Upgrade to iso 9001:2015 from iso9001:2008

How would you know it's the actual text? Presumably, you can compare it to your copy (original) of the standard...

 

Frequently, we see - even here on QFO - organizations that develop "management systems" which conform to the black-and-white of the applicable standard's requirements, but fail to comprehend the spirit of it. To be fair to the International Organization for Standardization, trying to articulate 'spirit' and 'intent' is nearly impossible to do - which is why there is still the need to interpret the requirements. This type of dilemma extends beyond the world of management systems. Consider legal and political debates on topics such as the USA's "right to bear arms" or moral issues regarding abortion.

Going back to your example of the organization with the plethora of procedures, this situation is created because the organization believes that conformance to a standard is merely checking off the tick-box beside the requirement. What the organization has failed to do is understand that a management system is about developing a culture regarding consistency, standardization, excellence, and accountability. Having those procedures is a first step...but using these defined (and documented) processes to develop training programs, or understand where metrics touch the processes (to facilitate nonconformance analyses or improvement initiatives), or to help demonstrate process capability when bidding on jobs/projects...these types of "going beyond the procedures" aren't spelled out in the standard. However, when an organization understands the true power of interconnected processes, it can take these procedures they've created and turn them into something truly wonderful and value-added to the organization and its stakeholders.

Part of a management system is standardization. This does not necessarily mean procedure after procedure after procedure...but for the companies that take this route, having them 'blame' ISO or some other standard for their paperwork is often their own inability to see beyond the typed word of the standard. As for having all that documentation, it can come in handy for organizations that have high turn-over or unstable processes or inconsistent results...but the documentation is only effective if it's used properly. You're not going to find "develop effective documentation" in the standard, yet it's implied as one of the means to "achieve planned results."

 

And, I'd wager, that often that's because people took the easy path and bought "ISO in a can", instead of buying the standard and reading/understanding it!

Which costs more than buying the standard, reading and understanding where and why documentation was required...

True, yet we also know that countless discussions are had by those who DON'T know this stuff and they are often influenced by the "throw-away" comments of those who profess to "know the standard". As Roxane states to well:

These people often state unequivocally what must or must not happen, according to "ISO", yet upon reading the standard, nothing such can be found! My question is, if the standard is parsed in this way, instead of spending a relatively small amount of money (compared with other business spending) the cost ends up being as wessex describes above...

Oh, and what does it cost to have someone browsing websites/forums in the (vain) hope of collecting all the requirements, notes, vocab etc. compared to buying a copy?

 

To be honest, I think we're all dancing about the same point here...however, our dance moves just happen to be different.

If the top management (please note, I said 'management' and not 'leadership') merely want that piece of paper on the wall, I don't care who they bring in - be it one individual or a plethora of consultants from a world-renowned firm - no sustainable organizational culture shift towards excellence will occur.

To buy the standard, yes, it costs money...money that can clearly be identified on someone's accounting spreadsheet. Time spent here on QFO, trying to learning about the requirements...that costs money, too, however, it's not so clearly definable on an accounting spreadsheet. How we go about implementing a management system is unique to each organization and what's important is that something is developed that adds value to the organization. How the organization defines 'value'...well...that's a whole separate discussion. It could simply be that piece of paper on the wall...or it could evolve into something culturally spectacular.

 

Nope. Actually I'm Church of England. No dreams, either, just well experienced in effective (and ineffective) management systems. And, finally, I guess it depends on your definition of "quality" and "enjoyment": I drive a 1998 Range Rover - who some lambast as "poor quality" - yet for me, it's a great vehicle which I enjoy daily...

 

I thought it was answered in the first few posts...