Transposition of the ISO-9001 criteria into a functionality system

The ISO 9001 Quality management systems [1] (from now on referred to as the QMS) represent a breakdown of dynamics divided into sections, where each section represents another subsystem following a similar methodology.

Since 'functionality' stands for a set of principles that are being instantiated by making use of certain cognitive objects under the Otoom mind model, the main sections of the QMS can be translated into relevant sets, with some sets possibly collapsed into one because of their specific content (ie, objects) and section 7 (Product realization) omitted altogether. In the present redescription the latter turns into Output as an ongoing manifestation of the System. Input defines the essential identity of the System as the primary Identification Process (IP). The outermost circle representing IP: Records > ~ feeds back to the primary IP, from where the process starts again.

The main sections of the QMS with their translations (>>) are,

1 Scope >> IP: Self
2 Normative Reference +
3 Terms and definitions >> IP: Potential > ~
4 Quality management system +
5 Management responsibility >> IP: Standards > ~
6 Resources management >> IP: Resources > ~
7 Product realization >> omitted (ongoing process relating to every section)
8 Measurement, analysis and improvement >> IP: Records > ~

For example, section 4 (Quality management system), would be IP: Realising > ~ in the current chart and has as its Output the instantiated quality of its potential (derived from IP: Potential > ~). Its subsections with their translations are,

4.1 General requirements >> IP: Self
4.2.1 General >> IP: Potential > ~
4.2.2 Quality manual >> IP: Realising > ~
4.2.3 Control of documents (a) + (c) + (d) + (e) + (f) + (g) >> IP: Standards > ~
4.2.4 Control of records >> IP: Resources > ~
4.2.5 Control of documents (b) >> IP: Records > ~

As can be seen, the translation in this case involves a reordering of the QMS subsections, but does not diminish the overall productivity.

Section 5 (Management responsibility) translates as follows:

5.1 Management commitment >> IP: Self
5.2 Customer focus >> IP: Potential > ~
5.3 Quality policy >> IP: Realising > ~
5.4 Planning >> IP: Standards > ~
5.5 Responsibility, authority and communication >> IP: Resources > ~
5.6 Management review >> IP: Records > ~

Here the translation is more straightforward, but similar to the previous example it demonstrates how the IPs relate to the inherent nature of the performing entity presently under focus (eg, IP: Resources refers to the resources a management responsibility ought to have).

Moving on from this section, the current product is the instantiation of management responsibility, therefore focusing now on the resource management (section 6 in the QMS).

And so on.

The above represents a system that is intelligent enough to define and therefore redescribe itself. If those higher layers are non-existent the IPs are still relevant as such. For example in the case of amoebae we have,

IP: Self (the genetic structure of the organism)
IP: Potential > ~ (what kind of organism can be derived from that essential makeup)
IP: Realising > ~ (the actual amoeba)
IP: Standards > ~ (the manner in which the amoeba can interact with its environment)
IP: Resources > ~ (to what extent the amoeba can respond to the environment's potential)
IP: Records > ~ (the reconstruction of the genetic makeup along the output timeline > evolution!)

Thus a productive redescription of a dynamic, pattern-seeking, self-organising system entails the appropriate hierarchical ordering of its functionalities as well as the complete listing of its elements. The redescription holds if it can be applied to any system of this type.

Reference:

1. Joint Technical Committee QR-008, AS/NZS ISO 9001:2000 Quality management systems - Requirements, http://www.standards.com.au, (2000).

© Martin Wurzinger - see Terms of Use