That is an interesting link. Well worth reading by everybody. According to that, it would appear that ISO would in fact be comfortable considering management processes as outsourced, rather than classing it a remote location.
When this program rolled out originally in 2000 and 2002 (TS), the viewpoint promoted the remote location point of view.
Unless ISO has some updated discussions of remote locations, it would appear now that ISO would be comfortable classing them either as outsourced or remote locations, while TS (IATF) prefers considering management processes as remote locations.
I guess each organization should whichever method is more suitable for your particular application. If TS, better to stay with the remote location point of view.
Thanks for sharing that link.
I would agree that (involved) separate locations of the same company, unless part of the same overall certification, are best considered as outsource. They perform operations, there needs to be some justification that they are competent to do those operations.
You only need to read the horror stories elsewhere on Elsmar to know that companies do not always work that well internally.
The challenge comes when the performance of an internal division isn't up to par, you have less power to do anything about it, (especially when it is Corporate HQ letting you down!). It tends to be easier when another division is supplying material or components, the pass/fail criteria tend to established clearly, although achieving root cause elimination can potentially be politically difficult sometimes.
Nonetheless I have seen effective improvement in many companies done as a result of treating other divisions, even HQ functions, essentially as any other outsourced process.
