Freinds,
im preparing QMS for automotive and leasing company

we lease vehicle to customer and the same time we fabricate interior steel cage for the same vehicle as an additional service .

we need the (scope of registration ) to be just for the leasing activity without the fabrication section

can this be done in yr opinion ? if you know that the fabricatied cage will certainly affect the final quality of the leased vehilce .

we need the (scope of registration ) to be just for the leasing activity without the fabrication section
can this be done in yr opinion ? if you know that the fabricated cage will certainly affect the final quality of the leased vehicle .Yes. You can limit the scope of certification to the vehicle leasing activities. I suggest you peruse the document available through this link (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3553988/APG-Scope.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3553988)that explains the difference between the scope of the QMS and the scope of certification.
Hope this helps.

sidney,
thanks ,i"ve read hte document but, but my concern was to what degree can I limit the scope of registration as example for two production lines ,are you totaly free to do that , even if you know that there is some common activities between them which will affect the customer satsfaction??

Discuss your options with your (potential) Certification Body(ies).

well thanks at all
but i beleive that the certifiacation body will tend to include the two issues

Yes. You can limit the scope of certification to the vehicle leasing activities. I suggest you peruse the document available through this link (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3553988/APG-Scope.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3553988)that explains the difference between the scope of the QMS and the scope of certification.
Hope this helps.

Thanks to Sidney for posting the links. I have followed the thread through the ISO guidance and am sorely disappointed that you can pretty much choose what you have assessed and certifyed / registered. Here is just one of the examples they provide:

Situation:

A bank provides a variety of services to its customers (i.e. personal and company bank accounts), but chooses to implement a QMS only for its Internet banking services. For this service the bank has claimed conformity to ISO 9001:2000. The bank clearly states in its Quality Manual which services are covered by the QMS. The bank applies all the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 for the realization of its Internet banking services, with the exception of sub-clause 7.5.4 Customer property. The bank does not feel that it has possession of any customer property as part of its Internet banking services and has stated this in the justification for the exclusion of sub-clause 7.5.4 Customer property from its QMS.

Issue(s):

Can the bank exclude sub-clause 7.5.4 Customer property from its QMS and claim conformity to ISO 9001:2000?

Analysis and Conclusion:

The decision made by the bank to exclude sub-clause 7.5.4 Customer property was not justified because the bank does receive information from its customers such as personal and confidential data. ISO 9001, 7.5.4 Customer property requires an organization to exercise care with customer property while it is under the organizations control or being used by the organization. In this situation, the bank’s customers provide important information in confidence when using the service, which constitutes “Customer property”. Therefore the bank has to address the requirements for customer property in its QMS.


Is it only me who thinks this is wrong. IMHO the scope of the QMS should cover everything the organization does. Otherwise you are relying on the registrar / CB to police the organization's use of registration marks to make sure potential customers are not misled into thinking the registration covers more of the organization's activities than it does. Taken to the nth degree you can have an organization that has a thousand product lines and has one manufacturing line assessed and registered. Surely any claims of registration by the organization would be misleading? Or is it me?

Any other examples, anyone?

....Is it only me who thinks this is wrong. IMHO the scope of the QMS should cover everything the organization does. Otherwise you are relying on the registrar / CB to police the organization's use of registration marks to make sure potential customers are not misled into thinking the registration covers more of the organization's activities than it does. ...


I think you are correct, Paul. An organization should have the right to determine what scope should consist of, but there is no one to police how the organization represents their "partial" certification. Will they openly communicate only one division is registered? Probably not...

Is it only me who thinks this is wrong. IMHO the scope of the QMS should cover everything the organization does. Otherwise you are relying on the registrar / CB to police the organization's use of registration marks to make sure potential customers are not misled into thinking the registration covers more of the organization's activities than it does. Taken to the nth degree you can have an organization that has a thousand product lines and has one manufacturing line assessed and registered. Surely any claims of registration by the organization would be misleading? Or is it me?

Any other examples, anyone?But it is the CB's responsibility to police the use of the marks and issue a certificate that CLEARLY defines what is certified and what is not. The users of the certificate should also be attentive to it's contents.
In the scenario that an organization, with hundreds of plants around the World, has been requested by a customer to have a plant certified, would you expect the whole organization to go for (unnecessary) certification?

But is is CB's responsibility to police the use of the marks and issue a certificate that CLEARLY defines what is certified and what is not. The users of the certificate should also be attentive to it's contents.
In the scenario that an organization, with hundreds of plants around the World, has been requested by a customer to have a plant certified, would you expect the whole organization to go for (unnecessary) certification?

I understand Paul's misgivings, but there are also instances where companies registering to 16949 have non-applicable commericial business; would it be questionable in such a case for company to tout its registration to non-automotive customers? At what point does it become the customer's responsibility to understand the scope of registration?

At what point does it become the customer's responsibility to understand the scope of registration?IMO, when a customer relies on a third party certificate, as part of their supplier oversight process, they MUST be educated enough about issues such as this and carefully scrutinize the certificates.

Check this ISO-advice (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/certification/publicizing/publicizing_9.html)

As usual, Sidney we have a lot of common ground. All through there is I agree .... BUT ....

But it is the CB's responsibility to police the use of the marks Agreed. The problem is we have some CBs out there who cannot police compliance with ISO 9001 never mind understand and police the use of their own organisation and the accreditation body marks or (at its fullest extent) the full range of their client's use of claims to registration - which could be buried in the paperwork of a response to Invitation to Tender. Can you imagine how much time that would take? :rolleyes:
.... and issue a certificate that CLEARLY defines what is certified and what is not. Again also agreed. I simply believe everything they do should be listed because all their activities are covered by the QMS.
The users of the certificate should also be attentive to it's contents. I totally agree, in the ideal world we would have intelligent purchasers who understand as much as the average Cover about registration and scopes and can vet a supplier questionnaire / certificate to make sure that what they want is covered by the certified QMS.....

BUT ....

This is a far from perfect world and (as an example of how difficult this is) I have a consultancy client who has for years been accepting unaccredited certificates of registration as the basis for adding suppliers to their approved suppliers list and were totally shocked when I said that the certificate was next to worthless.:bonk:
In the scenario that an organization, with hundreds of plants around the World, has been requested by a customer to have a plant certified, would you expect the whole organization to go for (unnecessary) certification? I am quite happy to discuss this as an example and maybe Sid, you can comment on my example - just in the interests of sharing opinions.

I agree with your example. If the multi site client can clearly separate product ranges and customer groups or takes great care either to not claim a blanket compliance or to clearly identify their ISO with a plant or product range then this would be acceptable....

BUT ....

If it is the same management team that covers the multi site operation then having selective implementation of ISO 9001.2000 is hardly entering into the spirit of the standard and the commitments that the quality policy requires of the management team.

BTW, I never feel certification is unnecessary! :lol: