TC 176 and standards development
TC 176 - Azores 2018

TC 176 and standards development

In a couple of posts on LinkedIn, I have referred to the ISO Standards Development process. There is so much misunderstanding out there. It will be great to improve this understanding so that people can share knowledge and perhaps encourage people to contribute to the standards development process through their national standards bodies (NSB).

The first place to start in understanding the standards development process is with the role of ISO’s Technical Management Board (TMB). TMB is the technical governance mechanism of ISO and has the delegated authority to establish technical committees (TC) to carry out its work. The first ISO TC, TC 1,? became active shortly after ISO was formed by its member NSB. A full list of ISO TCs can be found here. TMB can also form standing and temporary (ad hoc) groups to carry out ISO’s work under its own management. Further information and a listing of these groups can be found here. So, TC 176 has a remit from ISO TMB in the area of quality to develop standards and TMB has the overarching remit for all ISO Standards.?

ISO 9001 was the first management systems standard (MSS) published by ISO, in 1987 following development work carried out by TC 176. It was only when ISO 14001 came out in 1996 that users began to ask questions about why the layout and text of these two standards were so different. Those questions multiplied over time as more and more MSS were produced by different ISO TCs (over 80 at the time of this page on ISO’s website). In 2007, TMB established a subsidiary standing group, the Joint Technical Coordination Group (JTCG) with an invitation for the Chairs and Committee Managers as representatives of all of ISO’s MSS committees to join and ensure there was some consistency in the design and use of all ISO MSS. One piece of work that came out of JTCG was the high-level structure and common text published originally in 2012 in the ISO IEC Directives (Part 1) as Annex SL. There have been regular small updates to Annex SL over the years, managed by the TMB through its Directives Management Team.

ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 describes how ISO standards should look and the overall layout and format of the text, tables, figures etc. used in ISO standards. It does not, however, describe the processes individual TCs, Sub Committees (SC), Project Committees (PC) and Working Groups (WG) must follow – these are covered in ISO/IEC Directives Part 1 (including the consolidated supplement). Part 1 also outlines TMB’s role and links to the committee page (above) which outlines the TMB terms of reference, including for the formation of standing and ad hoc groups, such as JTCG and the JTCG task force, TF14, that revised Annex SL recently.

TC 176 (as just one TC example) was embedded in the work to develop the original Annex SL and has been fully engaged in the latest task force 14 (TF14) development work. JTCG invited representation from all ISO TCs that produce MSS to take part in the work of TF14. It extended the invitation to NSBs and the actual representation at meetings and commenting on the output from TF14 was extensive. TC 176 supports the approach to developing a harmonised structure for ISO MSS. The latest Annex SL is not exactly as we would want it. It is, however, much better than the previous edition(s) and, in the spirit of consensus that all ISO standards work relies on, we accept it and can work with it.?

The work of JTCG and, in particular TF 14, was to produce this harmonised approach and structure (HS) for MSS. Because the HS is included in the Directives, Part 1 TC 176 has to use the structure and text TC 176 can if it feels the need, can add text to it. The main area where TCs are expected to add significant areas of content is in clause 8 – Operational Control. Hence you will see clauses in ISO 9001 related to capturing customer requirements, designing and developing products and services, externally provided products and services, production and service provision, the release of products and services and control of nonconforming products and services.

Sidney Vianna

Purveyor of facts at elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum

2 年

Thanks for the article, Paul. In my opinion, an opportunity rich area where the ISO Standards Development process should address in the Directives Part 1 is the need for a MANDATORY validation process for Type A MSS, whereby a number (hopefully larger than 1) exercises would be performed to assess the "auditability" of the requirements. As you know well, the perception of the value of standards in the marketplace is significantly affected by it's associated conformity assessment practices. In my experience, there is a disconnect and lack of transparency on the validation of Type A MSS. The best standard in the world that allows for an unreasonable range of assessment results due to embeded subjectivity and wide variation of management system audit teams competence leads to nothing close we would call "standard". Obviously, as many of us are aware, standardization of management systems do not mean uniformity of outcomes, but, nevertheless, I think most of us would agree that it is important for standard developers to be aware of the impact of their product vis a vis conformity assessment in the real world.

回复
Robert Freeman

Managing Director at A Cube TIC LLC (ACT)

2 年

Well done Paul!

J?rg Roggensack

Menschen entwickeln, an der Zukunft von Unternehmen mitwirken, Nachhaltigkeit schaffen durch die Beachtung von Werten! Auditierung - Beratung - Training | DQS Auditor - KMU-Berater - Live-Online Trainer

2 年

Paul, Thx for sharing this. What Ilearned over the last years since HLS is in place, that TCs are not aware of what is requested in HLS. Or how would you explain that TC 176 placed the Topic of measurement and test equipment in 7.1.5. All other TCs placed this topic as described in HLS in 9. What is wrong within an organization for developing Standards, when the member of a TC didn't understand the ISO internal Standard.

Abhishek Chhabra

Growth Catalyst, Activator, Ideator, Maximiser, Assurance Industry Expert

2 年

Thank you Paul Simpson for this post

Ian Walker CQP MCQI

Director and Consultant @ Quality Management Projects Limited | Chartered Quality Professional

2 年

Thank you Paul

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Paul Simpson的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了