ISO Guide 83

Origin

Work commenced in March 2010 on an ISO standard that was intended to simplify the implementation of multiple management system standards and any associated conformity assessment but it was not intended for certification purposes. In May 2011 ISO released ISO DGUIDE 83 for comment which is the culmination of this work but unlike the original proposal, this guide is intended only for standards writers and is not for use by standards users.

Drivers

The main driver for change came from standards users who were unhappy that among several management system standards, requirements having the same intent were expressed differently and this gave rise to auditors interpreting the requirements differently.

Alignment

Various attempts had been made to get better alignment between ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 but there was resistance to change structures in each. The review cycles were not synchronized so that there tended to be leapfrogging and rivalry between different technical committees.

Proliferation

There are a growing number of management system standards and thus the potential for this problem getting worse is increasing. Following the energy management system standard ISO 50001 the latest being proposed is one on bribery management!

Implementation

There will be a common structure and common text for main clauses with additional discipline specific clauses but common text cannot be undermined. The idea is that everywhere there is and xxx in the common text, the name of the discipline is inserted so for example, that xxx management system becomes quality management system. There will be common definitions and additional discipline specific definitions will be allowed. This will result in text and definitions being duplicated in every management system standard. The main clauses will be as follows:

1          Scope
2          Normative references
3          Terms and definitions
4          Context of the organization
4.1       Understanding the organization and its context
4.2       Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties
4.3       XXX management system
5          Leadership
5.1       General
5.2       Management commitment
5.3       Policy
5.4       Organizational roles, responsibilities and authorities
6          Planning
6.1       Actions to address risks and opportunities
6.2       XXX objectives and plans to achieve them
7          Support
7.1       Resources
7.2       Competence
7.3       Awareness
7.4       Communication
7.5       Documented information
7.5.1    General
7.5.2    Create and update
7.5.3    Control of documented Information
8          Operation
8.1       Operational planning and control
9          Performance Evaluation
9.1       Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
9.2       Internal Audit
9.3       Management review
10        Improvement
10.1     Nonconformity and corrective action
10.2     Continual improvement
Terms and definitions

Implications

Eventually it will affect all existing management system assessment standards. Any new standard will be immediately familiar to the user with the emphasis on what is unique to the specific discipline. However it could significantly affect the future development ISO 9000 and any alignment there might be between ISO 9001 and ISO 9004..

CQI Position

At a meeting on 6 July 18 members of SDG including Sandy Sutherland (Chair of QS/1) attended a meeting in London to formulate the CQI position on ISO Guide 83. The meeting concluded with those present with one exception agreeing that the CQI should support the intent of this guide as it will reduce variation in requirements having the same intent but we expressed several reservations as  summarised below which was sent to BSI on 11 July.

We have made 93 comments on the Guide covering 16 pages and at the BSI QS/1 meeting on 12 July those present agreed that QS/1 should support the intent of Guide 83 and that our comments along with others received by BSI will be sent to the ISO Technical Management Board.

Our reservations in summary are as follows:

• If it is not made mandatory and applied universally on management system assessment standards it will not yield the intended benefits
• Duplication through many management system standards may eventually  inhibit innovation and increase resistance to change in common requirements
• The structure presents a distorted application of process management
• Reference to xxx management system throughout encourages standards writers and users to believe that organizations establish management systems in response to management system standards
• That classifying quality as a discipline is unhelpful when it would be better to focus on objectives such as satisfying customers
• The focus should also be on the management of XXX rather than the xxx management system
• The notion that there are xxx processes is flawed when in reality organizations have processes and they either refine existing processes or create new processes to achieve specific objectives.