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

#1
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).
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
#2
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.
 
#3
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.
 
#5
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
#6
-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
#7
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
#8
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
#9
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.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Advantages and disadvantages on IATF corporate scheme IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
B Advantages of a corporate certification scheme IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
K Gage Calibration - Corporate Scheme IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
R Question on Corporate Audit Scheme IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
J How to calculate Surveillance Audit Days in Corporate Audit Scheme IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
Q Management Review Inputs - Production Site under a Corporate Certification Scheme Management Review Meetings and related Processes 9
automoto Corporate Audit Scheme - 4 companies at different sites IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
S From a Corporate scheme change to single site certification IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
G Use of Supplier's Corrective Action Form vs. Corporate Form Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 4
L Have been purchased by a corporate company ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
Ajit Basrur Corporate management standards ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
U IT Process is Taken From company and Added to Corporate Structure ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
N IATF 16949 - Mandatory Corporate Documents IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
julsbear Corporate Services as Externally Provided Service IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
J What does "Corporate stewardship" mean? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
S Corporate Quality Manager keeping me out of the Management Review Meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 28
sutie What is Ethics Escalation (“Whistle-Blowing”) Policy - Corporate Responsibility IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
L Corporate Manual - Global Multi-Site ISO9001:2015 Certification ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
J Supplier is dictated to us by corporate Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
RoxaneB Fighting Corporate Memory Loss Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 7
C ISO9001: Moving from site certification to corporate certification Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 9
G Setting up a corporate umbrella QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
S Internal Audits of QMS Corporate Basics at the Local Plant Level ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
R Steps to Preserve ISO 9001 Certification during Corporate Acquisition? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
D How do I make the Corporate QMS work in the manufacturing setting? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
N Corporate direction - External Auditor Influenced by Corporate Management ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
C Audit of the Corporate Audit Program 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
Q TS 16949 Manufacturing Site uses ISO 9001 Corporate Laboratory IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
Y Can't meet PEAR goals because of Corporate MGMT... Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 10
U Customer Audit Nonconformity on Internal Audit Program done by Corporate QA General Auditing Discussions 19
D Whither Corporate Social Responsibility Imported Legacy Blogs 2
Sidney Vianna Cleaning up the Global Compact: Dealing with Corporate Free Riders Sustainability, Green Initiatives and Ecology 2
M Corporate Procedures and their effects on Companies they Own Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
B Corporate Goal about ISO 9001 Registrar Audits ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
G Corporate Documents cover local facility - How many departments can I exempt? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
C 9001 Corporate Quality Audit - Yearly Audit on the Individual Business Units General Auditing Discussions 4
V Corporate Quality Management System - Structure, Pros and Cons? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 3
J What are the Processes under Strategic Corporate Planning ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
P What is the status of, and requirements of Corporate Social Responsibility Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 2
C Control and Revision of a Corporate QA Manual ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
M ISO 13485 Multiple Site Registration - Corporate HQ is listed as a subsidiary ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
somashekar Driving CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) Performance down the Supply Chain Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 8
Q Spin Off and Divestment from Corporate - What to expect Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 10
M Mixed Use of Corporate and Site Level Procedures and Forms in the Quality System ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
Stijloor The Road to Corporate Responsibility: An Automotive Conference World News 0
Marc WikiLeaks Julian Assange Wants To Spill Your Corporate Secrets World News 6
T What is difference between a Corporate Quality Manual and TQM? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
D Tobacco and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) Imported Legacy Blogs 2
J ISO9001 and Corporate Governance - ISO 37000 being developed to guide standardized Corporate Governance (updated thread March 2019) Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 12
K Corporate Volunteer Policy examples wanted Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 9

Similar threads

Top Bottom