New role for TC 176

19th May update

The first significant piece of work for my new role was to attend the ISO CASCO plenary meeting in Vancouver, Canada from the 24 – 28 April 2017.

The main meetings I attended were:

At this stage there isn’t much news on how the role will contribute to effective third party certification of quality management systems, this will develop over time. What is apparent to me is there are lots of good people working hard to improve standards, processes and the system as a whole.

There is, however, a lot of misunderstanding of what good certification to ISO 9001 looks like and the best way of getting there.

With that little teaser I’ll leave you. 🙂

Original announcement

As announced earlier on LinkedIn I’m delighted to announce that, following a resolution at TC 176’s closing plenary in Rotterdam at the beginning of this month, I have been appointed as TC 176‘s liaison with ISO/CASCO to support improved assessment and certification to ISO 9001 by 3rd party certification bodies.

Lots of fascinating work ahead, I feel. Please feel free to register and comment.

The next edition of ISO 9001

You may have heard of it as ISO 9001:2015 but nobody knows when the next edition of ISO 9001 will be published. As with many things to do with the standards development process the publication date will depend on multiple factors, most of them invisible to the user  – you and I. Too much and, amazingly at the same time, too little has been said about the high level structure (HLS). Trawling around the bulletin boards and discussion groups you will have seen outraged expressions about the use of the word ‘risk’ in the committee draft (CD) and at the same time little debate about the sense in using an undemocratic / un ISO like process involving ISO’s TMB to come up with the HLS.

For me Risk is a no-brainier for anyone involved in quality. It is our raison d’être and has its roots in the evolution of quality control and quality assurance. I wrote a piece for the CQI’s Body of Quality Knowledge – here.

The HLS is another matter. National Standards Bodies were given a yes / no  vote without having seen it used in anger and the process to update the HLS is vague, to say the least.

As TC 176 goes about it’s business and the output leaks out I have to ask myself whether the output will be fit for purpose – or whatever your definition of quality is! 🙂