Hi guys!!
I am a little bit confused about this as I am new to the ISO 9000!!
If the customers of some departments that are going for certification (not the company) are other departments of the company or employees of the company. Can this section be excluded?

Hi guys!!
I am a little bit confused about this as I am new to the ISO 9000!!
If the customers of some departments that are going for certification (not the company) are other departments of the company or employees of the company. Can this section be excluded?

I'm not sure if I understand your question?
If you're asking if you can exclude 7.2 I would ask why? It is very important in the survival of an organizational to ensure customer-related processes are viewed i.e. quotation and order process If you exclude them how would you understand what your customer wanted? I would think it's a business necessity to include customer related-processes in your system.

I almost forgot there is a specific requirement for an organization to address product requiremenets that have not been specified by the customer but may be necessary for the intended or specified use of the product.

Best Regards,

al40

Seeee what i have interpreted from this clause is that Customers are the end users outside the organization who get to benefit from the core processes. Since the actual customers of the departments that are going for certification in my organization are employees of other departments or other departments. Say for example if a department wants to get new office space or renovate the existing one it contacts the Administration department and Administration is the only department going for certification and its cutomers are internal I thought 7.2 can be excluded. Is that so? Hope I am more clear now. Thanks

Hi guys!!
I am a little bit confused about this as I am new to the ISO 9000!!
If the customers of some departments that are going for certification (not the company) are other departments of the company or employees of the company. Can this section be excluded?


No. Please refer to my private reply for more detail, but in summary, all processes and activities of your system must be defined in your system.

For those activities performed at other divison locations of your company, they can be audited as part of your system, or part of their certificate. But, ultimately, the links have to be audited.

Hi guys!!
I am a little bit confused about this as I am new to the ISO 9000!!
If the customers of some departments that are going for certification (not the company) are other departments of the company or employees of the company. Can this section be excluded?
ISO 9000:2000 Fundamentals & Vocabulary notes that "a customer can be internal or external to the organization."

ISO 9000:2000 Fundamentals & Vocabulary notes that "a customer can be internal or external to the organization."


All activities of your system have to defined within your processes. If a process has internal customers, then there must be activity, and it can't be excluded.

This post has been about calibration, and the poster said he did not have any activities that needed to be calibrated. Then, it could be excluded.

ISO 9000:2000 Fundamentals & Vocabulary notes that "a customer can be internal or external to the organization."

Yes - but ISO9001:2000 then uses the term (and "product" as well) purely for external transactions. See section 3 (Terms and definitions).

[Try reading the standard again but from the point of view of only the "internal" customers, and see if it makes sense]

I remember some years ago there was a section on the ISO web site (I am fairly sure) that gave the example of a department that repaired trains. As I recall, the department was certified, but the overall organisation wasn't. The "customer" for the department was stated to be another part of the organisation, which in turn dealt with what I would regard as "the customer" (ie the one who paid the cash). I always wondered what would happen if the entire organisation then went for certification - the "customer" would suddenly have changed, and all references to the "customer" would have had to be reassessed. [Does anyone else recall the example? Have I got it more or less right?]

Is this not the situation that is being queried here?

Do any of you assessors out there have an opinion on who the "customer" is for a department which wants to be certified - or does it have to be the entire organisation?

Yes - but ISO9001:2000 then uses the term (and "product" as well) purely for external transactions. See section 3 (Terms and definitions).

[Try reading the standard again but from the point of view of only the "internal" customers, and see if it makes sense]

I remember some years ago there was a section on the ISO web site (I am fairly sure) that gave the example of a department that repaired trains. As I recall, the department was certified, but the overall organisation wasn't. The "customer" for the department was stated to be another part of the organisation, which in turn dealt with what I would regard as "the customer" (ie the one who paid the cash). I always wondered what would happen if the entire organisation then went for certification - the "customer" would suddenly have changed, and all references to the "customer" would have had to be reassessed. [Does anyone else recall the example? Have I got it more or less right?]

Is this not the situation that is being queried here?

Do any of you assessors out there have an opinion on who the "customer" is for a department which wants to be certified - or does it have to be the entire organisation?


I have never seen a situation where just one department has been certified. However, it is permissable for part of an organization to be certified, and the the other part be outside the scope (more likely in ISO than TS where it is restricted to automotive).

