ISO 9001Exclusion of clause 8.5.3

[BarbieT992]

Hello Everyone,
I have a question concerning exclusions. The company I just started working for is certified to ISO 9001:2015 and 17025. I am being told by their quality team that they don't audit clause 8.5.3 due to the service department handles customer property and is not under the 9001 scope and this only applies to them under 17025. There has been no exclusion stated in any documentation. I was told they tell the external auditor for 9001 "this clause is not applicable to the company" . I am just really confused how this is even allowed. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Golfman25]

I think it is going to depend on how your operations are handled, and what your "official" scope is. Sounds like you do a few things, but only 1 may be under your 9001 scope? If your ISO operations don't receive or handle customer property, then it would not be applicable -- as you can't do something you don't do.

 

[Big Jim]

The standard requires that you claim any exclusions. That's in 4.3 along with your scope statement. The scope statement itself doesn't need to state the exclusion but it should accompany it.

It is difficult for most any organization to be able to claim customer property as an exclusion as there are many possibilities even though the encountering it could be rare. In my opinion it is better to not exclude it but have something in place for the rare case it is encountered. The tricky part is that customer property can include proprietary information and that can be a wide spectrum. That could include various specifications, drawings, even credit card information. Physical stuff could include samples, mating parts, customer equipment.

Don't forget that the 2015 version added supplier property as well.

 

[BarbieT992]

I think it is going to depend on how your operations are handled, and what your "official" scope is. Sounds like you do a few things, but only 1 may be under your 9001 scope? If your ISO operations don't receive or handle customer property, then it would not be applicable -- as you can't do something you don't do.

Thank you so much for the feedback!!

 

[BarbieT992]

The standard requires that you claim any exclusions. That's in 4.3 along with your scope statement. The scope statement itself doesn't need to state the exclusion but it should accompany it.

It is difficult for most any organization to be able to claim customer property as an exclusion as there are many possibilities even though the encountering it could be rare. In my opinion it is better to not exclude it but have something in place for the rare case it is encountered. The tricky part is that customer property can include proprietary information and that can be a wide spectrum. That could include various specifications, drawings, even credit card information. Physical stuff could include samples, mating parts, customer equipment.

Don't forget that the 2015 version added supplier property as well.

Thank you for the information. This very helpful!

 

[Kronos147]

I have a question concerning exclusions.

The standard requires that you claim any exclusions.

Also consider reading section A.5 of the standard "Applicability". The current revision of the standard no longer refers to 'exclusions".

 

[Randy]

I was told they tell the external auditor for 9001 "this clause is not applicable to the company" .

That is an absolutely correct statement, there are no such things called "exclusions", and Kronos above is telly you where to exactly look for the proof.

 

[Big Jim]

Don't squabble over exclusion vs non-applicable. For all intent and purpose with ISO 9001 they mean the same thing and whatever you call it element 4.3 tells you that it needs to be justified.

 

[Randy]

Don't squabble over exclusion vs non-applicable. For all intent and purpose with ISO 9001 they mean the same thing and whatever you call it element 4.3 tells you that it needs to be justified.

Don't try to convince an accreditation body witness auditor of that

 

[Big Jim]

Don't try to convince an accreditation body witness auditor of that

I would have no trouble discussing this with an AB auditor. The similarities in use between ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 9001:2015 are too strong to support anything more than making a mountain out of a molehill. You might say if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it very likely is a duck.

I suppose they would not want to hear that an external provider could also be called suppliers or vendors, no matter how ingrained those terms are in industry.