DOD has tried to do this at zero cost. Not a single penny spent from the department's budget. That's why they created the AB, to let them spend their money. But to do that, the AB created a massive grift scam. But DoD thinks it can do cybersecurity on the cheap.
Quick correction: the US Dept. of Defense actually requires C3PAO's to become ISO 17020 accredited. The video says this mandate comes from the CMMC-AB, but the CMMC-AB is merely flowing down the requirement as directed by the DOD.
This has to be one of the best ISO 9001 training videos ever published in RU-vid!, Informative and entertaining at the same time, who would’ve thought! Thank you Christopher!
Prevent Prevent Prevent ! I don't care how you do it, just do it and show you are doing it ! I love the new ISO.. they need to tweak it a little more but I like where it is going.
Hello Chris, I'm new to this ISO 9001. I got a gut feeling you are correct. Could you give me your opinion? I am an inspector wanting to be better at my job. I am interested in taking a course on Lead auditor for ISO 9001 2015. I was also skeptical about it being a business. Should I go for it?
Hello Chris, I'm new to this ISO 9001. I got a gut feeling you are correct. Could you give me your opinion? I am an inspector wanting to be better at my job. I am interested in taking a course on Lead auditor for ISO 9001 2015. I was also skeptical about it being a business. Should I go for it?
Chris, Nice series of videos. I'll share with others. Why do you not elaborate about the fib "ISO 9001 has always been about risk"? I'm interested in your thoughts. I have pedalled that one for years.
Well done Chris...Danny and I were caught in traffic and we missed the first part of your informative presentation at Fordham University. The feedback from the members was a unamimous thumbs-up.
In addition to the issues you raise, there are other definition mismatches. For example, the draft standard no longer requires any documented procedures, just documented information (evidence) that a process has been carried out as defined. However, the definition of an audit in clause 3.17 continues to refer to an audit being a “documented” process.
The terms in a standard will drive interpretations. I think there will be considerable changes from the CD to the DIS, FDIS, and published version based on feedback like yours. When the draft standard refers to audit “program”, it may be according to the ISO 19011 definition: “The arrangements for a set of one or more audits planned for a specific timeframe and directed towards a specific purpose.” So, they may be talking about the audit scheduling part of the overall audit process.
Very clear about a very unclear subject. If anything, you've prepared me for the stumbling blocks. I like straight talk. Everyone else in the world will give me their unique interpretation, and now I'm armed with a whole bag of questions to throw at them. Looking forward to your take on risk.. that should be fun. And BTW.. kitchen talks are great.. hope you do more!
It is quite baffling to me that a "quality" standard (1) is subject to interpretation and (2), basically has references that can't be understood by it's users...quite disapointing and a future train wreck for sure.
Great Video. I always like to see your stuff and I agree that the process approach is very poorly represented in ISO9001. You are right to pick up on he casual uses of terms such as "Main" and "Business" without proper definition. I got a little distracted by your arm tatoo though - how far up does it go, zebraman?
