ISO 9001:2000 Clauses 7.4.3 & 8.2.4 - Incoming inspection records - need your input

C

ccochran

Howdy, folks:

I am having a friendly dispute with one of my colleagues. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. The dispute relates to whether records are required when purchased product is verified. My buddy says no, based on this RAB interpretation of section 7.4.3, Verification of purchased Product:

"ISO 9001:2000 Clause(s) 7.4.3-- Does Clause 7.4.3 require records of the verification of purchased product? Interpretation: No."
[refer to Clause 7.4.3 - RFI-002]

I say this is flatly wrong, regardless of what RAB says. Here's my reason: Section 7.4.3 may not require records of verification, but section 8.2.4 (monitoring and measurement of product) certainly does:

“Evidence of conformity with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained. Records shall indicate the person(s) authorizing release of product (see 4.2.4).”

Since verification of purchased product clearly falls into the category of “monitoring and measurement of product,” the requirements from that section of the standard apply. Records are obviously required.

If this issue has been discussed in a previous thread, accept my apologies. If not, please sound off!

Thanks for your input,
Craig
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
:topic: I was almost set to be down in Atlanta from Aug. 29 - Sept. 1...but last minute arrangements have our meeting being conducted at our Tampa location now. And here I was, all set, to spend a night or two at Loca Luna with their horrible caipirihna's, but awesome live music.

Back on topic, personally, I believe records are required. But, as your colleague pointed out, 7.4.3 does not require inspection records, simply records of supplier evaluations and actions arising from the evaluations.

To me, good business sense implies two approaches with regards to suppliers.

First off, is the CYA-methodology. :) Paperwork is your objective evidence that you received (or didn't recieve) what your ordered (or didn't order). I mean, to not have this stuff seems to go against all good business sense, doesn't it?

Secondly, doing actually on-site audits of suppliers can be expensive for some organizations. I know that for us, we have suppliers from Brazil, Italy, China, etc...while I would love to audit them, my passport would quickly fill up and the expense account would quickly drain with such travels. Having this paperwork is a good way to evaluate your supplier on such items as paperwork, on-time-delivery, and getting what you ordered....perfectly aligned with 8.2.4, and the base for a supplier evaluation programme.

It is rather suprising that there is no specific requirement for records 7.4.3. I'd like to think that the TC176 was thinking that the records would be demonstrated via 7.4.1, but 8.2.4 does, as you pointed out, Craig, provide that more definitive link to the maintaining of records for products received from suppliers.

The Accreditation Bureau (be it RAB, RvA, or whomever) has the final say based upon the response from TC176. I, too, am having a difficult understanding how "No" would be appropriate. Clearly, there is no need for records in 7.4.3, but when I read 8.2.4's "Evidence of conformity with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained", I am unable to see how records of incoming product can not be maintained.

I've got some circular logic racing through my brain right now - and I'm working on just a few sips of coffee. I mean, there's no explicit requirement (7.4.3), but how can you not have it (8.2.4)?

I need to muddle a bit more on this offline....
 

Douglas E. Purdy

Quite Involved in Discussions
Submit to ISO with Background

Can someone submit this issue for ISO Interpretation with the background presented with this post? It would be nice!

Thanks,
Doug
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
There are a number of different aspects of the question here.

Just because the standard does not say you must does not mean you don't, the old story about no work instruction about using the toilet.
There are a large number of things the standard does not say you must do but most organisations do any way.

I am afraid I must disagree with Craig and Roxane, according to my interpretation of product based on ISO9000:2000, the product in 8.2.4 is your product and not your suppliers, the release is that of you product.

If we go to ISO/TS 16949 then in
7.4.3.2 Supplier monitoring
Supplier performance shall be monitored through the following indicators:
- delivered product quality;
- customer disruptions including field returns;
- delivery schedule performance (including incidents of premium freight);
- special status customer
Here as I see it you must have records otherwise you cannot monitor "delivered product quality", here you must have at least Yes/No
 
C

ccochran

Great discussion. Consider this—

ISO 9000:2000 defines product as the “result of a process.” With this definition, there is no doubt that purchased product is a PRODUCT.

Section 7.4.3 requires inspection or other activities to ensure purchased product meets requirements. If the organization inspects, tests, checks, analyzes, or otherwise verifies the purchased product, then it is clearly monitoring and/or measuring a product. This brings us back to the requirements of section 8.2.4, monitoring and measurement of product, which requires records.

This isn’t just an academic argument. It’s something that comes up all the time during audits and consulting work. Most organizations maintain records of purchased product verification because their accounts payable departments won’t pay any invoices unless they can match them to records of receipt and verification. It’s a common-sense control issue. In this case, the ISO 9001:2000 requirements and common-sense controls match one another. The spider-web construction of ISO 9001:2000 just doesn’t make it very clear.

Howard, the closest reference to this issue in TS 16949 is probably 7.4.3.1, Incoming product quality, not 7.4.3.2, Supplier monitoring. If you look at the 3rd bullet of 7.4.3.1 it mentions “records of acceptable delivered product quality.”

Here’s a real good argument starter: The RAB does not have the final say in any issue. The people who have the final say are the users of standards and the people who teach them. If something in the standard is not clear--and the RAB’s clarification makes it even less clear--then it’s up to us to make sense out of it. I usually teach five or six RAB accredited ISO 9001 Lead Auditor courses every year. You don’t have to guess what I’m telling people about this requirement. I’m telling them what makes sense from a business standpoint, and I’m backing it up by showing how the requirements of ISO 9001 link to one another in a logical manner (i.e., like a set of interrelated processes).

More thoughts?

Craig
 
S

srqaeng

It seems cut and dry that you need to verify purchased products thus some type of record is required so why wouldn't you maintain it?
 
S

sal881vw

Craig,
I agree and of the same opinion as Howard.Not that one does not trust his supplier but incoming inspection greatly contributes to lesser process interruptions and product requirements ARE verified. IMHO it all depends on the cost of incoming inspection as well as the implications of an adverse situation.
Records further help to prove a case when needed.
 
M

mshell

The depth of our incoming inspection depends on the impact of the purchased product on the final product. Some items are inspected per the Open P.O. report and acceptance is indicated on the receiving report. Others require the completion of an incoming inspection report which has specific instructions for the item code being receivied. Some require the taking and recording of measurements while others require comparison of the incoming good(s) to an approved sample. Either way, we maintain records of inspection and do so in order to ensure that we are meeting the requirements of section 8.2.4, monitoring and measurement of product, which requires records.

Each inspection record indicates acceptance or rejection of the incoming product and the person responsible for the decision which ensures that we can meet the requirements of 4.2.4 - "Evidence of conformity with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained. Records shall indicate the person(s) authorizing release of product."

So IMHO records of incoming inspection must be completed and maintained in order to meet the requirements of ISO 9001:2000. Not to mention the fact that it just makes sense to verify the quality of incoming product to your requirements.
 
Very good question Craig,

First of all I think we’re all agreed that it usually is a good idea (regardless of how the standard is interpreted) to keep records from verification of purchased product. And so we shall… If we decide that keeping records is necessary to ensure that the purchased product meets the requirements. I’m certain that most of us decide that it is.

I would suggest that the key clause here is in fact 7.1d. What records do we need to ensure that processes and resulting product meet requirements? Those are the records we must have. But: What if we decide that no inspection of purchased product is necessary?

/Claes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom