Dear GMO,
Never used it myself but you're probably remembering examples of the implementation of this -
1994 version
ISO 9000:1994 emphasized quality assurance via preventive actions, instead of just checking final product, and continued to require evidence of compliance with documented procedures. As with the first edition, the down-side was that companies tended to implement its requirements by creating shelf-loads of procedure manuals, and becoming burdened with an ISO bureaucracy. In some companies, adapting and improving processes could actually be impeded by the quality system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9001Basically everyone knew that compliance virtually required the drafting of a
manual according to a "formula", including the style/use of CAR forms as well.
Nonetheless the layout / structure is IMO (relatively !) much easier to follow for less imaginative minds than the "process" based model which followed. I used to occasionally browse the latter as a solution to insomnia (pre-internet
).
A nicely sarcastic telling (British of course) of the developement, layout and flavour of the standard is here -
http://www.systemsth...3-1-article.aspa sample extract -
It is ironic that ISO 9000, what we would describe as the “control solution” to our problems, separated “design” from “process” (see page 137), making the understanding of this important issue less likely. It also served to maintain the tradition that management could and should be separated from work (see page 62), something Admiral Rickover, rightly in our view, saw as the nub of the problem.
He went on:
“It should be of concern to us that specifications are normally written by manufacturers and therefore usually represent the lowest standard of engineering to which all manufacturers are willing to agree. This should be changed.”
However, ISO 9000 ensured that it was not. ISO 9000 ensured that the manufacturer could determine its own quality system, provided it also satisfied the requirements of an inspector.
Rgds / Charles.C
