Bad Theory Implicit in ISO 9001

["Dirk van Putten" <dvanputten@linear.com>]

Hello:

Why is "bad theory" implicit in ISO 9001? The standard provides 8 management
principles as a basis for a system. The standard asks the user to define the
system scope. The standard provides a general, PDSA system model which a
user can modify to fit their system. The standard provides a rationale for
systems. It tries to justify a systems approach and definition  of the
process. The standard requires users to define a policy and  objectives. The
standard clearly identifies responsibilities for top management to define
the management system, the policy, the goals, the scope. The standard
provides definitions (operational definitions?) so there should be a common
language of terms. The standard identifies a relationship with  other
excellence models. The 2000 version  of ISO 9001 is completely based on the
Plan, Do, Study, Act cycle.

The standard does not require the user to define an "aim." At least the word
"aim" is not used. I have always been confused on the difference between
words like "aim" of a system, "principles" of a system, "policy" that
includes the goals (aim?) of the system. I have always thought that the
leaders in system thinking should spend time on clearly defining the
difference or similarities in these terms and begin increasing peoples'
awareness and competency of those terms. If the general manager cannot
define the difference between "aim", "goal", objective", "principle", we
cannot proceed past the first step in understanding the systems in which we
work.

Why is all of this bad theory? I am not an expert on SoPK but I do not see
any conflicts between ISO 9001 and SoPK.

Please help me see.

Thank you, Dirk van Putten