Determining number of employees within the "Scope" of the QMS

[malasuerte]

This is more of an interpretation question: When determining scope of the QMS, have you written the scope in a manner that limits the # of employees considered supporting that scope?

Example:

Scope of the QMS = Manufacture of Steel Pipes; therefore, # of employees are only those that support that specific scope.

I ask, because a registrar which I have been interviewing is suggesting that our company include every single employee when determining audit days. The suggestion, at the # of employees at each site, we would be having audits for about 9 months of audit days (20 sites * 12 audit days per IAF table). Even if 3 auditors are sent to each site that is still 80 days of audits. Just makes no sense.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

For the "vanilla" ISO 9001 certification the process to determine the effective number of personnel is indicated in the IAF MD5 document,
Determination of Audit Time of Quality and Environmental Management Systems, section 2.3

​

Buena suerte, malasuerte.

 

[malasuerte]

Thanks Sidney. I have all this, including the registrars document too.

I am looking for folks methodology or interpretation.

In short, I disagreed with the registrar I was interviewing (btw. our company is already certified - I am interviewing new registrars due to displeasure with performance of current registrar).

We have a defined scope for our QMS already. The registrar was insisting that the cafe workers, security, etc need to be counted, as per 2.3.4 states. I challenged that notion, since the cafe does nothing to support the scope. (and please don't say "they feed the employees and make them happy").

I contend that if you apply the scope of the QMS to some sort of boundary condition, then only those employees that support that 'directly' should be counted. A cafe worker does not support the QMS!

 

[try2makeit]

Yea, I'd draw the line somewhere and ask him what it states in your scope. Does it state make coffee and serve lunch anywhere? That would be my answer.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Thanks for the clarification. Section 1.9 of the IAF MD5 document and several paragraphs of section 2 allude to within the scope of certification. So, absolutely, your expectation is reasonable, especially because it is exactly in line with the IAF guidance.

Let me offer something to you: your account is obviously a highly desirable account to any CB, because your audits involve a large number of audit-days. CB's would "kill" to sign you up, as a customer. In your CB interviews and discussions, just make sure this issue is a deal breaker. You will see how reasonable and accommodating the CB sales folks will become.

Good luck.

 

[AndyN]

You will see how reasonable and accommodating the CB sales folks will become.

And make certain the sales person knows what they are talking about...

 

[John C. Abnet]

Good day @malasuerte;
You are getting good council here. Consider this... the scope of the standard is ... (paraphrase)...
- Meet customer requirements
- Ensure customer satisfaction

Therefore, I would hope that the scope of YOUR organization defines the processes required...which in turn would (should ?) not include the cafe, etc....
Summary: Consider scoping in the applicable PROCESSES and not the ASSOCIATES.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

[malasuerte]

Good day @malasuerte;
You are getting good council here. Consider this... the scope of the standard is ... (paraphrase)...
- Meet customer requirements
- Ensure customer satisfaction

Therefore, I would hope that the scope of YOUR organization defines the processes required...which in turn would (should ?) not include the cafe, etc....
Summary: Consider scoping in the applicable PROCESSES and not the ASSOCIATES.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

Thanks....I agree with all said above. It is just stunning to me, the lack of knowledge by registrars and the ridiculous interpretations happening. I had a 2nd interviewed registrar tell me that they define our scope after interviewing us and getting an "understanding of our organization". I politely said good bye and stopped the interview 15 minutes in.

 

[AndyN]

Hence, my comment above...

 

[Sidney Vianna]

It is just stunning to me, the lack of knowledge by registrars and the ridiculous interpretations happening.

In fairness, CB's are under heightened scrutiny by AB's on the issue of lowballing audit days, compromising the integrity of the certification process (even more). However, this lack of knowledge is just another by-product of the commoditization and trivialization of the certification sector. Commoditizing your services mean that, without a question, you are not able to afford real talent working for you, be it as an auditor, a sales person, a certification issuer, etc...