Design & Development - Exclusion of 7.3 - We Manufacture to Customer Prints

[isogeorge]

when requesting an exclusion (1.2) from your registar in the area of 7.3 Design and Development, my registar has stated that 7.3 is applicable to us because we act as the middle man on occasion to transfer customer designs to subcontractors to manufacture. We do not design anything at our company. All drawings that we recieve are customer designed and we simply manufacure ourselves or subcontract. What is the forums take on this? is 7.3 applicable to our business under ISO 9001:2000?

Thanks all

 

[BadgerMan]

Sounds more like a 7.4 issue to me (flow down of requirements). I would ask the registrar for a more detailed explanation of his position..........in writing.

 

[DannyK]

I agree with BadgerMan. If you are not performing any design or are not responsible for the activity then you should be able to claim an exclusion to 7.3.

Also, your scope of registration should not refer to design.

Danny

 

[Hoeyster]

I am in the same boat you are isogeorge. I've been in the process of writing our Quality Manual and just this morning I was thinking, we can exclude 7.3 as we don't design anything. I think the registrar is full of beans saying because you send a customer print to a supplier that you automatically have design control. If you stop and think about it for a minute, you can't change anything on that customer print. Only the engineers at your customer can do that.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

In principle, from what you describe, you could justifiably exclude 7.3. However, in your website, your organization states: Concurrent Engineering- we can combine our engineering expertise with yours to ensure the most efficient solutions for your fastener and mechanical part needs.
So, if you are co-responsible for the part design, together with your customer, you should not claim exclusion, then.

 

[Al Rosen]

In principle, from what you describe, you could justifiably exclude 7.3. However, in your website, your organization states: Concurrent Engineering- we can combine our engineering expertise with yours to ensure the most efficient solutions for your fastener and mechanical part needs.
So, if you are co-responsible for the part design, together with your customer, you should not claim exclusion, then.

Sidney, are you Carnac? How do you know his website?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Elementary, dear Watson.

Sidney, are you Carnac? How do you know his website?

People's public profile contain, many times, the information about their organization. Other times, they have a V-Card available. It is a no brainer.

 

[Jim Wynne]

People's public profile contain, many times, the information about their organization. Other times, they have a V-Card available. It is a no brainer.

Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that you replied to Hoeyster and not isogeorge (the OP).

 

[Al Rosen]

Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that you replied to Hoeyster and not isogeorge (the OP).

Yes, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Zaitsev Alexey - 2006]

Iso/nc 176/sc 2/n 524

Hello!

I would recomend you to read ISO/NC176/SC2/N524 "Guidance on ISO 9001:2000 Sub-clause 1.2 'Application' ".
1.2 Application.doc

There you can find examples of excluding 7.3 from your QMS, which you could refer during your contacts with you certification body.