Here’s a big data dump, only hours old. The file below contains all the comments on the DIS version of ISO 9001:2015, from all the national member bodies of TC 176. This file, published yesterday, includes the final disposition of each comment, recorded as “Observations of the Secretariat.” That disposition declares whether each comment was approved, rejected or noted. It’s a massive 391-page file and will take a lot of time to parse through, but it should give you an idea of what will be included in the coming FDIS version slated for publication on July 9.
Download the full ISO/DIS 9001:2015 comments file here. (3.5 MB, PDF)
(Attorneys in the room will note that the document is not marked as copyrighted, proprietary or confidential. If ISO wants it taken down, they can follow proper procedures by reading this. Since the file itself apparently violates someone else’s copyright — see below — they may want to proceed with caution.)
I’ve confirmed that the Secretariat isn’t making the decision on rejection or approval by itself, but instead recording the decision of working group WG24. That group is comprised of different Task Groups, each assigned to go over the comments of a different section of the standard. A photo from 2014 shows the Task Group assigned to clauses 4 and 5 consisted of about 20 people, with at least two of them from Certification Bodies. There’s no published list of who, exactly, sits on WG24, and thus who made the final decision on approving or rejecting international comments. (If anyone can identify some of the folks in that photo, let me know.)
Quick First Glance
A quick (and admittedly dirty) study of the results shows that almost half of the comments were rejected outright, and only 16% were approved as proposed by the member nation.
Make of that what you will.
Some of the comments are pretty out-there. Britain’s CQI wanted to add a fairly terrifying graphic of the human body to hammer home the idea that systems are just like terrifying graphics of the human body, or something like that. Have a look:
Had that gotten into the standard, it would have been interesting since the graphic was apparently stolen from a book on Ayervedic natural medicine, and would have been a serious breach of copyright. I am sure the 9-year old boy who originally drew it in MS Paint would be very upset, too.
Ireland just said what everyone was thinking, and chastised the group for including an “amateurish and confusing” diagram of the process approach, saying — in all caps, mind you — “THIS IS A TERRIBLE MODEL.”
The many comments concerning risk, especially those proposed by ANSI and the Netherlands, were just rejected outright.
I’m still reviewing the data here, as there is a lot to go over. But this should make your weekend interesting.
UPDATE: see here for an analysis of how the US TAG fared in getting its views adopted. It’s not good.
SUBSCRIBE to the Oxebridge blog and newsletter to get advanced leads on new leaks, info and drama in the ISO world, plus free unicorn ponies!
Christopher Paris is the founder and VP Operations of Oxebridge. He has over 35 years’ experience implementing ISO 9001 and AS9100 systems, and helps establish certification and accreditation bodies with the ISO 17000 series. He is a vocal advocate for the development and use of standards from the point of view of actual users. He is the writer and artist of THE AUDITOR comic strip, and is currently writing the DR. CUBA pulp novel series. Visit www.drcuba.world
