ISO9001 Certification - Group of companies operating in different sectors

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Re: ISO9001 certification for an entire group?

When developing the QMSs for 8 organizations, it might be a good time to consider the volume of QMS documentation that would result, depending on the approach that is used. So, I hope this discussion is not entirely off-topic. One tasked with implementing 8 systems might be interested in how the approach chosen impacts how much documentation is left to control. I hope not to belabor the point further in this thread, however, beyond the following.

Using the process approach, the right number of procedures for each company is the number that should be written--based on the processes of the organization. Using the elemental approach, the same twenty-odd procedures might be adopted by each organization. (Or, if you really just want the certificate, you only need six documented procedures and they could be the same for all 8 companies. But this is not the right solution from the perspective of quality assurance.)
Based upon the approach you take, you will need:
160some QMS procedures (based upon the standard, assuming each company operates its own QMS; bear in mind this approach invites more layers of documentation to address the real processes--the ones being operated before ISO 9000 came along), or
OR
using the process approach, here are those numbers:
If we assume each organization operates 6 realization processes (for example: Sales, Design, Procurement, Production, Shipping and Receiving, and one more unnamed realization process for good measure), and each has 6 supporting procedures, that's a dozen procedures in each company. That's 96 procedures in total for all the companies. And these procedures actually reflect what you do, and they won't change much due to future changes in the standard--since your QMS is then based upon your own processes, rather than merely being a collection of documents pandering to the standard.

 

[ChrissieO]

Re: ISO9001 certification for an entire group?

When developing the QMSs for 8 organizations, it might be a good time to consider the volume of QMS documentation that would result, depending on the approach that is used. So, I hope this discussion is not entirely off-topic. One tasked with implementing 8 systems might be interested in how the approach chosen impacts how much documentation is left to control. I hope not to belabor the point further in this thread, however, beyond the following.

Using the process approach, the right number of procedures for each company is the number that should be written--based on the processes of the organization. Using the elemental approach, the same twenty-odd procedures might be adopted by each organization. (Of course, you could get by with only the 6 required procedures, but let's assume you want to do quality right, too, and not just get a certificate.) The approach selected has clear implications for not only document structure, but think about the time spent auditing, for example. Let's just assume we pay an internal auditor $15/hr and it takes 2 hours to do an internal audit. So, it's $30 per audit. Let's assume each procedure needs to be audited once per year.
Based upon the approach you take, you will need:
160some QMS procedures (based upon the standard, assuming each company operates its own QMS; bear in mind this approach invites more layers of documentation to address the real processes--the ones being operated before ISO 9000 came along), or
OR
using the process approach, here are those numbers:
If we assume each organization operates 6 realization processes (for example: Sales, Design, Procurement, Production, Shipping and Receiving, and one more unnamed realization process for good measure), and each has 6 supporting procedures, that's a dozen procedures in each company. That's 96 procedures in total for all the companies. And these procedures actually reflect what you do, and they won't change much due to future changes in the standard--since your QMS is then based upon your own processes, rather than merely being a collection of documents pandering to the standard.

I do appreciate your point but the thread seemed to be going down the usual route as to the number of procedures for a QMS, which as I said in my earlier post is dependant on the size or diversification of the operation. Many procedures are required but do not have to be documented and as long as it can be demonstrated that there are procedures in place for these they do not need to be documented.

i.e. One division of the group may manage their training and awareness by one method and another using something else that is more akin to that division. The procedure does not need to be documented but each division would need to be able to demonstrate that there is a suitable procedure in place.

The QMS that I look after is approx 350 people over 5 different locations doing various jobs from Customer Service, Warehousing & Logistics, Import and Export, Specilist customer special packaging and an e-channel business. We have 9 top level procedures to cover this for the whole group

With the required procedures such as Document Control, Internal Auditing, CAPA etc it would be a good opportunity to stadardise your management procedures at this level and look for leaner ways of doing things, which is the approach we took.

At first we did get the usual "we like our old way" or "we don't do it like that" or "that would never work for us" my question back to these questions was "WHY?" and the answer I got back was one I always dread, "well we have always done it this way"

If the management team are blinkered like this you are working against the ethos of 9001 which continuous improvement. The management teams from all the divisions have to have input into the new QMS and need to be led by top management, if top management are stuck in their ways you may have a battle on your hands but it is up to the QM or QE to demonstarte the benefits of moving forward.

