S
samsung
Re: ISO 9001:2008 and Quality Manual
Hellow AndyN and Jane B.,
I sincerely appreciate your involvement in this discussion. As I know, being a lead auditor & a consultant as well, you as well as many others on the Cove are experts of Management Systems and thus you obviously have a different perspective for the QMS requirements than the ordinary and unsophisticated practitioners who don't have so much of in-depth knowledge of this subject. As I said earlier, we didn't know that we weren't meeting all the requirements of the 2000 version because they might be existing since 2000 as you said, but in 'disguise' and probably this was the reason the ISO body had to come forward with a fresh 'draft' with certain clarifications/word additions/deletion and these (otherwise) simple clarifications came to many as 'new or changed requirements'. Now they are clearly written and hence, are understood the way they mean and thus being implemented the way they are envisaged.
If the CB's are at fault, the accreditation bodies (RvA in this case) are equally responsible for such a lapse.
And one thing that I must highlight is that even after so much clarifications by ISO itself, many of the 'apparently simple' requirements are still unclear to many of the non-experts and perhaps that's why people have been constantly putting up their queries for clarification/ discussion for last so many years on Elsmar.
Thanks.
Hellow AndyN and Jane B.,
I sincerely appreciate your involvement in this discussion. As I know, being a lead auditor & a consultant as well, you as well as many others on the Cove are experts of Management Systems and thus you obviously have a different perspective for the QMS requirements than the ordinary and unsophisticated practitioners who don't have so much of in-depth knowledge of this subject. As I said earlier, we didn't know that we weren't meeting all the requirements of the 2000 version because they might be existing since 2000 as you said, but in 'disguise' and probably this was the reason the ISO body had to come forward with a fresh 'draft' with certain clarifications/word additions/deletion and these (otherwise) simple clarifications came to many as 'new or changed requirements'. Now they are clearly written and hence, are understood the way they mean and thus being implemented the way they are envisaged.
If the CB's are at fault, the accreditation bodies (RvA in this case) are equally responsible for such a lapse.
And one thing that I must highlight is that even after so much clarifications by ISO itself, many of the 'apparently simple' requirements are still unclear to many of the non-experts and perhaps that's why people have been constantly putting up their queries for clarification/ discussion for last so many years on Elsmar.
Thanks.
