ISO 9001:2000 requirements - Which of these options reflect the scope?

[Ettore]

Only for companies with certification "ISO 9001:2000". Which of these options reflect the scope of ISO 9001:2000 requirements?

1. Option 1. Requirements "6.2.1-2" are for all people performing work.
2. Option 2. Requirements "6.2.1-2" are for people performing work related at this process 7.6;8.2.2;8.2.4
3. Option 3. Requirements "6.2.1-2" of ISO 9001:2000 are for people performing work ..... (description)

 

[Craig H.]

The short answer is that everyone affecting quality must be competent. This would include inspectors and auditors, but also people who make the product or provide the service or buy the materials or has anything to do, at all, with the quality of the product or service being provided.

That said, the big picture, to me, is that in most effeciently run companies this would include just about everyone...

Does the payroll clerk have an impact on product quality? Well, do payroll mistakes hurt morale? If so, can poor morale cause poor product quality?

 

[Al Rosen]

Does the payroll clerk have an impact on product quality? Well, do payroll mistakes hurt morale? If so, can poor morale cause poor product quality?

I think that's a stretch.

 

[RoxaneB]

I think that's a stretch.

Perhaps a stretch, but it was a good example. Why should a payroll clerk not have competency requirements, when a receiving inspector for the same company does?

Morale aside, I guess it boils down to either embracing the spirit of ISO 9001 or simply meeting the requirements for that piece of paper on the wall.

 

[Craig H.]

I think that's a stretch.

OK, Al. I'm not really wanting to argue, but what the heck.

Can you make a case why the abilities of the payroll clerk would not matter? What would you say if a quality auditor asked to see how the competence of said clerk was determined?

 

[Al Rosen]

Perhaps a stretch, but it was a good example. Why should a payroll clerk not have competency requirements, when a receiving inspector for the same company does?

Morale aside, I guess it boils down to either embracing the spirit of ISO 9001 or simply meeting the requirements for that piece of paper on the wall.

I'm not saying the clerk doesn't have to be competent. I'm not saying the clerk doesn't need to be trained. I'm saying the standard doesn't apply to the payroll department. How does the payroll department fit into your interaction of processes? Do you have a process flow chart that includes your payroll department? Do you audit your payroll department as part of your Internal Quality Audits?

OK, Al. I'm not really wanting to argue, but what the heck.

Can you make a case why the abilities of the payroll clerk would not matter? What would you say if a quality auditor asked to see how the competence of said clerk was determined?

We were speaking about the requirements of the standard. The standard doesn't require it. I've never had an auditor ask about the payroll department.

 

[RoxaneB]

I'm not saying the clerk doesn't have to be competent. I'm not saying the clerk doesn't need to be trained. I'm saying the standard doesn't apply to the payroll department.

But doesn't it seem a bit silly to have one set of criteria for Group A people and another set for Group B? Where's the good business sense in that?

How does the payroll department fit into your interaction of processes?

It is part of our HR process.

Do you have a process flow chart that includes your payroll department? Do you audit your payroll department as part of your Internal Quality Audits?

Yes and yes.

The payroll process has even resulted in some CARs and PARs within our Nonconformance System.

 

[Craig H.]

We were speaking about the requirements of the standard. The standard doesn't require it. I've never had an auditor ask about the payroll department.

Ok, I'll answer my own question, but from an auditor's point of view. Understand that I DO NOT consider myself to be an expert auditor, just someone voicing an opinion.



"Why am I concerned with the payroll department? Well..."

6.3 c of ISO 9001 identifies supporting services as an area to be provided and maintained to achieve conformance to requirements. Transport and communications are mentioned. I maintain that payroll, in fact the whole HR function, fits this criteria.

6.4 requires the determination and management of the work environment "needed to achieve conformity". If we have a consistently lousy payroll department, is it possible to achieve it? I doubt it.

Again, in an efficiently managed organization, almost everyone has some impact on quality. The standard DOES NOT say "directly affecting", just "affecting".

We have some very experienced auditors here at the Cove. May we have some other opinions (even to tell me I am way off base, if that is so)?

 

[Al Rosen]

The payroll process has even resulted in some CARs and PARs within our Nonconformance System.

How long did it take to get your next paycheck straightened out?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

We have some very experienced auditors here at the Cove. May we have some other opinions (even to tell me I am way off base, if that is so)?

Craig, since you’ve asked, I offer my opinion. Let me preface this by reminding you that it is always dangerous to make broad, generalized statements, but if we limit our assessment to a typical audit to verify compliance of a QMS to ISO 9001:2000 in a typical manufacturing organization, I would say that certain processes, functions, departments, etc. are definitely off limits.

Payroll, Accounting, Legal, E&S are a few examples of functions that, normally, are NOT part of the processes comprising the QMS, along the lines of ISO 9001 (For ISO 9004, the assessment would be different). Sure, in some cases, these departments/functions can be part of processes that are included in an ISO 9001 audit, but that would be the exception rather than the rule.

Internally, each organization may expand the controls over the processes/people as they wish. So, if you want to perform an internal audit your payroll department and you expect them to have well documented processes, procedures, indicators, there is nothing wrong with that, but for an external auditor to be involved with such areas, I believe, they are out of bounds.

I contend that there are “common sense” limits to the QMS scope. If you use your payroll example on how it can affect employee morale, and thus affect product quality, you could argue the same for your cafeteria. Next thing you see is an auditor going to the cafeteria, asking if the cook’s recipe is controlled, if they keep records of their food tasting, if the thermometer in the oven is calibrated, etc.. In case of an outsourced cafeteria, one might start wondering if the catering company, responsible for managing your cafeteria is in your approved supplier list. You see, it starts to get silly, in my opinion. Lines have to be drawn somewhere.

This is my opinion.