Our Director of Engineering has proposed that Configuration Management be elevated from a procedure to a process in our AS9100 QMS. His justification is that Configuration Management is a comprehensive set of activities, has inputs and outputs and KPI’s analogous to other defined processes, covers our product from conception to production and post-delivery, crosses all department boundaries and has many stakeholders. I think establishing Configuration Management as a separate process (we now have 7 process total) is redundant and I’m not sure this revision adds value. Do you have any comment on this idea from an auditor point-of-view? Could this change add clarity?
Seven processes now are Customer Support, R&D, Outsource Control, Product Delivery, Resource Mgmt, Continuous Improvement, Corporate Process. C.M. is currently a procedure within R&D.
There is a reason that the word procedure is no longer used in ISO 9001 and AS9100. It created the confusion that your management suffers from. I don't see configuration management as a process, but since this sort of thing is not well defined by the powers that be, an organization can determine their structure any way they want as long as they can explain it.
A good reason for not adding it as a process is that your auditor won't be happy about adding another PEAR to his audit routine. He is probably already unhappy about needing to do seven of them. He would be happier if some of those were consolidated.