ISO9 "Support Sites" question? Different Buildings but one company

[SteelWoman]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I'm trying to answer a question for a friend and want to be sure....

I'm very familiar with QS and TS, but not that familiar with the basic ISO9 beyond the "boxed" parts in TS that indicate they're verbatim from that standard. Anyway.. here's the question.... if a company exists in two separate buildings, but is ONE COMPANY, and it's simply a matter of the two buildings housing two different "stages" of the overall process, is it possible or permitted to pursue certification for just ONE of the buildings? My friend is being asked this by a company that doesn't want to pursue overall certification right now - wants to do one building and then do the other. I know in TS it says any support sites MUST be included in the initial audit and in continuing surveillance audits (that's in the "Automotive Certification Scheme" document), but does ISO9 have a similar support document and requirement?

My two cents worth is this is a crazy approach - they should wait and not pursue the certification until they're ready to do it all, because it will create more problems than it will help.

 

[Joe Cruse]

Steel,

if the entire process (i.e. one final product) comes out of work done by both buildings, I'd have to agree with you and tell them to wait until they have their entire process nailed down for certification. If they are running more than one process (i.e. different products), then they can exclude one from the scope of the certification.

I cannot see trying to exclude one building though, if it touches every product that the business makes.

 

[Cari Spears]

I cannot see trying to exclude one building though, if it touches every product that the business makes.

I don't think the number of buildings is what matters, really. I worked in a sheetmetal prototype shop that consisted of 4 buildings. Three in a row: one buiding was the pressroom; the building next to that was the woodshop / foundry / machining / laser / inspection rooms; next to that was the building with the front offices and the shop area was fabricating / assembly; across the street was the warehouse / shipping & receiving. Nothing we made could have been completed w/out going through each of those buildings. They're all processes under our control. It wouldn't make sense to leave any one of those buildings out of our scope of registration.

Not that I know, but the only thing I think might be possible, and it's a stretch, is to classify them as two different sites. Maybe the registered site could claim the other as a supplier / subcontractor.

I agree they should do them both as one entity; it seems sorta silly to not.