The concept of internal customer is pretty clear. The output of one process becomes the input to the next. That receiving process is the internal customer.

The concept of internal customer is pretty clear. The output of one process becomes the input to the next. That receiving process is the internal customer.

Helmut

I agree that the concept is sound, but do you reckon people think of an "internal customer" when they read that "In this International Standard, the term “product” applies only to the product intended for, or required by, a customer." Or that "customer feedback" includes feedback from staff? Or that "Customer-related processes" aren't ones which interact with someone outside the organisation?

The "organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer (e.g. submission of tenders, acceptance of contracts or orders, acceptance of changes to contracts or orders)" is all about the external customer - or that is what all the examples imply.

Section 3 even draws a picture which shows the "customer" outside the "organisation".

No - ISO9000 mentions the idea of an internal customer, and then ISO9001 ignores it!

All processes have a customer. This is becasue all processes of a system interact with some other part of the system. No processes stand alone.

All organizations have a customer. You define the organization (the scope of your system) and you define your customers. No one defines these for you. The standard and auditors do not define your scope or your customers.

ISO 9001 can and does apply to BOTH internal and external customers.

Peter: the answer to your questions about reading 9001 and thinking about internal customers is "Yes" all can apply to internal customer too.

Customers can be internal to the company but external to the scope of the QMS. Customers can also be internal to the company and the QMS. Customers can be external to the company and the scope of the QMS. The company and the scope of the QMS (the organization) may not be the same thing. The "organiztion" is the company or the parts of the company that are within the scope of the QMS.

Internal customers can intend or require a product. Internal customers better have feedback or the organization's communication is non-exsistent / broken / going out of business. Customer related process can be those processes related to internal or external customers.

Tenders, acceptance of contracts or orders, acceptance of changes to contracts or orders, acceptance of changes to contracts or orders all can apply to internal customers.

I can't imagine any orgainzation wanting to not know (exclude) requirements related to their product and to have no communications with their customer.

No, you cannot exclude any part of 7.2. 7.2 forms a major part of the basis for your organization's exsistence.

Regards,

Dirk

Helmut

I agree that the concept is sound, but do you reckon people think of an "internal customer" when they read that "In this International Standard, the term “product” applies only to the product intended for, or required by, a customer." Or that "customer feedback" includes feedback from staff? Or that "Customer-related processes" aren't ones which interact with someone outside the organisation?

The "organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer (e.g. submission of tenders, acceptance of contracts or orders, acceptance of changes to contracts or orders)" is all about the external customer - or that is what all the examples imply.

Section 3 even draws a picture which shows the "customer" outside the "organisation".

No - ISO9000 mentions the idea of an internal customer, and then ISO9001 ignores it!


No, your comments are correct. I agree, the intent of the standard was on the final, external customer. However, I think ISO also recognizes that many of the organization's personnel have little contact with the external customer.

However, the ISO Process Approach works best when each internal transaction between every internal process is aligned and optimized. If each transaction is optimized, the final result to the external customer will be optimized as well. If internal suppliers do not concentrate on optimizing each transaction, the end customer will suffer.

Essentially, that is what my comment was predicated on.

Helmut

Section 3 even draws a picture which shows the "customer" outside the "organisation".

No - ISO9000 mentions the idea of an internal customer, and then ISO9001 ignores it!

I don't think it does ignore it. That is a diagram which, like everything else in ISO 9001, is intended to be interpreted and applied for the particular situation, organisation and certification scope. The 'organisation' is whatever is covered by the scope of the certification: the whole organisation if that is the scope, but can also be a part of it. No, it's not as common, but yes it can and is done.

I've had a number of clients where only a part (eg, division or department) within a much larger organisation achieved certification, or certification was for only part of the organisation's services/products. I'm working with another at the moment.

One example: a department within a very much larger bank. The bank itself wasn't certified, the scope of the certification was restricted to the department, which performed highly important software testing for its customers.

All of its customers were project managers and business managers within the bank itself. It had no interaction with any of the bank's external customers (but naturally, they'd have been considerably impacted if this department hadn't done the essential testing of new software applications to ensure they were OK, before they were permitted to be migrated into the production systems).

