Is a dual ISO9001 AND AS9100 QMS Feasible?

[Coury Ferguson]

My client is a small (50-60 people) design , assembly and integration house, with all manufacturing operations outsourced. About 50% of its business is industrial machines , mostly one of a kind , no formal customer quality requirements , the other 50% is subcontracts to aerospace contractors. The company QMS is presently ISO9001registered. Lately the aerospace customers press for upgrading the QMS to AS9100.
Management would like a dual QMS whereas only the aerospace projects would be under AS9100.
Intuitively I think this is not feasible and wonder if a registrar would even agree to such duality. Does anyone think this is feasible? If as I assume, it is not, does anyone have ideas for good arguments to convince management to change their mind?

Our registration certificate has both AS9100B and ISO9001:2000. We provide ground support equipment, both Aerospace and Industrial.

So what is the problem?

 

[BadgerMan]

Sorry - typo & using abbreviations. (IIRC = If I remember correctly, and it should have read aren't)

The point I was trying to make was that the requirements for AS9100 are compatible with ISO9001 and so having one system to cover both is not an insurmountable challenge.

Sorry for any confusion.

The AS9100 requirements INCLUDE the ISO standard so the one system does cover both. Please read the following thread and note Randy's post (number 5). The key is in what you state (on your cert) as the scope of your certification.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=30365

 

[Randy]

Now it's really getting complicated.

Read the scope on the cert?

Communicate with the CB?

 

[w_grunfeld]

Big Jim, Howste,
Thanks a lot for your inputs. My concern is really regarding the registrar's approach and I don't have much choice there, there is only one in Israel that is accredited to AS9100. They are very liberal as far as ISO9001 is concerned (too liberal to my taste...) but not so when it comes to AS9100. The concern is will they be wiling/able to audit the commercial operations without being overly biased towards AS9100. Some processes are organization wide and it is difficult to draw the line.
I'll try to meet them in advance and test the waters..
Thanks again

 

[w_grunfeld]

AS9100 covering ISO9001 is not news. My concern is the other way around, how maintain a dual scope certification without having to do (and bear the costs) AS9100 for non AS products? Take purchasing, how to distinguish beteen PO's and suppliers that have to provide COT's for raw materials from those that don't?
Or traceability, or engineering changes , calibration and so on? It seems to me that almost any procedure and form, has to be separate or dual....doesn't seem so easy as some imply ....

 

[Coury Ferguson]

AS9100 covering ISO9001 is not news. My concern is the other way around, how maintain a dual scope certification without having to do (and bear the costs) AS9100 for non AS products? Take purchasing, how to distinguish beteen PO's and suppliers that have to provide COT's for raw materials from those that don't?
Or traceability, or engineering changes , calibration and so on? It seems to me that almost any procedure and form, has to be separate or dual....doesn't seem so easy as some imply ....

The simple answer is DON'T maintain separate systems.

 

[Randy]

You can't take ISO 9001 out of AS9100 any more than you can take lemon out of lemonade.

 

[w_grunfeld]

You can't take ISO 9001 out of AS9100 any more than you can take lemon out of lemonade.

Was anyone implying to do that??

 

[BadgerMan]

Was anyone implying to do that??

Just a clarification of the following statement posted above, I believe.

The point I was trying to make was that the requirements for AS9100 are compatible with ISO9001 and so having one system to cover both is not an insurmountable challenge.

 

[w_grunfeld]

The simple answer is DON'T maintain separate systems.

I didn't mean separate , but the AS systen should include lot of exceptions that wouldn't apply for commercial products. On paper that is straightforward, the devil [as always] is in the details [implementation]