Others? Clause 7.5.1.7 Feedback of Information From Service?

[wcsf]

I am not sure anyone has asked this before but I saw some similar one for 6.2.2.1 "Product Design Skills".

But my question is regarding clause 7.5.1.7 "Feedback of Informatoin From Service" and 7.5.1.8 "Service Agreement with Customer".

If we are not having any service agreement with customer, then this (7.5.1.8) have to be excluded. For example, I am just a semiconductor part suppliers within the automotive supply chain. But if I exclude this, I will again fall into the permissible exclusion trap.

In addition, if the above situation applies, I also need to exclude 7.5.1.7 since I have no service contract and I will not have any service centre feedback. Assuming if this is meant for customer service centre, it will be trated as customer complaint. If customer also does not have service centre.......????

Conceptually, if anything which is obviously not applicabel to us, we should be able to exclude with detail justifiaction. Howver with the statement in 1.2, I thing this creates confusion.

Don, any opinion?

[Geoff Cotton]

Folks,

What does “Service” mean? I’m struggling to bend my head around this one.

We supply fasteners, screws etc. to the automotive industry. We do not supply items that could be “Serviced”. We do not have any “Service” agreements with any of our customers.

Do we have to map out the theoretical process?

Or is “Service” talking about things like On-time Delivery etc?

[M Greenaway]

It means contractual arrangments for servicing your products - I guess you are excluded.

[db]

If we are not having any service agreement with customer, then this (7.5.1.8) have to be excluded. For example, I am just a semiconductor part suppliers within the automotive supply chain. But if I exclude this, I will again fall into the permissible exclusion trap.

Not necessarily. This falls along the same lines as Traceability. The standard (okay, the Technical Specification) begins: "When there is a service agreement..." This indicates you are automatically excluded unless the "when there is" is enacted. A permissible exclusion is an exception to the rule. Here the exception would be if there was a service agreement.

Now, about 7.5.1.7. I'm not convinced this is referring to the same thing (service). Read the note carefully. If the intent is to ensure you are aware of nonconformities that occur external to your organization, I think this is referring to warrantee work. For example, if your semiconductors fail. Your customer notifies you and you are to communicate that information to those who need to know it. Kind of a cross between 5.5.3 and 8.5.2.4.

Geoff, this would also apply to your fasteners. Should they fail in the field, then how do you communicate that and to whom.

All of this is IMNSHO of course.

[Don Wood]

All of those clauses like 6.2.21 and 7.5.8 fall under the category of "scope exceptions", not exclusions. If these activities are not part of your QMS, then they can't be audited. Therefore, no problem!

You are not required to document these cases in your QM (there's no "shall" that says you do), though personally I think it's not a bad idea to note these in your scope statement. Why not avoid the argument in the first case? Don't call them "exlcusions" though - that's a loaded word.

Oh, and you don't have to go through that horse dung about documenting a procedure IN CASE you start doing these activities in the future. You never had to do that under QS either, though auditors loved to impose that, didn't they?

Don Wood
Deosil Management
Licensed Plexus Trainer/TS 16949 CB Auditor Examiner