Management Review Inputs - Production Site under a Corporate Certification Scheme

[qusys]

In case of supporting processes from remote functions (corporate ones), at what level shall these processes be examined for an ISO9001 certified production site under a corporate certification scheme? In management review at corporate level, site level , or both case? Which are relations to put in place to meet the clause for this issue?
Thanks for your feedbacks.

 

[Stijloor]

A Quick Bump!

Can someone help?

Thank you very much!!

Stijloor.

 

[qusys]

A Quick Bump!

Can someone help?

Thank you very much!!

Stijloor.

Thks for the bump, Stijloor, but probably the question was not so precise.
I would like to ask it from ISO TS perspective, where ISO TS certification can also be for stand alone mfg site with some remote functions from corporate side ( as ISO TS foresees).
Does someone suggest something?

 

[qusys]

Thks for the bump, Stijloor, but probably the question was not so precise.
I would like to ask it from ISO TS perspective, where ISO TS certification can also be for stand alone mfg site with some remote functions from corporate side ( as ISO TS foresees).
Does someone suggest something?

I am still in the spider web and I am not able to exit yet:truce:

I did not find any response for this and excuse me if I re-bump.

Hope in someone's suggestion or advice for this

 

[RoxaneB]

I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but in my previous organization, our Sales department was a corporate-based function whose activities impacted us at a local (i.e. non-corporate) level. Our site was ISO 9001 registered. Sales and Corporate was not (at the time).

As part of our management review process, we reviewed customer complaints and discussed trends, future actions, etc., however only from the viewpoint of how Sales impacted us. We would include actions for us to address with Sales, include items for them to improvement upon, but again, this was based on their performance as impacted US only and not the other 19 sites across North America.

On a separate note, however, we recognized that there were other ISO 9001 registered locations within our North American family. We discussed our data analysis with them, as well as our internal audit reports, and came up with several recommendations for Sales to address that would positively impact the entire North American team.

 

[qusys]

I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but in my previous organization, our Sales department was a corporate-based function whose activities impacted us at a local (i.e. non-corporate) level. Our site was ISO 9001 registered. Sales and Corporate was not (at the time).

As part of our management review process, we reviewed customer complaints and discussed trends, future actions, etc., however only from the viewpoint of how Sales impacted us. We would include actions for us to address with Sales, include items for them to improvement upon, but again, this was based on their performance as impacted US only and not the other 19 sites across North America.

On a separate note, however, we recognized that there were other ISO 9001 registered locations within our North American family. We discussed our data analysis with them, as well as our internal audit reports, and came up with several recommendations for Sales to address that would positively impact the entire North American team.

Thanks RCBeyette,
your feedback is very helpful and makes sense.
However it seems to me a bottom-up approach, in the sense that if some headquarter's functions performs supporting processes for certified stand alone mfg site, the performance of these support processes from remote sites/functions ( in terms of efficiency and effectiveness) should be primarly review in higher level management review as an input of those one, because the mfg sites are internal customer from these perspective. Based upon this, the input of remote supporting process should not be included in mgt review' mfg site, or am I wrong?

 

[RoxaneB]

Thanks RCBeyette,
your feedback is very helpful and makes sense.
However it seems to me a bottom-up approach, in the sense that if some headquarter's functions performs supporting processes for certified stand alone mfg site, the performance of these support processes from remote sites/functions ( in terms of efficiency and effectiveness) should be primarly review in higher level management review as an input of those one, because the mfg sites are internal customer from these perspective. Based upon this, the input of remote supporting process should not be included in mgt review' mfg site, or am I wrong?

What higher management review would occur if the corporate function/location is not ISO 9001 registered? By including it at the local level and working with our corporate Sales team, we were able to identify areas to work on at their end, our end and on collaborative issues. They had a copy of our Business Management System manual (even signed off on it) and a posted copy of our ISO 9001 certificate. In fact, as more sites achieved registration, they developed a wall to showcase the certificates, as a means to show the support they provided to the manufacturing locations.

In our case, we had to include Sales because they were the direct line of interaction with the customer. To not include them made proving how we understood and met customer requirements rather difficult.

If the support process you are dealing with does not directly impact the ability to meet customer requirements, then perhaps you do not need to include it in your review. You may wish to contact your Registrar for confirmation on this matter, however.

I would also ask yourself these questions - Is there value to including it in our management review? Does this process add value to our ability to keep our customer happy? Is there any risk to NOT including it in our management review?

 

[qusys]

What higher management review would occur if the corporate function/location is not ISO 9001 registered? By including it at the local level and working with our corporate Sales team, we were able to identify areas to work on at their end, our end and on collaborative issues. They had a copy of our Business Management System manual (even signed off on it) and a posted copy of our ISO 9001 certificate. In fact, as more sites achieved registration, they developed a wall to showcase the certificates, as a means to show the support they provided to the manufacturing locations.

In our case, we had to include Sales because they were the direct line of interaction with the customer. To not include them made proving how we understood and met customer requirements rather difficult.

If the support process you are dealing with does not directly impact the ability to meet customer requirements, then perhaps you do not need to include it in your review. You may wish to contact your Registrar for confirmation on this matter, however.

I would also ask yourself these questions - Is there value to including it in our management review? Does this process add value to our ability to keep our customer happy? Is there any risk to NOT including it in our management review?

Thank, appreciated your help.
My undestanding ( in ISO TS) was related to the fact the remote fucntions are in scope of the audit but not in scope of the certification. So, if headquarters provide supporting processes ( corporate functions, desgin centers as reported in TS par 1.1), the review of those supporting process should principally reside on those side.
This is a very keen point in my opinion.

 

[RoxaneB]

Thank, appreciated your help.
My undestanding ( in ISO TS) was related to the fact the remote fucntions are in scope of the audit but not in scope of the certification. So, if headquarters provide supporting processes ( corporate functions, desgin centers as reported in TS par 1.1), the review of those supporting process should principally reside on those side.
This is a very keen point in my opinion.

Our sales process was part of our certification process as they dealt with the customer. This was decided after a discussion with our Registrar.

However, as more locations attained registration, we did not wish to bombard Sales with internal and external audits. Since it was determined that our site was the company's benchmark site in North America, our internal and external audits of Sales were used to demonstrate evidence of conformance for those other locations within their own internal audit processes and external audit activities.

This was an achievement in our eyes, especially as we did not have a common Registrar across the organization. Having Registrar 123 accept a report from Registrar ABC was a big positive!...and help to cut costs.

Further down the road, as an fyi, we began the process of having the organization registered as a whole to ISO 9001 and thus a common registrar.

 

[aliasJohnQ]

When we included another dept. that wasn't including in the ISO grasp, then we treated that dept. like it was another company. Why can't you do that? I did it for a few years, when the pres. had a big idea of combining the dept. with the rest of the company. We all thought it was the second coming! No, not really...we really thought where has this guy been for the last few years??? Hope this helps!