The Future Structure of ISO Management System Standards - from HLS to HS (Harmonized Structure) September 2023

I suspect we will see a further refinement of requirements between standards. We already see a feed-down of requirements for technical competence, and meshing of QMS requirements between accreditation and registration standards.

So long as the accreditation standards do not see a lessening of requirements, and instead the registration standards come up, it is a good thing. Thus far, there does not appear to be a lessening. Even the Committee Draft of ISO/IEC 17020 tightenes up requirements.

From https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/live...5883/Activities.html?nodeid=3554104&vernum=-2

It was also realised that the work of the ISO/TMB/TAG13-JTCG has now reached a critical stage, as it has now produced an outline structure for all future ISO management system standards that includes passages of “identical text” to be used in all such standards. This work has to be viewed as yet another critical input into any future edition of ISO 9001, and could represent up to about 30% of the text of the standard.

Regrettably, the process based clause sequence/structure that has been fundamental to ISO 9001 has not been followed in the JTCG’s proposals. This caused alarm among a majority of the members, and subsequently a resolution was adopted to request ISO/TMB to urgently review its direction and consider options to address the concerns and perceived negative impact on ISO 9001 and related documents.

Click to expand...

Sidney Vianna said:

An early draft of the proposed common language for future ISO Management System Standards is attached.

Click to expand...

Wow! Obviously lots of thought and discussion went into this. Thanks for sharing, Sidney.

In reference to the new "flower" model, it seems to me that up to now ISO 9001 provides the core of the flower. I can certainly see improvement and clarification in this new document, but I wonder if it is necessary to split the quality part of the MS out into a petal. Quality is so central to the organization's purpose... shouldn't it just be left in the core? Couldn't it be let that the Quality MS provides that basic framework on to which all other MSs may be tacked on in a Pirsig fit?

By the way, in the first article's petals there is a "OH&S" petal and another "Safety" petal. What is the difference between these two?

Of the proposed common language I love the "deal with the consecuences" of 10.1.b, and the "access" note at the end of 7.5.3. These items will eliminate some of the most common sources of confusion I've seen.

Sidney Vianna said:

An early draft of the proposed common language for future ISO Management System Standards is attached.

Interesting to note that section 10 deals with nonconformity and corrective action. No mention whatsoever to preventive action. Could they have seen the light?

Also, the term and definition of risk is introduced.

Click to expand...

Sidney,

"They" is us. I am sure you know that many users of system standards participate in TAGs and other groups to help make them better.

...including Elsmar Covers.

John

John Broomfield said:

Sidney,

"They" is us. I am sure you know that many users of system standards participate in TAGs and other groups to help make them better.

...including Elsmar Covers.

John

Click to expand...

John, I am very familiar with the standards development process. Actually I participate in one of the US TAG's and the AAQSC. Exactly because of that, I know that the process leading to standards is far from perfect. Most of the time, a handful of very influential people dominate the "consensus reaching path". For a standard as universal as ISO 9001, it would be impossible for it to reflect what the users really want. On a daily basis, this forum shows us how so many users of the standards are totally ignorant about some of the very basic aspects of the documents, much less should be able to abstract what a future version of the document should comprise.

But let me offer you one example of why I think the leadership of the TC 176 is too distant from the real world.

When the TC 176 set out to revise/amend/clarify the 3rd Edition of ISO 9001, they surveyed the user community. The goal of the 4th Edition of ISO 9001 was PRIMARILY to clarify the requirements of the document.

In this very forum, one of the most controversial, repetitive and debated subject is on the real-world application of preventive action. The poll @ the Should the TC 176 Re-word the Requirements for Preventive Action? thread shows that twice as many people believe that the TC 176 should have clarified the requirements of preventive action in the 2008 amendment of ISO 9001. Did they do it? No. Are they are aware of the difficulty users have in applying PA in the real world? I don't know. Should they be aware? Most definitely. If they are aware of the issue and decided not to tackle it, why?

Could it be that The Cover's apparent challenge with the concept of preventive action is unique to this community? I doubt.

The TC 176 will keep on doing surveys of the user community, but at the end of the day, what ISO 9001:2015 becomes is HIGHLY influenced by a handful of people in the leadership role of the TC 176. That's a fact. Not sure if it is a bad thing or not, but that's how standards are developed.

Well, the ISO Technical Management Board decided to move forward and approved the motion to have ALL ISO Management System Standards aligned with the High Level Structure of ISO Guide 83. Their latest communique' informs us:

3. Important developments affecting MSS
Background: The TMB adopted TMB Resolution 18/2012 which states that, in principle, all management systems standards (MSS) to be developed shall follow the High Level Structure and identical text for MSS and comment MS terms and core definitions (HLS). It decided that, taking into account the flexibility already proposed in the HLS where deviations are already permitted, any TC/SC having decided not to follow this HLS must report their decision with detailed rationale to the TMB. This means that a deviation in the use of the HLS, already permitted by the JTCG recommendations (included in document N316), does not need to be reported to the TMB (adding a clause, insertions, etc.), thereby allowing more flexibility in the implementation. After one year the TMB will review the deviations reported to the TMB and
might review the process. The JTCG has not been disbanded, but its mandate has been revised to become an informative guidance/coordination group, able to provide guidance on the use or implementation of the HLS to the technical community upon request, but with no authoritative role.
What this means for you: The above changes will be included in the next edition of the Consolidated ISO Supplement (to be published in April 2012) following which any deviations to the HLS must be reported to the TMB (through the TMB Secretary at [email protected]).

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if standards that currently use ISO 9001 as a baseline (AS9100, TS 16949, TL-9000, etc.) will be decoupled from the future versions of ISO 9001.

From what I understand, the TC176 SC2 is working on a design specification for the ISO 9001:2015(6?) standard, just like they did for the current version of the document.

Sidney Vianna said:

"This article first appeared in the September-October 2009 issue of ISO Management Systems magazine www.iso.org/ims and is reproduced with the kind permission of ISO Central Secretariat www.iso.org."

It gives us a glimpse of the future structure of Management System Standards being developed by several ISO Technical Committees.

Click to expand...

Two thoughts:

Section four needs to be greatly expanded; and Top Management in most ABs need to retire.

Key phrases in the TMB decision are: "in principle" and "deviations ..permitted."

The decision seems sort of vapid and indecisive.

It is my understanding also that TC176 is working on a design specification for a revision of ISO 9001.

vanputten said:

Key phrases in the TMB decision are: "in principle" and "deviations ..permitted."

The decision seems sort of vapid and indecisive.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with herding cats!

We are already aware that at least one of the major TCs is refusing to use the common text and the jury is out as to whether it will get through TC 176. IMHO there are two significant reasons for this reluctance to adopt:

• There are still some TCs who believe they can come up with the 'silver bullet' wording for the requirement for a XXX policy (for example) that will turn light bulbs on for standard readers.
• The sector specific guys and gals don't want (any) change as it means they have to go through a revision process.

vanputten said:

It is my understanding also that TC176 is working on a design specification for a revision of ISO 9001.

Click to expand...

Yes, work was started in anticipation of the vote to revise the standard. Lots of talk about 'major' changes but also plenty of resistance (see above).

vanputten said:

Key phrases in the TMB decision are: "in principle" and "deviations ..permitted."

The decision seems sort of vapid and indecisive.

It is my understanding also that TC176 is working on a design specification for a revision of ISO 9001.

Click to expand...

Dirk,

I think eager volunteers are preferred to reluctant conformists.

No doubt, Guide 83 will be continually improved too.

Pity this is not yet done via a StandardsWiki so we could all join in directly.

John