility is not often a problem with electron-
ically controlled documents. However, there are cases where diagrams cannot
be magnified on screen so it would be prudent to verify the capability of the
technology before releasing documents. Not every user will have perfect
eyesight! Documents transmitted by fax present legibility problems due to the
quality of transmission and the medium on which the information is printed.
Heat sensitive paper is being replaced with plain paper but many organiza-
tions still use the old technology. You simply have to decide your approach.
For any communication required for reference, it would be prudent to use
photocopy or scan the fax electronically and dispose of the original.
Documents used in a workshop environment may require protection from oil
and grease. Signatures are not always legible so it is prudent to have a policy
of printing the name under the signature. Documents subject to frequent
photocopying can degrade and result in illegible areas.
Although a new requirement, it is unusual to find documents in use that carry
no identification at all. Three primary means are used for document
identification – classification, titles and identification numbers. Classification
divides documents into groups based on their purpose – policies, procedures,
records, plans, etc are classes of documents. Titles are acceptable providing
there are no two documents with the same title in the same class. If you have
hundreds of documents it may prove difficult to sustain uniqueness.
Identification can be made unique in one organization but outside it may not
be unique. However, the title as well as the number is usually sufficient.
Electronically controlled documents do not require a visible identity other than
the title in its classification. Classifying documents with codes enables their
sorting by class.

Friday, December 25, 2009

ISO 9000 Standards – Conducting Management Reviews


ISO 9000 Standards – Conducting Management Reviews

The ISO 9000 standards requires that top management conduct
management reviews.
The term review is defined in ISO 9001 as an activity
undertaken to ensure the suitability, adequacy, effective-
ness and efficiency of the subject matter to achieve
established objectives. The addition of the term manage-
ment means that the management review can be
perceived as a review of management rather than a
review by management, although both meanings are conveyed in the standard.
The rationale for this is that the examples given in ISO 9000 such as design
review and nonconformity review clearly indicate it is design and non-
conformity that is being reviewed. If the system was to be reviewed then the
action should be called a system review. It is no doubt unintentional in the
standard but, if the management system is perceived as the way in which the
organization’s objectives are achieved, a review of management is in fact a
review of the way achievement of objectives is being managed because the
organization exists to achieve objectives and so both meanings are correct.
Top management will not regard the management review as important unless
they believe it is essential to running the business. The way to do this is to treat
it as a business performance review. This is simpler than it may appear. If the
quality policy is now accepted as corporate policy and the quality objectives
are accepted as corporate objectives, any review of the management system
becomes a performance review and no different to any other executive
meeting. The problem with the former management reviews was that they
allowed discussion on the means for achieving objectives to take place in other
management meetings leaving the management review to a review of errors,
mistakes and documentation that no one was interested in anyway. The
management system is the means for achieving objectives therefore it makes
sense to review the means when reviewing the ends so that actions are linked to
results and commitment secured for all related changes in one transaction.
The requirement emphasizes that top management conduct the review – not
the quality manager, not the operational manager – but top management – those
who direct and control the organization at the highest level. In many ISO 9000
registered organizations, the management review is a chore, an event held once
each year, on a Friday afternoon before a national holiday – perhaps a cynical
view but nonetheless often true. The reason the event has such a low priority
is that management have not understood what the review is all about. Tell
them it’s about reviewing nonconformities, customer complaints and internal
audit records and you will be lucky if anyone turns up. The quality manager
produces all the statistics so the others managers are free of any burden. By
careful tactics, these managers may come away with no actions, having
delegated any in their quarter to the quality manager.
In order to provide evidence of its commitment to conducting management
reviews, management would need to demonstrate that it planned for the
reviews, prepared input material in the form of performance results, metrics
and explanations, decided what to do about the results and accepted action to
bring about improvement.

The ISO 9000 standards requires that top management conduct management reviews.

The term review is defined in ISO 9000 Standards as an activity undertaken to ensure the suitability, adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of the subject matter to achieve established objectives. The addition of the term management means that the management review can be perceived as a review of management rather than a review by management, although both meanings are conveyed in the standard.

The rationale for this is that the examples given in ISO 9000 Standards such as design review and nonconformity review clearly indicate it is design and non-conformity that is being reviewed. If the system was to be reviewed then the action should be called a system review. It is no doubt unintentional in the standard but, if the management system is perceived as the way in which the organization’s objectives are achieved, a review of management is in fact a review of the way achievement of objectives is being managed because the organization exists to achieve objectives and so both meanings are correct.

