Confidential Process and Right-of-Entry

rsalba

Registered
By your line of thought, an organization could limit the scope of certification to FINAL INSPECTION AND TESTING OF WHATEVER. All the upstream processes could be carved out and scoped out. That would be ludicrous.
If final inspection is the service being provided, that would be a reasonable scope, wouldn't it? I have used a company that manufactured products and had a very capable lab with a lot of downtime, and the lab was certified as a service independent of the product manufacturing. Their lab services were ISO17025, IATF16949, ect, but the consumer goods they manufactured obviously did not need that certification. But I think this discussion might be a little off topic.

This is not what we do, but imagining it this way might give a better picture of the issue. The OP1 is the mining of iron ore and processing it into metal stock. the OP2 is machining and treating the metal into the metal fasteners the customer wants. Before accepting the metal stock into inventory for OP2, we do testing and inspection like one would for a normal external supplier. We do not want anyone seeing our super special mining techniques in OP1.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Confidential Process and Right-of-Entry
 

rsalba

Registered
Super special mining techniques? For iron ore? OK gotcha.
Like I said in the first sentence of that paragraph, its not what we do, but it is a very near parallel. This would be the limit of the metaphor

It seems the consensus is "talk to your CB", so I have reached out to discuss. Thank you all for your time and perspectives.
 

Big Jim

Admin
Just to add to the mix, I will mention that I call on mining operations where the mine itself is outside of their scope. Only the working above the ground are certified.
 
Top Bottom