SBS - The best value in QMS software

Determining the Scope of ISO 9001:2000 Registration

G

gardnere

#1
Friends: It's my understanding that there is some flexibility in identifying the scope of registration. If for example, a maintenance office within the organization is being considered as a prime candidate for initial registration, wouldn't (1) all of interfacing and/or dependent offices or facilities of the maintenance office be included within the scope; and (2) all of the relevant ISO 9001:2000 clauses within the maintenance and interfacing/dependent offices be considered? The reason I believe that you must consider those dependent or interfacing offices within the organization for they may have an impact upon the primary (maintenance office) area being registered and those impacts must be complied with within ISO 9001:2000 to ensure an effective implementation.

I am working with a client that is favoring incremental registration of its organization. After registering a small area to ISO 9001:2000, and proving the viability of the process, the organization wants to expand the scope of registration to a greater area.

Please share your thoughts in this area. Thank you in advance.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
#2
The viability shouldn't be the issue here, since there are many registrations, as you know - all kinds of 'things' get registered.

Having a piecemeal approach such as this is, IMHO, a receipe for disaster. The system is supposed to be a reflection of the processes or the organization which take customer requirements and turn them into a deliverable product (or service).

Now if you're saying 'maintenance' is what is provided to the customer, then I guess I don't understand your questions. What is this organization's core business? Maintenance?

However, if the client is advocating 'maintenance' being registered as an internal function to the business, that's borderline crazy, IMHO. It's back to the drawing board to improve their understanding of what ISO 9001 is all about, I believe.

Furthermore, how are you going to justify exclusions? Or are you proposing to include all of the section 7 requirements (maybe with the exception of design) applicable to maintenance? If you aren't, and each interfacing process like Purchasing and supplier evaluation/monitoring, control of NC product, control of inspection equipment etc. etc. are all going to be defined - then why stop at just maintenance?

It doesn't make sense to me - based on what you've shared with us.....
 

Coury Ferguson

Moderator here to help
Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
I believe this is the same Company mentioned in this thread:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=28486


I agree Andy. Seems like this approach by the Organization is not cost value added. Why waste the time and money to seek an individual registration and then at certain times include the other Facilities.

In my opinion, and if I was the consultant, I would tell the company that this isn't the right approach and that we would need to consider all other facilities be under a Corporate Registration. But, that is how I would approach this situation.

Maybe, gardnere could expand a little more on what the Powers to be are thinking.
 
Last edited:

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Friends: It's my understanding that there is some flexibility in identifying the scope of registration. If for example, a maintenance office within the organization is being considered as a prime candidate for initial registration, wouldn't (1) all of interfacing and/or dependent offices or facilities of the maintenance office be included within the scope; and (2) all of the relevant ISO 9001:2000 clauses within the maintenance and interfacing/dependent offices be considered? The reason I believe that you must consider those dependent or interfacing offices within the organization for they may have an impact upon the primary (maintenance office) area being registered and those impacts must be complied with within ISO 9001:2000 to ensure an effective implementation.

I am working with a client that is favoring incremental registration of its organization. After registering a small area to ISO 9001:2000, and proving the viability of the process, the organization wants to expand the scope of registration to a greater area.

Please share your thoughts in this area. Thank you in advance.
Andy and Coury are correct! You should consider their excellent advice and communicate that to your Client.

The approach that your Client is considering will also become a logistical nightmare. The interaction between the operations which are critical to the organization's success must be effectively addressed and that can not be accomplished in a piece-meal fashion.

Please come back and talk some more....

Stijloor.
 
G

gardnere

#5
Andy,

Thank you for your response. The viability idea is demonstrating, within an organization, that ISO 9001:2000 registration is a viable initiative; not the viability within industry.

I do not like the piecemeal idea as well. This organization is use to installing organizational changes in piecemeal through an incremental fashion and has done such with other ISO standards (other than ISO 9001:2000). I realize that ISO 9001:2000 should be organizationally-based with top management committment and oversight developing policies and ensuring that the appropriate process infrastructure in developed, maintained, and implemented.

The maintenance office responsibilities are outside the core responsibilities of this organization.

The maintenance office that I have identified has an oversight responsibility for several offices, those dependent and interfacing offices. Based upon this scenario, what should be considered for the (1) scope of registration and (2) should all of the ISO clauses be considered for each of the dependent/interfacing organizations? No Clause 7 exclusions are anticipated at this time with some or all of the interfacing/dependent offices being engaged with some aspect of Clause 7 of ISO 9001:2000.