Top management will not regard the management review as important unless they believe it is essential to running the business. The way to do this is to treat it as a business performance review. This is simpler than it may appear. If the quality policy is now accepted as corporate policy and the quality objectives are accepted as corporate objectives, any review of the management system becomes a performance review and no different to any other executive meeting. The problem with the former management reviews was that they allowed discussion on the means for achieving objectives to take place in other management meetings leaving the management review to a review of errors, mistakes and documentation that no one was interested in anyway. The management system is the means for achieving objectives therefore it makes sense to review the means when reviewing the ends so that actions are linked to results and commitment secured for all related changes in one transaction.

The requirement emphasizes that top management conduct the review – not the quality manager, not the operational manager – but top management – those who direct and control the organization at the highest level. In many ISO 9000 registered organizations, the management review is a chore, an event held once each year, on a Friday afternoon before a national holiday – perhaps a cynical view but nonetheless often true. The reason the event has such a low priority is that management have not understood what the review is all about. Tell them it’s about reviewing nonconformities, customer complaints and internal audit records and you will be lucky if anyone turns up. The quality manager produces all the statistics so the others managers are free of any burden. By careful tactics, these managers may come away with no actions, having delegated any in their quarter to the quality manager.

In order to provide evidence of its commitment to conducting management reviews, management would need to demonstrate that it planned for the reviews, prepared input material in the form of performance results, metrics and explanations, decided what to do about the results and accepted action to bring about improvement.


ISO 9000 Standards – Document control procedures


ISO 9000 Standards – Document control procedures
The ISO 9000 Standards requires that a documented procedure be established to define the controls needed.

This requirement means that the methods for performing the various activities required to control different types of documents should be defined and documented.

Although the ISO 9000 standards implies that a single procedure is required, should you choose to produce several different procedures for handling the different types of documents it is doubtful that any auditor would deem this noncompliant. Where this might be questionable is in cases where there is no logical reason for such differences and where merging the procedures and settling on a best practice would improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Documents are recorded information and the purpose of the document
control process is to firstly ensure the appropriate information is available
where needed and secondly to prevent the inadvertent use of invalid
information. At each stage of the process are activities to be performed that
may require documented procedures in order to ensure consistency and
predictability. Procedures may not be necessary for each stage in the process.

Every process is likely to require the use of documents or generate documents and it is in the process descriptions that you define the documents that need to be controlled. Any document not referred to in your process descriptions is therefore, by definition, not essential to the achievement of quality and not required to be under control. It is not necessary to identify uncontrolled documents in such cases. If you had no way of tracing documents to a governing process, a means of separating controlled from uncontrolled may well be necessary.

The procedures that require the use or preparation of documents should also specify or invoke the procedures for their control. If the controls are unique to the document, they should be specified in the procedure that requires the document. You can produce one or more common procedures that deal with the controls that apply to all documents. The stages in the process may differ depending on the type of document and organizations involved in its preparation, approval, publication and use. One procedure may cater for all the processes but several may be needed.
The aspects you should cover in your document control procedures, (some
of which are addressed further in this chapter) are as follows
Planning new documents, funding, prior authorization, establishing need
etc.

- Preparation of documents, who prepares them, how they are drafted,
conventions for text, diagrams, forms etc.
- Standards for the format and content of documents, forms and diagrams.
- Document identification conventions.
- Issue notation, draft issues, post approval issues.
- Dating conventions, date of issue, date of approval or date of distribution.
- Document review, who reviews them and what evidence is retained.
- Document approval, who approves them and how approval is denoted.
- Document proving prior to use.
- Printing and publication, who does it and who checks it.
- Distribution of documents, who decides, who does it, who checks it.
- Use of documents, limitations, unauthorized copying and marking.
- Revision of issued documents, requests for revision, who approves the
request, who implements the change.
- Denoting changes, revision marks, reissues, sidelining, underlining.
Amending copies of issued documents, amendment instructions, and
amendment status.
- Indexing documents, listing documents by issue status.
- Document maintenance, keeping them current, periodic review.
- Document accessibility inside and outside normal working hours.
- Document security, unauthorized changes, copying, disposal, computer
viruses, fire and theft.
- Document filing, masters, copies, drafts, and custom binders.
- Document storage, libraries and archive, who controls location, loan
arrangements.
- Document retention and obsolescence.

With electronically stored documentation, the document database may provide many of the above features and may not need to be separately prescribed in your procedures. Only the tasks carried out by personnel need to be defined in your procedures. A help file associated with a document database is as much a documented procedure as a conventional paper based procedure.