A "Customer-related processes" curveball

[RoxaneB]

Okay...here's a new one for you, boys and girls....I think. And it's managed to not only confuddle my own department, but we can't even seem to get a consistent response from auditors with our Registrar.

We manufacture product at our location and are currently ISO 9002:1994 registed. We are aiming to be ISO 9001:2000 registered by June 2003.

Our Sales Department has undergone some major restructuring and is now located at two locations, instead of here...on site. All orders for US Customers will go through to Sales in our US Head Office. All orders for Canadian Customers will go through to Sales at our Canadian Head Office.

The US Head Office is currently in the beginning phases of registration to ISO 9001:2000 and has just completed a Gap Analysis for Sales.

The Canadian Head Office does not appear to be (or even interested in) pursuing registration.

How will this affect our transition? Can we even consider transitioning in June? All communication with the Customer is done through our Sales departments and not with the facility that manufactured the product.

We were told that we could do an ISO 9001:2000 audit in June but receive a certificate stating ISO 9002:1994 and when the Sales departments caught up, we'd "flick the switch" to have the cert read ISO 9001:2000. But I think that this assume they successfully register by Dec 15, 2003. What if they don't?

Any thoughts?

How's this for a curveball to the whole transition process?

 

[db]

Curve or foul

How's this for a curveball

I'm sure if this is a curve or foul ball, but here is my take. I see you as having a real issue with 5.1. If your top management was truly committed, this would not be occuring.

However, one out would be to treat your Canadian sales office as a "supplier". I don't like the idea, but it might work. I stand firmly on the concept that senoir management has just said that ISO is not a priority for the organization.

 

[RoxaneB]

Hmmm...

Interesting take, db. We already treat them as a supplier for products on our Approved Vendor List (they managed to successfully pass our qualifications for non-ISO companies). They supply us with intermediate/finished products which we, in turn, deliever to the Customer...if we aren't manufacturing it ourselves.

To treat them as a supplier for their Sales service is an interesting concept and one that none of us had thought of. It then becomes a question of what sort of service do they provide? Golf tournaments is not an acceptable answer! *g* For us, I guess it would include the Production Schedule, Customer Complaints (credits already processed so we'd enter it into our Nonconformance System), and Customer feedback specific to us (which they are not capable of doing at the moment with the current system set-up).

I suppose one could argue that if they attain (or are well on their way to attaining) Registration by Dec 15, this all becomes a moot point.

If they don't....*shrug*....last I heard it was politically incorrect (and professionally dangerous) to reject product from a sister company.

 

[Sean]

I agree with db about treating Canada as a supplier and a generating some history acting accordingly (tracking performance, etc.) Start right now generating some history though. This means quite a bit to the auditor.

If your US office is not certified by the same company you should get a copy of their certificate.

Good luck. My conversion / 3 year recert / scope expansion was just 4 weeks ago.

Sean

 

[RosieA]

I have a similar situation with other divisional sales offices and resolved it by creating service contracts between the divisions. It was a fairly simple document covered the ground rules for any work they did on our behalf, and it was acceptable to our ISO auditor.

It included access to any file by fax or by shared servers during the audit.

 

[KenS]

We are treating our Sales (here called Marketing and reporting to another division) group as a supplier. Their product is the Order Specification, we "inspect" the product upon receipt, "reject" it for "rework" if our review finds any information missing or clarification missing. And yes, I have sent them more than one corrective action.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Curve ball? It's foul!

I can only speak from experience of my "shameful past" as an employee of a registrar and from my opinion as to what is and isn't fair.

You should not be registered to ISO 9001.2000 unless and until all your processes are audited - ideally by one registrar so they can assess the whole of the management of your processes across departmental (and international) boundaries. This was the message we were given by the accreditation bodies when the 2000 version was still being considered.

The reason is that the scope bit of 9001.2000 says you cannot exclude parts of the system without valid reason - which is where the logic comes in. Why should you be able to say to customers: "Yes we are registered to ISO 9001.2000." When some parts of the business do not comply. At the moment under 9000.1994 series you can have one production line out of twenty covered in the scope of an assessment and still make those claims.

Good luck!

 

[M Greenaway]

Paul

Are the ISO9001 certificates issued to sites or to businesses ?

As such must every process within the four walls of a building, or group of buildings, be contained within the QMS, or if a building is the manufacturing site for different business units, possibly even different businesses, do you certify the business or business unit ??

The reason I ask is that we could simply 'scope' out areas of our business by putting them in non-certified business units - which to my mind defeats the whole object.

 

[JodiB]

Jiminy Cricket

Sales, marketing, and distribution of the product that you produce are considered to be inherent operations and are not part of the scope of the certification. Forget about what they do except within the context of your business goals and how they support the activities of the actual certification activities (design, manufacture,service)

I guess I'm not seeing what the question is: does it have anything to do with sales?? what possible difference does it make whether one facility is certified vs. the other? (if it has to do with accepting raw product from the site that isn't going to be certified by the site that is going to be certified then all those who said to just treat the other site as a supplier are spot on)

Geez, who the heck is the dumbell registrar who wants to includes SALES???

 

[JodiB]

Maybe I still don't understand: I thought we were talking about certification. That game has its own rules and it doesn't have to make sense. It just is

We are required to identify the requirements related to the product. If this fuction is done by the sales group alone then that activity is subject to audit and verification. If that function is done by another group or is verified by another group before action is taken, then the sales group can be forgotten about. Much like the finance group. Or the marketing group. Or that trucking company that distributes your goods. All that will matter is that there is a control on the interface.

Of course, in a purely business management sense these groups aren't forgotten about. They suffer the same corporate oversight and control as the groups who operate within the scope of certification. In a well-run company in a magic land. They just don't fall under the scrutiny of the registrar as long as the requirements are met within the scope of your certification.