The team's feedback is requested.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
#6
Interesting - I've just had an article published in IRCA's InForm on line magazine - here. It discusses scope and (hopefully) reflects a lot of discussion here on the cove (or at least my view point! :lol:)
Scope of assessment

Do audit scopes allow companies to take advantage of the wording of standards or do auditors overstep the mark? Paul Simpson examines the importance of scope

Each of the ‘big three’ standards requires that an organization defines and documents the scope of its management system:

* ISO 9001:2000 - The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual that includes
a)the scope of the quality management system, including details of and justification for any exclusions

* ISO 14001:2004 - The organization shall define and document the scope of its environmental management system
* BS OHSAS 18001:2007 - The organization shall define and document the scope of its occupational health and safety management system

For each of these standards in turn, why is it important for an organization to accurately describe its scope?

* if it wants to demonstrate it has the capability to satisfy customer requirements for its products and services, you would expect its system scope to cover that
* similarly, if it wants to demonstrate environmental management then its system should cover the whole site and whole product lifecycle
* finally, for OHS, an organization should look after all of its people with a system

Organization scope

If this is true then why does the ISO definition of an organization include the vague ‘…. or part thereof…’? This implies that if I were to ignore one of the guiding principles about management commitment, my management system could be restricted to any area of the organization I choose.

Therefore we need to carefully consider scope when planning and conducting assessments. A restricted scope requires clear knowledge both within the organization marketing its capability and within the organization selecting its supplier on the basis of competence through certification. The indications are not good, however. You only have to look at the number of unaccredited or bogus certificates accepted as proof of competence by procurement functions to know that certification itself is not well understood, much less so the scope of certification.

As an example, as CEO of Megadeath Global Nuclear Processing and Dumping plc, I choose to put my paperclip-sorting department up for certification to all three standards and not take the risks associated with having an independent assessment of the company ’s full scope, as allowed under the definition of ‘organization’. What is more, any certification body operating a policy of open access is obliged to accept my application. Rarely would you see such blatant flaunting of the spirit of requirements.

Similarly, many certification bodies offer certification to management systems for a scope of registration where a significant proportion of work is carried out at customer premises. How would it be possible to do this without visiting a site?
Developing scopes

There may be genuine reasons why some scopes start narrow; many organizations will pilot a management system in one area with a plan to later implement and certify the full scope throughout the organization. This could account for not wanting to put MGNPD’s whole system up at one time for certification by Tough As Old Boots Registrations Inc, only to find major nonconformities on initial audit and a complete reassessment is required.
Scope creep - beware the over-enthusiastic auditor

The reverse can also be true when an auditor extends the bounds of their authority to include requirements outside agreed audit criteria, the standard, legal and customer requirements and the organization’s own documented system.

This can be shown when nonconformities are raised against requirements that don’t exist, perhaps by assessing outside scope or not covering the full scope. An example of each may help:


* nonconformities are raised for health and safety failings, typically against clause 6.3 or 6.4 of ISO 9001:2000. Now, unless the organization’s customer has placed additional requirements through their contract, the only justification for nonconformity against either clause is if you can show actual impact on quality of the finished product, not a potential impact. In the UK as individuals we do have a duty of care to bring any health and safety failings to the attention of the employer, but it doesn’t belong in any quality audit report

* a nonconformity may be written against a performance objective of 100 per cent on time delivery (OTD). Current performance is 99.8 per cent. At first this looks to be genuine but, for it to be a nonconformity, further investigation is required to cover the full scope of the management system. The auditor needs to delve further to check to see if the organization is analysing reasons for missing the target and/or is taking corrective action to improve OTD performance

Scope and assessment planning

There are time constraints on any assessment and it is a competitive market for certification bodies. Much pressure is put on reducing assessment time as a way of offering lower certification costs, but this should not be at the expense of quality of assessment.

Assessment remains a sampling activity, but samples should be selected by the audit team to cover the full scope of activity. Otherwise assessment is dumbed down to a commodity product able to be carried out as a document review in the boardroom or off site. By the same token, the requirements of each of the standards mentioned are substantial on their own without adding new requirements or auditing outside the scope agreed between the two parties.

Scope is vital to assessment; it should cover all relevant areas, act as a contract for auditor and auditee and set the agreed boundaries.
 
G

gardnere

#7
Friends: I appreciate your continued feedback. This customer is not concerned with the cost-benefit of an incremental ISO 9001:2000 registration, but interested (at least in the beginning) in registering a small part of the organization, then expanding in the future.

Again, I need some help with the following: Based upon this scenario, what should be considered for the (1) scope of registration and (2) should all of the ISO clauses be considered for each of the dependent/interfacing organizations? No Clause 7 exclusions are anticipated at this time with some or all of the interfacing/dependent offices being engaged with some aspect of Clause 7 of ISO 9001:2000.

Thank you for your continued information.
 
G

gardnere

#9
Paul, Excellent information!!! Your feedback allows for some flexibility with the scope of registration.

