gardnere,
When you are talking about maintenance, is it in respect to Plant Maintenance or Maintenance of Customer's owned equipment/property?
gardnere,
When you are talking about maintenance, is it in respect to Plant Maintenance or Maintenance of Customer's owned equipment/property?
G
gardnere
Andy, In this case, the client is not concerned with the marketability of the ISO registration. The registration could be (and its not) equivalent to the maintenance office area of a DoD Air Force installation where the base wants to demostrate the viability of registering and its benefits to other areas on a base. Then, at the appropriate time, expand the scope area.
Paul's article implies that the scope can be a negotiated, agreed upon, and a defensible item where it would be decided (in my case) what offices would be considered in the scope (the boundaries) and the applicability of ISO 9001:2000 and its clauses to each of those areas within the scope.
Comments with regard to the following are still appreciated: The maintenance office (central to the ISO registration) that I have identified has an oversight responsibility for several offices, those dependent and interfacing offices. Based upon this scenario, what should be considered for the (1) scope of registration and (2) should all of the ISO clauses be considered for each of the dependent/interfacing organizations? No Clause 7 exclusions are anticipated at this time with some or all of the interfacing/dependent offices being engaged with some aspect of Clause 7 of ISO 9001:2000.
I appreciate all comments....
Paul's article implies that the scope can be a negotiated, agreed upon, and a defensible item where it would be decided (in my case) what offices would be considered in the scope (the boundaries) and the applicability of ISO 9001:2000 and its clauses to each of those areas within the scope.
Comments with regard to the following are still appreciated: The maintenance office (central to the ISO registration) that I have identified has an oversight responsibility for several offices, those dependent and interfacing offices. Based upon this scenario, what should be considered for the (1) scope of registration and (2) should all of the ISO clauses be considered for each of the dependent/interfacing organizations? No Clause 7 exclusions are anticipated at this time with some or all of the interfacing/dependent offices being engaged with some aspect of Clause 7 of ISO 9001:2000.
I appreciate all comments....
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
The article starts with the definition of scope for an organization and, I hope, conveys that (IMHO) a management system should cover everything the organization does. If you accept the ISO definition, though, the CB And their assessor has to accept whatever scope they are presented with.
I accept your point and as a customer (2nd party) I would pay a lot of attention to scope. My point was that there are few "wily purchasing people" around (again IMHO).
Not only would they but under the terms of accreditation they should accept whatever scope they are presented with - ISO has defined organization allowing the organization to sub divide itself into small units - if any of these units come forward for certification then a CB is obliged to accept them.
Again like you I would be interested to know.
No, it probably doesn't. As mentioned, the article was written a while ago as a general one about scope. In my opinion the problem is with the ISO definition ...
Re. trial implementation, though I am working with a client now that is rolling out ISO 9001 across their organization so I can't be too critical of restricted scopes.
The principle we are sticking too is that the company must not overstate their certification and they must have a genuine plan to roll out the system to other areas of the business - the case thus far.
What does ISO 17021 say?
ISO 17021 paragraph 8.4.3 states that the CB shall require the organization not to imply that the certification applies to activities that are outside the scope of certification.
Obviously, the certificate must also identify the limited scope of certification. In Paul's fictitious example the certificate should state something to the effect that:
The certificate could NEVER state:
A scope of certification can be limited. And there are many good reasons for that. On the other hand, the certificate can not mislead it's users.
ISO 17021 paragraph 8.4.3 states that the CB shall require the organization not to imply that the certification applies to activities that are outside the scope of certification.
Obviously, the certificate must also identify the limited scope of certification. In Paul's fictitious example the certificate should state something to the effect that:
The paperclip-sorting department of Megadeath Global Nuclear Processing and Dumping plc. has been found to comply with blah blah blah :2007
The certificate could NEVER state:
Megadeath Global Nuclear Processing and Dumping plc. has been found to comply with blah blah blah :2007
Now, the next challenge is to make the users of such certificate READ the document and realize it's potential limitations, such as scope, validity, accredited vs. non-accredited, etc.
Last edited:
Your question, gardnere is in fact two:-
1) Can you apply ISO 9001 in this situation? i.e the scope to which you refer, and;
2) Can you get registered to that scope?
The second answer, from Paul's post is 'yes'. If the scope isn't misleading.
The first answer, from the new (tho' limited) information, is 'yes', from what you've described. I'd still need to know what these 'other offices' do in respect to the 'central office'.
In larger corporations, this approach isn't that unusual. I have worked with a huge multi everythig corp. where Purchasing, Manufacturing, Sales, Finance, Parts, Quality etc. all had their own, distinctly seperate scopes and registrations.
BTW - scopes have always been negotiable, haven't they? I was doing this back in 1990!
1) Can you apply ISO 9001 in this situation? i.e the scope to which you refer, and;
2) Can you get registered to that scope?
The second answer, from Paul's post is 'yes'. If the scope isn't misleading.
The first answer, from the new (tho' limited) information, is 'yes', from what you've described. I'd still need to know what these 'other offices' do in respect to the 'central office'.
In larger corporations, this approach isn't that unusual. I have worked with a huge multi everythig corp. where Purchasing, Manufacturing, Sales, Finance, Parts, Quality etc. all had their own, distinctly seperate scopes and registrations.
BTW - scopes have always been negotiable, haven't they? I was doing this back in 1990!
G
gardnere
Friends, I owe everyone at least a cup of coffee the next time we see each other. Thank you much for the information. I feel that we have had a worthy exchange of great information. I wish that I could share more about the client but the information is confidential......Have a great week...
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
I'll buy the coffee if you pick up the air fare.
As you have already mentioned this kind of situation is best dealt with through discussion - some people (ABs?
) don't believe most CBs / registrars are interested in doing a good job and providing a professional service for their customers.Good luck with the implementation!
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
