This standard has existed in various formats for a couple of decades now, and the process for drafting, approving and issuing are long and deliberate, but at the tail end of it all you have to ask the question "was that honestly the best you could come up with?" If there is so much good business practice woven in to the clauses, is it too much to ask that this time it doesn't take a psychic and a team of sniffer dogs to locate it?
Let's take some specific examples. Is section 5 a realistic test of strategic management capabilities? Does the quality policy actually matter that much? Why can't the requirement to measure and understand cause and effect relationships be made crystal clear and unavoidable? Why is there such a debate over what can legitimately be termed a "Quality Objective"? Why is "Control of Non-Conforming Product" a mandatory procedure? and why on earth is it in section 8, ("Measurement Analysis and Improvement")? ... and (the final cherry on the cake) Who on God's good earth actually uses the term "Product Realization" in everyday speech?
Despite what John Seddon thinks, we're clearly looking at a product here with a very strong position in the market place. Otherwise we can't help but think it might try a teensy bit harder to listen to its customers.
So, to summarise, we end with an impassioned plea to TC 176, (in the words of Debbie Harry) "make it magnificent"
A "magnificent" draft of ISO 9000. Now there's a thought.