And yes, I agree: every process has at least one customer. If not... why on earth is the organisation doing it?

Thank you guys for commenting on this topic and making it more clear. What I have concluded from this discussion is that customers can be internal to an organization and incase of certification for a small department or division it would act as an organization. So 7.2 or any other clause about customers is applied to internal customers as well.

customers can be internal to an organization and in case of certification for a small department or division it would act as an organization. So 7.2 or any other clause about customers is applied to internal customers as well.


You've got it.

Actually, I can't think of circumstances where one could exclude 7.2 (nor why on earth would one go for certification if one could).

The definition of customer in ISO 9000:2006 Quality management systems - fundamentals & vocabulary spells it out thusly:

"3.3.5 customer: organization or person that receives a product.

EXAMPLE Consumer, client, end-user, retailer, beneficiary and purchaser.

NOTE: A customer can be internal or external to the organization."

All processes have a customer. This is because all processes of a system interact with some other part of the system. No processes stand alone.

All organizations have a customer. You define the organization (the scope of your system) and you define your customers...

ISO 9001 can and does apply to BOTH internal and external customers.

Peter: the answer to your questions about reading 9001 and thinking about internal customers is "Yes" all can apply to internal customer too.

Customers can be internal to the company but external to the scope of the QMS. Customers can also be internal to the company and the QMS. Customers can be external to the company and the scope of the QMS. The company and the scope of the QMS (the organization) may not be the same thing. The "organization" is the company or the parts of the company that are within the scope of the QMS.

Internal customers can intend or require a product. Internal customers better have feedback or the organization's communication is non-exsistent / broken / going out of business. Customer related process can be those processes related to internal or external customers...

Regards,

Dirk

Dirk

Taking all that on board (and I agree with your individual points), what determines a "Customer Related Process" as distinct from any other type of process, if every process has a customer?

How many companies measure, or are assessed on, "customer feedback" other than from their "external customers"?

In 7.2.2 (Review of requirements related to the product) it says "...review shall be conducted prior to the organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer" - they are talking about the "external customer".

Don't get me wrong - recognising the needs of, and your impact on, other staff and departments is good practice. But I do not believe that certification bodies read Section 7.2 this way. Do they?!

Hello Peter:

What determines a customer related process? It is up to you and your organization. Ususally that is defined by the organization as process that provide an output to the final end user or customer that is paying the bills. But you are right, one could make the argument and implement a system where customer related processes are the processes that provide an ouput to internal and external customers. You decide.

How many companies measure, or are assessed on, "customer feedback" other than from their "external customers"? Probably not too many and that is unfortunate. I am having a meeting this week with our COO about the lack of internal customer feedback between 3 departments. Just because this may not be the typical approach does not mean assesing internal customer feedback is invalid. Acutally, I think internal customers asses internal feedback all of the time. Ever heard someone say, "Department XXX never communicates with us?" Or how about, "Blah, blah, blah never tells us anything. What about internal corrective actions - can't they be an example of internal customer feedback? How about reprot that the upstream process provided a nonconforming output? What about rejected material going back upstream? What about meetings that discuss work loads, demands, production plans, resource issues, etc. Aren't all of those examples of internal customer feedback?

In 7.2.2 (Review of requirements related to the product) it says "...review shall be conducted prior to the organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer" - they are talking about the "external customer".

Since ther standard uses the term "organization" in that clause, I would agree. However, contract reviews happen between internal customers too. For example, a company's molding division receives a demand from the assembly division. The assembly division tells the molding division they need 100 widgets in green every hour. They need them in totes that are 2 ft. x 2 ft. The molding division reviews that requirements, to determine if they can meet them, before they commit to supply the 100 green widgets every hour. Internal contract review happens all of the time.

My comments are based on my understanding of the intent of the standard. My comments have nothing to do with 3rd party auditors and how they audit. Do registrars audit to my understanding of the intent of 7.2? I have never seen it done. My comments are related to the intent of the standard and what I believe to be healthy, effective practices.

Regards,

Dirk

Dirk

Hello Peter:

What determines a customer related process? It is up to you and your organization. Usually that is defined by the organization as process that provide an output to the final end user or customer that is paying the bills.
I would still question the way the standard seems to forget about "internal customers" when it uses terms like this! I reckon that most folk who read the standard think that the term means "the one who pays the bill"...


