Human Resources, Finance and Administration in ISO 9001 - Procedures and formats

E

energy

Finance

Marc,

O.K. I can see your point on marketing, particularly if the product brochure/flyer contains product specifications. We have discussed the inclusion of Marketing in the process. Your slant on it makes the case for those in my company who think it should be. They just couldn't explain why. I added the "Marketing" thing in my response post to Venkat about the Finance Department. That's what I get for mentioning it to an Auditor. See what I mean?? Once an auditor, always an auditor.
As for the Finance, nothing in your reply or OSHA scenario has convinced me that they should be included. You also say that you review the top processes when you start to look at a company. Have you ever asked a company about their Financial inputs and outputs?:smokin:
 

Randy

Super Moderator
:bigwave: Hi guys,

I just thought I'd get in here with a little info.

US Gov't service contracts require the contractors and subs to comply with ALL applicable Fed/State OSHA Regs as part of the contract delivery. They also do the same for EPA stuff. The product of a US Gov't Service Contract is the delivery of the contract itself. All the other goodies contained within the contract are elements or parts. Therefore if the customer (Gov't or whoever) requires compliance with applicable laws and regs as part of the product (contract), OSHA and EPA compliance are auditable.

On Award Fee type contracts, actions of regulatory agencies towards the contractor can influence the amount of the fee awarded to the contractor, based upon how the gov't wants to address it.

JMHO:)
 
E

energy

Yes they do

Randy,

Having spent 20+ years as a Prime Contractor, I agree completely with your post. But, ISO isn't the Government with all those "side agencies" that they can sic on you. The problem is what some auditors "think" is within their scope. I can only say this: The scope will be very well defined before we pick a Registrar. No opinions, no far fetched theories, just the facts. As the customer, you have that right.
 

E Wall

Just Me!
Trusted Information Resource
And my final input here is....

ISO 9001-2000 "5.1 Management Commitment does require (in sub-clause a) communicating to the organization the importance of meeting customer as well as statuatory and regulatory requirements."

To me, this means if asked during an audit to show how communications were handled, then the standardized OSHA & EPA postings can be referred to, as well as any other specific communications. Which only leads the auditor to confirm that you either did or did not communicate within the organization, not whether or not you complied with the other organizations requirements.

For example, I work at a Battery Mfg Plant. We deal with lead & acid which have specific personal safety and envirnomental controls. Other than standard postings we also have new-hire and annual training re-fresher requirments that we can show documented evidence to support that mgmt is communicating the requirements to the organization.

It would be absurd in the extreme (IMHO) for an ISO auditor to try and audit our compliance to OSHA, EPA or any other dissassociated requirements.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Hey I agree with the auditee having the right to define the scope, but if the "widget" doesn't meet customer specifications/expectations, regardless of what they are, don't we then have a problem with the quality of the product? :)

Remember, on service contacts, the delivery is the product itself and all the requirements are specifications/expectations of the product. Can an organization arbitrarily delete or modify a product design specification because it doesn't like it? What's the use of auditing a process for making a right hand twist screw if we don't in fact verify that it is made as required? Would a left hand one be acceptable? It's still a screw? Isn't the twist just a technicality of the product specification? :confused:
 
Last edited:
E

energy

Help me out here.

Randy,

I'm slightly confused. The quality of the product isn't in question. If it was, we have the Nonconformance issue-Cause and Corrective Action, MRB, etc..The thread deals with Auditors wandering off into areas that are beyond the scope, like EPA, OSHA or other regulatory compliance issues. Originally, it began with a post that included the Finance Department as part of the ISO scope. I'm just struggling with the connection here. You know that you are one of my favorite guys. Help me out here to understand where I'm at. I am truly lost!:smokin:
 

Randy

Super Moderator
I guess I went off on a tangent. I have a tendancy to do that. I was just trying to point out that depending upon the circumstances, it may not be unreasonable for an auditor to look at compliance as being a portion or the product quality. An auditor should not just get a wild hair and do so though. Kinda, sorta, maybe.:rolleyes:
 
V

venkat

Clause 4.1 of the new standard ISO 9000:2000 is reproduced hereunder:

a. identifies the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organisation.
b. determines the sequence and interaction or these processes.

In clause (a) the word "throughout" is used. It means what?

According to my understanding it includes all departments.
To supplement clause (b) tells about the sequence and interaction of the processes.

Excluding finance and marketing departments is to show their might in the company. They enjoy more facilities and the support of the top management and they can get on even if they do blunders, working in an adhoc basis.

In my opinion they must be included in the company's process guide. In fact it applies to adminstration department as well
 
E

energy

If you say so

Originally posted by venkat

Excluding finance and marketing departments is to show their might in the company. They enjoy more facilities and the support of the top management and they can get on even if they do blunders, working in an adhoc basis.

In my opinion they must be included in the company's process guide. In fact it applies to adminstration department as well

It has nothing to do with showing their might in the company. These are traditionally areas that are none of anybody's business, let alone an External Auditing group. It would be interesting to see how your Internal Auditors would audit Finance. It appears you have your mind made up. As posted previously, that's your choice. Go for it. Me, absolutely not!:smokin:
 
Top Bottom