1. Black humor of New Year
Mr.A, a friend of mine, ISO9000 consultant, told me that an officer of a local government came to a construction company, which was about to challenge the ISO9001 registration, and requested to exclude some important constructions undergoing. The reason of his request was that he was afraid of heavy bureaucratic documentations and resultant lack of floor managements for the constructions due to its registration.

But governmental officers have also responsibilities of the wasteful documentations, because they often require making such documentations.

At the end of last month, I attended a lecture made by a famous assessor. He said based on his long experiences 2 or 3 % of ISO9000 registrants are successful, 90% are unsuccessful and the remainders are about leave.

2. No increased requirement about Management responsibility
Recently a famous assessor said in one of his lectures that ISO9001: 2000 required about six times heavier requirements than 94 version. I think his saying is false and the correct saying should be "the descriptions of requirements on management responsibility have become more detail ". Rather, the description of " ensure", which means a top management does not necessarily do as his personal activities, is more increased than 94 version.
For corresponding to the requirement of Quality management system planning, one of the additional requirements in ISO9001: 2000, it is enough to declare his company will install the system which conform to ISO9001: 2000 requirements.

Causes of the problem are false activities based on misinterpretations of requirements for top management in ISO9001: 2000. For such top managements ISO9001: 2000 appears totally new version.
For an example a top management only signs records of quality meetings or records of internal audits for management reviews. He does false management reviews based on misinterpretations of requirements. ISO9001: 2000 rewrites the requirements in details to avoid such misinterpretations. This superficially appears as increase of requirements.

For 94 version, I, as a consultant, have advised client companies that management review is a work that a top management should personally do alone.
When I was requested for advices from a top management how to write management review records for the request by ISO9001: 1994, I asked him back," Recently do you have any plan to invest in new personnel or equipment?" Generally he answered some ideas. They were seeds of management reviews. For such cases, ISO9001: 2000 has no new additional requirements.

3. False assessment interviews based on misinterpretations of process approach
Recently I often have heard an assessor asks managers of auditees," Please tell me input, process and output of your jobs". This type of assessor may be increasing.
In this case, the simple question like," Please tell me your jobs from its start to its end" would be easy for a manager to understand and answer.
Later I have found the reason why an assessor does the queer question. The question has come from misinterpretations of " process approach" emphasized in ISO9001: 2000.
What kinds of approach does ISO9000 take before 2000 verson? No reference to it in ISO9001: 2000.
Its vague explanation may the cause of the queer interviews.