This is a great opportunity for the different divisions to share best practice and look at how each other are doing things.

We have a mature system established for at least 18 years which was initially just for the warehouse and logistics division, the other divisions merged with us about 7 years ago and it has worked well, each division does not need its own management procedures.

May be it's time to go LEAN

Cxx

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Re: ISO9001 certification for an entire group?

I agree about the lean thing.
The situation at hand is slightly different than one company with several divisions, however, if I understand it properly. Here we have 8 separate companies, not 8 separate divisions of one company.
The difference becomes relevant when defining top management. In the case of one company with several divisions, there is presumably a top management of the organization. When dealing with 8 separate companies, who is top management of the organization? Will they create a collective management board? Will this board be effective in overseeing, managing, and improving each company's QMS?

 

[DrM2u]

Re: ISO9001 certification for an entire group?

Great advice and great debates from everyone participating in this thread!

Now let's get back to the starting point. The CB will be the one to present the options for registering all 8 companies, regardless of what we might think is the best way. It is up to the organization's management to decide what option to pursue based on their needs and plans, and that decision will impact how the QMS will be developed and implemented. At that point in time we should be in a better position to give advice on the number of procedures (reignite the debate), formats (another debate), etc.

Can we all agree on this and wait for Kev to follow up with more details? Unless you want to keep the debates going on just for the sake of practicing your debating skills.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Re: ISO9001 certification for an entire group?

Okay. Part of me wants to say that Kev should determine the best way and then tell the CBs to bid upon what he wants, rather than selecting the best way from whatever they offer. So, I guess that part of me got to say it.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: ISO9001 certification for an entire group?

Actually, Sales, Purchasing, Production, and Shipping and Receiving is the most common terminology I find for realization processes in machine shops/contract manufacturing organizations and I have taken roughly 80 of them through certification. Note, these are REALIZATION processes, as was stated. Management Review and Internal Audits, like Document/Records Control, CAPA, Training, are SUPPORT processes in a machine shop.
ALL of these realization processes and support processes, taken together, ARE the QMS--a system of processes. Specifically, management processes. Processes needed for the management system. I have posted elsewhere to make this point more clear.
I understand nearly everything stated on this forum is an opinion, don't you?

Jim, thanks for admitting you don't see my point, rather than attacking it first. Much improved, thank you. Sorry if you don't like my instructional tone, but it comes naturally after a decade of trying to educate folks who attack what they don't understand.

And I suppose that you have not considered that your tone does not come off as instructional. It comes off as arogant.

Saying that I don't see your point was an inventation to tell me your point.

You still have not answered how you address management related topics (perhaps what you refer to as "support processes") in your interaction of processes model.

 

[JaneB]

Kev,
Glad you're finding the forum useful.

The group is made up of atleast 8 separate companies all within the construction industry but operating in different sectors e.g. civil engineering contracting, road surfacing, steelwork, plant hire, suppliers etc etc. Is it wise to try and get an 'umbrella' accreditation that covers all companies or work through each one independently???

That's hard to answer at the moment. Ultimately, I'd probably aim for a common 'core' management system with as many common elements as possible (eg, similar management planning & review structures & processes, common procedures such as doc control, internal audit, etc etc) but allowing for local processes.

But doing one system for 8 separate companies? That's a big ask and a Big Project. I'd start by acquiring as much knowledge as you can. And consider getting a good consultant in to help - OK, I'm biassed (I is one) but it could save you a lot of time and effort IF they're a good one. If not, you're better off without!

Yes, it may well be better (particularly as you say there appears to be little in place at the moment) to do it in chunks, ie, ' bite off' one of the companies, get it working there, and then (with the benefit of knowledge and experience gained) spread it out to more. Of course, that assumes that the people change management stuff will be OK - ie, that company B isn't going to adopt the 'not invented here' outlook.

Also, you'll have already noticed, that different people have different and sometimes very strongly held points of view. It's in the nature of a public forum, as is that at times, a thread gets going on a particular line of conversation.

If the directions/posts are not helpful for you/not what you want, one way of focussing it is to ask a clear question (perhaps start different threads for each), or to explain that what's being said isn't helpful (if it isn't) and ask for the help you need. (That's general advice, by the way). And as always, take whatever you need for your situation.

