Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- articles:re-writing_iso_9001_through_interpretation [2020/01/24 14:32] – [How ASQ attempted to create a new requirement through Interpretation/Opinion] rrandall
+++ articles:re-writing_iso_9001_through_interpretation [2022/05/14 11:54] – [Re-writing ISO 9001:2015... through Interpretation] rrandall
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Re-writing ISO 9001:2015... through Interpretation ======
-ISO 9001:2015 was designed to include many ambiguous/vague requirements because the responsible committee ([[https://www.iso.org/committee/53896.html|ISO TC176/SC2]]) was convinced that in order for the standard to be accepted by a large international user base, it must recognize //cultural relativism//. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another.
+According to [[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textualism|Merriam-Webster]], the word "//textualism//" is defined as a "//strict or rigid adherence to a text (such as the text of the Scriptures)//". This word is most often used in the US legal profession and refers to "//a legal philosophy that laws and legal documents (such as the U.S. Constitution) should be interpreted by considering only the words used in the law or document as they are commonly understood//".
-Consequently, interpretation of the requirements of ISO 9001:2015 & AS 9100:2016 changes when crossing cultural boundaries. Or, stated another way, interpretation of the requirements of ISO 9001:2015 & AS 9100:2016 is "//country dependent//".
+Natually, many users attempt to interpret ISO 9001 through textualism. But if that is the intent of the committee responsible for crafting ISO 9001, then why is there a need for so many "official" (and unofficial) interpretations?
+ISO 9001:2015 was designed to include many ambiguous/vague requirements because the responsible committee ([[https://www.iso.org/committee/53896.html|ISO TC176/SC2]]) was convinced that in order for the standard to be accepted by a large international user base, it must recognize //cultural relativism//. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. (See [[articles:context_of_the_organization|Context of the Organization... and "Interested Parties"]])
+Consequently, interpretation of the requirements of ISO 9001:2015 & AS 9100:2016 changes when crossing cultural boundaries. And since culture is most often rooted in socio-political beliefs, economy, laws, regulations, etc., interpretation of the requirements of ISO 9001:2015 & AS 9100:2016 are often "//nation dependent//".
 So "who" provides interpretation?
@@ Line 17: / Line 21: @@
 And there is a 3rd official "clarifications" (i.e., interpretations) document from IAQG for AS 9100:2016: [[https://www.sae.org/iaqg/projects/9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"IAQG AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"]]. It states: "//These clarifications are __binding__ where the standard leadership believes a published response is necessary since it has a profound impact upon the use of the standard or when a significant disputes exists.//"
+===== How ASQ attempted to create a new requirement through Interpretation=====
-===== How ASQ attempted to create a new requirement through Interpretation/Opinion =====
 When reading the [[https://asq.org/quality-resources/iso-9001/us-tc176|US TC 176 - TG22 - Interpretations]], these appear fairly typical of what one might expect... with one notable exception. On the third row from the top, we see where the following question was asked (in the "Request" column): "//Does ISO 9001:2015 require internal audits to be process‐based vs. clause/element‐based?//"
@@ Line 47: / Line 50: @@
-The reason that I titled this section "//How ASQ __attempted__ to create a new requirement through Interpretation/Opinion//" is because, as mentioned earlier, the TAG 176 – SC2 - TG22 “Standard Operating Procedure” titled “US Guidance for handling requests for interpretation of the requirements of ISO 9001” clearly states in bold text: “Since the US TAG to ISO TC176 (TAG) does not provide explanations of ISO 9001, responses provided under this procedure are __opinions__ and are __not to be offered as an official interpretation__.”
+The reason that I titled this section "//How ASQ __attempted__ to create a new requirement through Interpretation//" is because, as mentioned earlier, the TAG 176 – SC2 - TG22 “Standard Operating Procedure” titled “US Guidance for handling requests for interpretation of the requirements of ISO 9001” clearly states in bold text: “Since the US TAG to ISO TC176 (TAG) does not provide explanations of ISO 9001, responses provided under this procedure are __opinions__ and are __not to be offered as an official interpretation__.”
 In other words, the [[https://asq.org/quality-resources/iso-9001/us-tc176|US TC 176 - TG22 - Interpretations]] __can__ be ignored because it is __non-binding__.