Corporate Scheme (CF32) Interface Matrix and the Activity Codes definitions

Javier M

Registered
Background:
The organization i work at, currently is under the IATF Corporate Scheme structure. We are a Remote Location for 8 manufacturing sites. With our Certification Body we use a file (referred as CF32) for the Corporate Scheme structure where we define the interaction between Remote Location and each of these 8 sites, there are up to 35 Activity Codes (i.e. Aftersales, Calibration, Contract Review, Engineering, R&D, etc..)

Problem:
We have a constant back-and-forth feedback between 8 sites, us (RL) and the certification body due to "this Activity is not done here" and the interpretation of the auditors (different between the 9 sites). I asked the CB for the definition of each of these 35 Activity Codes, but their response is basically as they don't have the definition and we should come up with the definition of these.

Question:
Has anyone working under a Corporate Scheme structure with a Certification Body agreed/received definitions of these Activity Codes?
If yes, could you share them?

Since i haven't receive them from our CB, i've started to define them but there are some activities that are difficult to come up with a specific definition that can apply to a process/department in one of the our sites/remote location(s).
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
Has anyone working under a Corporate Scheme structure with a Certification Body agreed/received definitions of these Activity Codes?
If yes, could you share them?

Good day @Javier M ;
Your requirements as an organization are defined by the standard. In addition, there is nothing in "rules 5th edition" (the requirements the CB must follow) that specifies any "35 Activity Codes ".

Please help me understand. Are you saying that ...
1- The CB is using these codes to identify what "should" be done at each location? (RSL and SItes) ?
2- Are you saying that YOUR organization has created these "35 Activity Codes " and that the actual location of work being performed does not\
match the codes YOUR organization created?

3- Is there an actual problem statement issued as a non-conformance by the CB, which you could share here with us verbatim?

Be well.
 

Javier M

Registered
Hello John,

Thank you for your comments. I'll try to be as clear as possible

1- The CB is using these codes to identify what "should" be done at each location? (RSL and SItes)?
The CB is using these 35 codes in the matrix for us (RL and sites) to define which of these 35 activities are taking place and supporting whom. I thought these were standardized and to be used for all Corporate Schemes with all Certification Bodies, now, i'm not sure if this is a document created by this Certification Body we're using.


2- Are you saying that YOUR organization has created these "35 Activity Codes " and that the actual location of work being performed does not\match the codes YOUR organization created? No, the Activity Codes come from the Certification Body. We (RL and Sites) have to define the interaction between RL and each of the 8 sites.

3- Is there an actual problem statement issued as a non-conformance by the CB, which you could share here with us verbatim?
Yes, we received a nonconformity because one function in the CF32 was not mentioning that we have a Prototype center in another site.

I have asked the CB for the definition/description of these 35 Activities Codes. However their response is that we should define these 35 activities codes. The problem is that we do not have this matrix as a controlled document, is not part of our QMS, we do not use it neither as as process map neither is part of our quality manual. Is more like an administrative document. So my questions to the forum:

-Do you use this matrix or similar with your CB (if under a Corporate Scheme)?;
-A misalignment of functions/activities described int his matrix enough to receive NC's?

I appreciate your feedback and apologize for the long post.
 

Javier M

Registered
Hello Sebastian,

Yes, these "codes" are the "functions".
CB ask us (RL and regional hub) to define the interaction of codes/functions between sites.
Then, during the audits (in the remote location and every mfg. site) they audit the processes of the QMS.
If something is explained in a different way (let's say IT code/function listed in the matrix but in the audit is explained that the mfg. site does not receive IT support from the Remote Location) that is enough argument to give us a nonconformity. Which is similar to why we received one (different code/function though).
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
-Do you use this matrix or similar with your CB (if under a Corporate Scheme)?;
-A misalignment of functions/activities described int his matrix enough to receive NC's?

Unless I am not seeing something the answers is "no" and "no".

This is YOUR organization. YOUR organization defines the sequence of interaction of processes, including those performed by RSL.

Hope this helps.
Be well.
 

Sebastian

Trusted Information Resource
Manufacturing site A identifies in quality manual one supporting function from site B.
Site B during audit informs auditor about fact, it supports site A.
It is listed in site B audit report.
Site A sends this report to own CB before scheduled audit and that's ok.

Manufacturing site A needs additional supporting function from site B and updates own quality manual.
Site B during audit informs auditor about fact, it supports site A in two functions.
It is listed in site B audit report.
Site A sends this report to own CB before scheduled audit and that's ok.

Manufacturing site A needs additional supporting function from site B and updates own quality manual.
Site B was already audited and can't inform auditor during audit about fact, it supports site A in three functions.
Only two functions are listed in site B audit report.
Then:
1. Additional audit of site B has to be performed before site A audit is scheduled or
2. Site A quality manual revision has to be revoked and all site A involved persons has to keep mouth shut mouth about this function.
That's not proper approach, but easiest and a little bit risky.

Safest solution (stupid one) is that you revise your matrix in a way, that all supporting sites support all manufacturing sites with all available supporting functions.
Then audit reports from supporting sites list whole list of functions they can give and manufacturing sites are on safe side.

Personally me, I don't agree with IATF required site auditing sequence - supporting site first and then manufacturing site.
Yes there is a logic, e.g. headquarter provides product design activities for manufacturing sites, so let's pick up sample product, audit it and then follow same product in process design during manufacturing site audit, but... sometimes, frequently, usually, always quality of supporting functions is poor, e.g. DFMEA is not available for each newly implemented product.
Then manufacturing site auditor has option to raise or not raise a NC for "process of identification of manufacturing process risks is not effective - input document DFMEA was not considered during preparation of PFMEA".
So then "normally" corrective actions have to cover supporting site, really?
This "accident" has to be notified to supporting site CB by manufacturing site CB and they shall verify effectiveness of implemented actions.
Alternative option is changing sequence.
Manufacturing site auditor doesn't raise NC, but informs supporting site CB about it, they treat it as "claim" and use as input data for supporting site audit planning.

Sorry for this off topic, but did I help you Javier?
 

Sebastian

Trusted Information Resource
John, in my opinion, yes it is.
First because they failed to identify all supporting functions they get, as required by standard.
Second, because not all supported functions were audited prior to manufacturing site audit, as required by rules.
There are 3rd party auditors here, so they might correct me, if I am wrong.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
John, in my opinion, yes it is.
First because they failed to identify all supporting functions they get, as required by standard.
Second, because not all supported functions were audited prior to manufacturing site audit, as required by rules.
There are 3rd party auditors here, so they might correct me, if I am wrong.

Good day @Sebastian ;
I do not see nor understand the points that you stated as part of the OP.


Be well.
 
Top Bottom