 

[harry]

Derailed thread​

It appears that postings for this thread have strayed a bit from it's original purpose. For the maximum benefit of the Original Poster, please guide all posts back to the original poster's question/thought.

Should you feel another issue has arisen that merits further discussion, feel free to start a new thread, or contact a moderator to help with moving some posts.

Thank you!

 

[BradM]

If I may...

Has this goneor is it just me?

I thought the question was about registration for a group of seperate divisions within one company and not about the age old questions of "how many procedures needed for a successful QMS", which no one will ever agree on and will debated till the end of time as each QMS is individual to it's own company, or at least it should be....................IMHO of course

Cx

Yeah, you knock them back to the topic of this thread!

You folks were quite correct. Hence, Harry posted this:

Derailed thread

It appears that postings for this thread have strayed a bit from it's original purpose. For the maximum benefit of the Original Poster, please guide all posts back to the original poster's question/thought.

Should you feel another issue has arisen that merits further discussion, feel free to start a new thread, or contact a moderator to help with moving some posts.

Thank you!

Which we hope all adhere. Please... if you ever see a thread getting derailed, please use the Report This Post

button. Posting within the thread may not get seen by moderators/admins. We all enjoy spirited discussions on topics; I've had my fair share. But I also know that I appreciated having people close to the subject help reign that discussion back in.

Now, let's return to the regularly scheduled program.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

We agree it's too early to say in this particular case, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss this situation to reveal the principles at work here. We might even kick it around enough to come up with some good ideas regarding principles. We, myself included, might learn something from the discussion and that seems to be what it's all about. Right?

I like the similar core processes idea. However, it seems that the only objection to a common way of doing things might not just be, "we didn't develop that solution here," it might reasonably and honestly be, "that solution doesn't work for all of us." Or, "Our method is compliant and efficient already. Must I expend resources to adopt the group's way, so we can get certified easier as a group?"

I guess what I am trying to say here is that one shouldn't hurry to adopt a similar support or core structure, let alone an entire QMS, for several companies in apparently different industries just for the purposes of ISO certification. In principle.

To the degree that these organizations' support or core processes are alike, great. But rather than creating a system that might pinch some, or might be defined by the outliers, it might make better sense to allow existing top management of each organization manage their own organizations.

The question first appears to involve the feasibility of having several separate organizations in various industries adopt the same QMS (or core processes) for the purposes of ISO 9000 certification. (Were it not for certification, of course, this discussion would not have arisen in the first place.) In my current opinion, I doubt this will work out well for quality. It might work out easily for certification in a variety of ways. The CBs might be happy to give a group discount.

Presumably the defined scope of this QMS will extend to include the operations of each individual company within the group? Will groups be added to, or removed from the system often? I see there are "at least 8." If new companies enter the group, these new companies must also presumably adopt the group's way. (We can just hope the group is immune to groupthink!) Won't the QMS scope often need to be revised with the addition of new companies, and when companies exit the group?

Because different industry requirements pertain to organizations operating in different sectors, will the core processes be designed to meet applicable requirements of these disparate directives, regulations, and standards, potentially strapping companies to comply with QMS provisions that are intended to address requirements that do not pertain to them? Or, again, might the QMS ultimately be over-defined and cumbersome by the necessity to be clear about which QMS requirements apply when, where, and to whom?

With the additional layer of top management required (ISO 9001:2008, section 5) to review the QMS, and to ensure the availability of resources to the QMS . . . it seems the separate companies would need to establish a "QMS Board," or something like it to be this top management body. Or would they elect a "QMS President?" Would this board or this person have a budget to ensure resources are provided to the QMS? Would these separate companies now be pooling resources to enable top management to ensure the availability of resources? Or would the QMS be defined basically as being separate systems, anyway? Another danger seems to be that current top management of each individual company might be indignant toward dictates handed down to them from this new "top management" of the QMS.

Of course in the case that each organization decides to operate its own QMS, nothing stops each company from adopting similar core processes when it makes sense, and nothing stops top management of each member of the group from getting together to review their collective and individual QMS performance, and to share best practices, lessons learned, etc. if they like. But to require it by defining the system that way might be bad form in principle.