My comments are based on my understanding of the intent of the standard. My comments have nothing to do with 3rd party auditors and how they audit. Do registrars audit to my understanding of the intent of 7.2? I have never seen it done. My comments are related to the intent of the standard and what I believe to be healthy, effective practices.

Regards,

Dirk


Agreed - what is good practice is not always common practice!

Hello Peter:

What determines a customer related process? It is up to you and your organization. Ususally that is defined by the organization as process that provide an output to the final end user or customer that is paying the bills. But you are right, one could make the argument and implement a system where customer related processes are the processes that provide an ouput to internal and external customers. You decide.

How many companies measure, or are assessed on, "customer feedback" other than from their "external customers"? Probably not too many and that is unfortunate. I am having a meeting this week with our COO about the lack of internal customer feedback between 3 departments. Just because this may not be the typical approach does not mean assesing internal customer feedback is invalid. Acutally, I think internal customers asses internal feedback all of the time. Ever heard someone say, "Department XXX never communicates with us?" Or how about, "Blah, blah, blah never tells us anything. What about internal corrective actions - can't they be an example of internal customer feedback? How about reprot that the upstream process provided a nonconforming output? What about rejected material going back upstream? What about meetings that discuss work loads, demands, production plans, resource issues, etc. Aren't all of those examples of internal customer feedback?

In 7.2.2 (Review of requirements related to the product) it says "...review shall be conducted prior to the organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer" - they are talking about the "external customer".

Since ther standard uses the term "organization" in that clause, I would agree. However, contract reviews happen between internal customers too. For example, a company's molding division receives a demand from the assembly division. The assembly division tells the molding division they need 100 widgets in green every hour. They need them in totes that are 2 ft. x 2 ft. The molding division reviews that requirements, to determine if they can meet them, before they commit to supply the 100 green widgets every hour. Internal contract review happens all of the time.

My comments are based on my understanding of the intent of the standard. My comments have nothing to do with 3rd party auditors and how they audit. Do registrars audit to my understanding of the intent of 7.2? I have never seen it done. My comments are related to the intent of the standard and what I believe to be healthy, effective practices.

Regards,

Dirk


Perhaps a cleaner or more simple approach would be to focus on aligning each process with the next process (internal customer). When you do that properly, you define the criteria whereby the process will be judged. These criteria should be measured or monitored. These metrics will then reflect the "voice of the customer" pretty well.

In a nutshell, the steps in 4.1, done correctly, will accomplish this desire to determine the internal customer's needs and satisfaction.

Dirk

In 7.2.2 (Review of requirements related to the product) it says "...review shall be conducted prior to the organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer" - they are talking about the "external customer".



No Peter, it is you who is putting in that 'external' word and then insisting that it is as per your belief. It isn't. If they were talking of the 'external customer' I'm confident that the Standard would have explicityly included the word external. It didn't. (And I would have been dismayed & horrified if it had.)

They're saying exactly what they mean to say: customer.

And the meaning of customer is explicitly defined in the vocabulary (ISO 9000: 2000).

And then to clarify in case there were still any doubt, a specific NOTE has been added stating 'a customer can be internal or external to the organization'.

I am having distinct trouble understanding why you have this insistence on believing that a customer can only be external. It just is not so.

reading the scope of the ISO 9001:2000 standard, I beleive we can't omit Caluse 7.2 of the standard.
but still I got the feeling that ISO 9001 is ignoring the internal customers.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
:thanks:

ISO 9001 is a Quality Management System meant for "Businesses". Therefore it has to be interpreted with reference to common business practice and in particular, the way business is being carried out or conducted at that specific locality. If the customer at that particular location is internal, so be it. You may have a mix of both even though, external customers are the most common.

I think this is one reason why the process map or at least a description is needed - allows you to identify whom you are dealing with.

To blame the 14 pages of 'guideline' is just not logical.

You've got it.

Actually, I can't think of circumstances where one could exclude 7.2 (nor why on earth would one go for certification if one could).

The definition of customer in ISO 9000:2006 Quality management systems - fundamentals & vocabulary spells it out thusly:

"3.3.5 customer: organization or person that receives a product.

