When Japan interpreted ISO9001:2000 into Japanese, they added some
notes. The problem is some of them are contradictory to formal requirements.
Typical one is the note for 8.5.2 f) clause. It says that “corrective
action taken” in this clause means a series of actions from a) to e).
This miss interpretation has sometimes resulted meaningless troubles
on the assessments.
1. Q&A at a meeting held by Certification body I
Recently the management representative of Company S attended the meeting.
At the meeting the following Q&A was done.
Manager
of the body: |
ISO9001:2000
requires reviewing preventive action taken and it means reviewing
series of activities a) to d) in 8.5.2 clause as the relevant
Japanese note says. If a company does not satisfy the requirement
described in the note, it will be nonconformity. |
Management
representative of Company S: |
Can notes be formal
requirements? |
Manager
of the body: |
The note has been
effective from the beginning of issue of 2000 version. |
Management
representative of Company S: |
Is there any document
that prescribes the note has the same authority as ISO9001:2000
requirements? |
| Manager
of the body: |
JAB instructed
such content (no document shown). |
eside the above Q&A, in the last year’s surveillance of the company
assessor said the same thing about 8.5.2 f) clause. At that time Management
representative of Company S raised an objection referring to the book
“ISO9000 for Small Businesses”. The assessor said against his objection
that it was not Japanese standards!
2. My comment on the above Q&A
(1) Notes cannot be formal requirements.
(2) In order to keep ISO9001:2000 international standards, member
countries have agreement that when they interpret English of ISO9001:2000
into their own language the content of the Standard should be changed.
Therefore notes that Japan added just to suit itself and have some
doubt contradictory to ISO9001:2000 seem to break the agreement. Japanese
interpreters should have confirmed with ISO headquarter whether the
notes are right or not.
(3) Interpretation for the clause by other authorized documents
Problem is that all documents which explain meaning of 8.5.2 f) clause
is completely different with the Japan note. I will refer to some
of them below.
①ISO News of July-August 2001
Mr. GrayMinks; audit manager of US certification body; questioned
real meaning of corrective action. “The standard says ‘you will review
action taken’. What does that mean? Look up 'review’ in the vocabulary
and it includes ‘verification of effectiveness,’” he noted. “That’s
very specific. So the organization needs to do is verify the effectiveness
of the corrective action that they implemented - how well that action
prevents the recurrence of the problem.”
②”ISO9001:2000 Explained” written by Mr. Charles, issued by ASQ
It says simply referring to definition in ISO9000:2000 that review
is required to ensure that the corrective actions have been implemented
and effective in preventing the problem from recurring.
Its explanation is completely the same as ①.
③”ISO9000 for Small Business: What to do” for 1994 version issued
by TC176
It says that if corrective action is taken, it should be documented
and followed up within a reasonable period to find out whether it
has worked.
The explanation is deleted in 2000 version because it reflects on
8.5.2 f) clause.
|