Again, I need some help with the following: The maintenance office (central to the ISO registration) that I have identified has an oversight responsibility for several offices, those dependent and interfacing offices. Based upon this scenario, what should be considered for the (1) scope of registration and (2) should all of the ISO clauses be considered for each of the dependent/interfacing organizations? No Clause 7 exclusions are anticipated at this time with some or all of the interfacing/dependent offices being engaged with some aspect of Clause 7 of ISO 9001:2000.

Thank you all again.....
 
#10
Nice information, Paul - however it appears to have more of a slant towards the relevance of scope to the CB assessor and the CB, than the organization who are going to implement this - two distinctly seperate interests, IMHO.

If we take the position of being a customer of this organization, what might we deduce when we a) know their product and b) see their certified scope is 'maintenance'? Any wiley purchasing person is going to treat that like a dead racoon......Has the organization considered the negative marketing of its limited scope?

Would an accredited Certification Body really participate in such a farce? Can you imagine what the assessor is going to think, walking into a place, but just being shown 'maintenance'.

Of course this is purely speculation on my part, since I still don't know what this organization does. I understand the need to protect client confidentiality, but how big is the delta between what is up for registration and what they really do....??

BTW, Paul, the comment in your article about a 'trial implementation' hardly applies here, does it? I'm thinking it means a multi site organization deploying it in one as a trial for the others......
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D ISO 9001:2015 4.3 Determining the Scope of the QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
Q ISO 9001, section 4.3 Determining the scope of our QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
F ISO 9001:2015 4.3 - Determining the scope of the quality management system ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
A IATF 16949 4.3.1 - Determining the scope of the quality management system - supplemental IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
M Determining number of employees within the "Scope" of the QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
A Determining the Scope of the QMS during Stage 1? Registrars and Notified Bodies 11
W Minor Audit Nonconformance Against Determining the scope of QMS IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
R Determining the feasibility/scope for FDA IQ/OQ against a very simple application US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
K Scope Of Registration To TS 16949 - Need help in determining IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
Q Determining Adverse Effects of Corrective/Preventive Actions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
S Determining sample sizes for PQ Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
M Determining if an Insulin Pen Testing Machine is a Medical Device? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
M Determining a tolerance value for Measuring devices in-house inspection General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 12
D Determining the the maximum number of reprocessing cycles of attachments CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
R Determining Uncertainty from Gage R&R Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
J Determining SPC tolerance Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 21
B Determining SAT Offsets vs TUS Offsets per SAE AMS 2750E AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
B Determining sample size for device sterility Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
D Determining of sample size for 'Operational Qualification' AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
R Question on determining defective units - I am not recording fixture to part rejected Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
S Clause 8.2.2 Determining the requirements for products and services ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
D Determining Calibration Frequency schedule for items used in production Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
C Determining if Maintenance Contractor is an External Service subject to ISO 9001 Clause 8.4 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 43
S AS9100D PEAR - Examples for organization's method for determining process results? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
I Determining Calibration Tolerance of a Measurement Device General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
J ISO 17025 Documented Procedure for 6.2.5 - Determining competency ISO 17025 related Discussions 4
V Determining FDA 820 (registration) vs ISO 13485 - Supplier gives us the kit ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
J ISO 9001 8.4.1 - Determining controls applied to externally provided processes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
E Determining what is good and what is bad can be subjective - when is it a quality issue? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
F Determining what type of scrap to include in my internal PPM calculation Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 5
D Determining Critical Components for conformity with IEC 60601-1 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 21
R Determining Sample Size for Medical Device Component Validation Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
A What does 8.2.2.1, Determining the requirements related to products and services,mean IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
A Determining Retention Period for Medical Device QMS documents Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
S Surveillance Sampling Test - Determining Sample Size Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
B Standards Needed In House - Determining what standards are applicable Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 3
W Determining Medical Device Classification in Mexico Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 5
K Determining Effect of Failure without a DFMEA (Design FMEA) FMEA and Control Plans 1
W Determining the Status and Importance of the Processes and Areas to be Audited Internal Auditing 7
T Determining Customer Requirements for the US Postal Service (USPS) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
Crimpshrine13 Rules of achieving and maintaining IATF recognition - Determining audit days IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
R Developing procedure for Determining Company's Context And Interested Parties ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 53
W Determining Asset Life or Depreciation Life for M&TE General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
N Reason for determining no adverse effect on reworked product ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
N Procedure for determining pinhole position in condom Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
alonFAI Determining PCBA Xray Test Sampling Size Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
S Determining sample size for inspection to achieve x% confidence re defects Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 10
S Determining Sample Size - AQL & LQ AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 10
B Determining the "storage volume" (ISO 8536-8:2004 clause 6.14) Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
N Procedure/calculation for determining the foot pressure of dial thickness gauge General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 11

Similar threads

Top Bottom