EXAMPLE Consumer, client, end-user, retailer, beneficiary and purchaser.

NOTE: A customer can be internal or external to the organization."

Not the whole of 7.2, but the major parts of 7.2 are not applicable incase of intellectual property controlled monopoly products even in case of external customers.

An example:

A gentleman by the name Misra developed a variety of of a local sweetmeat called Peda at a place Dharwar in India about a 100 years ago. Today his descendants hold a patent on the product which is famous internationally as 'Misra's Dharwar Peda'.

A limited quantity is made everyday. The shop opens at 0900 hrs. Customers are queued up. Rates are predetermined and announced in advance.The product is sold out by lunch time and the shop closes.

Under clause 7.2, only 7.2.1c - statutory requirements, 7.2.1d - requirements put in by the organisation and 7.2.3c - customer feedback are applicable.

We had a big debate on whether 7.2.2a - definition of product requirements would be applicable. It was finally decided that though definition of product requirements is a necessary process, the customer is not a participant in it. Hence it will not fall under clause 7.2

Net result - clause 7.2 is not applicable.

Comments?

No Peter, it is you who is putting in that 'external' word and then insisting that it is as per your belief. It isn't. If they were talking of the 'external customer' I'm confident that the Standard would have explicityly included the word external. It didn't. (And I would have been dismayed & horrified if it had.)

They're saying exactly what they mean to say: customer.

And the meaning of customer is explicitly defined in the vocabulary (ISO 9000: 2000).

And then to clarify in case there were still any doubt, a specific NOTE has been added stating 'a customer can be internal or external to the organization'.

I am having distinct trouble understanding why you have this insistence on believing that a customer can only be external. It just is not so.

Jane

I can understand why you are having trouble understanding why I believe that a customer can only be external - I don't! I raised the subject because I don't understand how the standard can talk about "Customer Related Processes" as distinct from any other type of process, if every process has a customer - by definition, EVERY process would be a "Customer Related Process". Unless it means only the "external" customer, which is how I read much of ISO9001.

And that is what I believe most folk think of when they talk about customer requirements, customer surveys, contract review, customer satisfaction etc (in relation to compliance).

Don't worry - I am totally in favour of recognising internal customers and managing processes accordingly. It's just that I don't think that the way the standard is written makes it very easy for a newcomer to see how to apply it. Maybe this is something for the other thread on the next version of the standard...

As I say, don't worry about me...!

Potdar:

If no one bought the 'Misra's Dharwar Peda', do you think the organization would try to learn what the customer wants (requires?) Does the fact that they sell out by noon every day tell them they have appropriately reviewed and determined the customer's requirements?

And I bet the product requirements (7.2.2a) are defiend for internal purposes so it can be repeated every day. I bet the patent includes a defintion of product requriements.

Even though 7.2.2 is under the general heading of 7.2 Customer-related processes, does that mean that the requriements in 7.2.2 must be done by the customer? Can 7.2.2a be done by the organization without the customer directly involved?

Regards,

Dirk

I am totally in favour of recognising internal customers and managing processes accordingly. It's just that I don't think that the way the standard is written makes it very easy for a newcomer to see how to apply it.

Agree - although one could argue that about a lot of things. I certainly agree it takes time, effort, application & experience to understand & apply it. Which is why we have such, um, spirited debates in here at times. :D



As I say, don't worry about me...!

Whew, that's a relief - I'll sleep well tonight :lol:

Potdar:

If no one bought the 'Misra's Dharwar Peda', do you think the organization would try to learn what the customer wants (requires?) Does the fact that they sell out by noon every day tell them they have appropriately reviewed and determined the customer's requirements?

a) 7.2.3 c - customer feedback is very much applicable.

b) The product as defined in the scope is 'Misra's Dharwar Peda'. If the customer feedback shows that the customers dont buy, the system can be rectified if service issues are involved. If product is the issue, a new product needs to be introduced. thats a totally different take altogether. Beyond the scope of currently defined system I guess.

And I bet the product requirements (7.2.2a) are defiend for internal purposes so it can be repeated every day. I bet the patent includes a defintion of product requriements.

