Randy
Super Moderator
ISO 9001 News ISO 9001:2025 - What should be changed in the next Edition of ISO 9001? - REVISION PROCEEDING- August 2023
- Thread starter Sidney Vianna
- Start date
Data and lots of it is core element and output of our increasingly integrated data collection, monitoring and experimental organizations. Data integrity starts at the collection point and includes electronic transfers, the formulas, manipulations and transformations as well as the answers. In my last organization this was a big yet necessary undertaking. AND, unlike our effects on climate change, it has a direct effect on the quality and reliability of our products.
Documented information (aka records) protection equates to data integrity. Now, if you are concerned with ethical management of data, there is no standard in the world that will be able to stop fraud if the organization culture either promotes or allows that to happen. People will do unethical, immoral things and break laws in some circumstances.
AS9100 has requirements for ethical behavior. I doubt a single NC has been written (internally or externally) against that requirement.
Are 7.5.2, 7.5.3 not adequate?
Are 7.5.2, 7.5.3 not adequate?
It really is about more than what ISO covers. It’s not just about ‘fraud’. The two areas I tend to focus on are the torturous paths of data transfer across multiple systems (been bit by that!) and the transparency and availability of data (huge area of risk).
Most of you know that what I dislike about the standards is that they are a minimal standard and too many organizations try to contract lawyer their way out of good quality as well as the abusive punitive and ignorant auditors that overstep ( no one here of course
). So like everything, ISO is more likely to get it wrong and vaguely over reach on this too….
Most of you know that what I dislike about the standards is that they are a minimal standard and too many organizations try to contract lawyer their way out of good quality as well as the abusive punitive and ignorant auditors that overstep ( no one here of course
). So like everything, ISO is more likely to get it wrong and vaguely over reach on this too….
Only if they have a history of hiding things, manipulating data, corrupting data, losing data, performing incorrect mathematical/statistical calculations, censoring results they don't like, performing biased studies, etc. As a data goddess...I know the temptations and risks of these things even if unintentional
Wait, is this the Boeing thread?Only if they have a history of hiding things, manipulating data, corrupting data, losing data, performing incorrect mathematical/statistical calculations, censoring results they don't like, performing biased studies, etc. As a data goddess...I know the temptations and risks of these things even if unintentional
Randy
Super Moderator
Wait, is this the Boeing thread?
UN Sustainable Development Goals
committee.iso.org
I had seen this document about a month ago. Some of the statements in this document are definitely part of a pipe dream. And, while I also subscribe to the idea that progressive, modern, intelligent, business-oriented quality management can be a component of an organization ESG framework, I am concerned that the TC 176 is definitely losing the focus on it's core mission.
If exposing what I consider ineptitude and terrible strategic decisions by a committee that, in my opinion, are clearly veering away of the expected path, makes me a troll, so be it. People don't like being exposed for supporting an entity that is clearly losing sight of it's mission. I don't care. History is full of examples of entities that were so refractory to external feedback that drove themselves into oblivion.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
Interesting Discussion
Should ISO 9004 be changed from a guidance document to a requirements standard?