You bet they are. They are covered under 7.5.1 a and 7.5.2.

Even though 7.2.2 is under the general heading of 7.2 Customer-related processes, does that mean that the requriements in 7.2.2 must be done by the customer? Can 7.2.2a be done by the organization without the customer directly involved?

Regards,

Dirk

Thats exactly what I am asking you.:)

Dear All,

Bleated Happy new Year to all.

In continuation I would like to bring another senario and question remains same, can we exclude 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.

Client is a software development company and working in India, They have a company is US, which is their parent company, and also acting as a customer to them.

The US is involved in marketing in US, and they will forward all the details of the customer requirement.

With this situation, we have a long discussion today with client in India and they say practically 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 is excluded.

Please help whether we can exclude this clause.

Regards to all.

Ajay

Dear All,

Bleated Happy new Year to all.

In continuation I would like to bring another senario and question remains same, can we exclude 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.

Client is a software development company and working in India, They have a company is US, which is their parent company, and also acting as a customer to them.

The US is involved in marketing in US, and they will forward all the details of the customer requirement.

With this situation, we have a long discussion today with client in India and they say practically 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 is excluded.

Please help whether we can exclude this clause.

Regards to all.

Ajay


You don't exclude cl 7.2 entirely, because a site in India still has to receive and understand the customer's requirements. It is a linkage to the site in the US. The better approach is to apply it to the level that is approrpiate. If the linkage is clear and simple, then the procedure is pretty basic. if the interaction is more complex, then the procedure for it will go into a little more depth. Explain what it is and how it works. Implement and apply it to the appropriate degree.

Thanks for your kind thoughts, but problem is that the company get the confirmed order and straight away start doing the development on the requirements, however requirement of 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 is to determin the information and review it before accepting the order, which this company is not doing, rather as I told earlier, they receive order and start development on SRS document supplied to them, any clarification required on this, they will contact the parent company, however this all is being done after the order is accepted.

Regards

Ajay

Thanks for your kind thoughts, but problem is that the company get the confirmed order and straight away start doing the development on the requirements, however requirement of 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 is to determin the information and review it before accepting the order, which this company is not doing, rather as I told earlier, they receive order and start development on SRS document supplied to them, any clarification required on this, they will contact the parent company, however this all is being done after the order is accepted.

Regards

Ajay

That is what I explained in my reply. Even if you just "get the order and start developing," it applies, but you describe how much. You have to understand the order, and the requirements, and determine how they will be developed. there is some thinking that goes into the handoff. Perhaps even communication back and forth. The other thing, the 100 people back at the parent facility really should be considered part of the 7.2, 7.3 process.

An internal customer also has his requirements(semi-finished material/product,sub-assembly or whatever)-specifications,drawings,quantity,how delivered etc. These are requirements that are to be reviewed by the supplier department(supplier of inputs); hence clause 7.2 is certainly applicable.

Deleted posting.

Jane

I can understand why you are having trouble understanding why I believe that a customer can only be external - I don't! I raised the subject because I don't understand how the standard can talk about "Customer Related Processes" as distinct from any other type of process, if every process has a customer - by definition, EVERY process would be a "Customer Related Process". Unless it means only the "external" customer, which is how I read much of ISO9001.

And that is what I believe most folk think of when they talk about customer requirements, customer surveys, contract review, customer satisfaction etc (in relation to compliance).

Don't worry - I am totally in favour of recognising internal customers and managing processes accordingly. It's just that I don't think that the way the standard is written makes it very easy for a newcomer to see how to apply it. Maybe this is something for the other thread on the next version of the standard...

As I say, don't worry about me...!

Certainly the standard could be a little more clear, in this area as well as other areas. Remember, the term "Customer Oriented Process" is not officially an ISO term. It was added later by trainers and consultants in an attempt to provide more clarity.

In any case, clearly ISO brought a stronger focus on the external customer to the 2000 version. But, the process approach also addresses internal customers, and the ISO Note reminds us of that.

I would not read too much into it, nor try to make a rigid rule about it. In most cases, the context should be pretty clear whether a particular discussion about a process or activity refers to an external or internal customer. It is a concept, and we simply must apply logic and common sense to determine what is applicable.

I think it would be fair to say that ISO brought an increased focus on