Major Change in Organization effect on certification

[Fatima97]

Hello,

We have a major change in our organization, but I don't know the possible effect on our recertification that will take place next year.
Here's the full situation:

Before: we're one factory in one country among several factories in different countries and being led by an HQ. We have a specific (Remote location) where sales process in managed (in another city far from the factory)
The HQ led the sales and customer satisfaction processes that were from our plant's production that were outside of our country. We barely managed their delivery (from factory to our country's customs).
Every recertification & a surveillance, the audit would take place in this remote location.

Current New status: Now we're divided by regions (e.g. APAC, AFME, etc), and the factory being the HQ for this region. The original HQ remains the same though. But the sales process and customer satisfaction process of the region are now under our control. We have a sales office in another country, with a specific top management person in charge of this process, other than the country sales top management person. For customer satisfaction, it's also divided into our country and other country people, but the top management area owner is the same person from our country.

Question is: Do we need to do any change in our certificate scope? Will we need to include the new sales office? would that mean we will need the IATF16949/ISO9001 audit be conducted in that new sales office as another remote location? what should be the right decision for this?

I'm open for further clarifications.

Thank you

 

[John C. Abnet]

the factory being the HQ for this region. The original HQ remains the same though. But the sales process and customer satisfaction process of the region are now under our control.

So...a single centralized control of the QMS is the mandate. Based on what you describe, my understanding is as follows...
1- "before", the organization utilized a corporate scheme, ie. the HQ held the oversight and, the factory was under the auspices (scope) of that single HQ held certification? Is that correct? (or did the factory hold its own certification?)
2- "current new" ...m,y understanding is that NOW the factory is a regional HQ and, therefore, I assume the factory will manage oversight of its QMS (and possibly that of others in the region as well ?) If that is correct, then contrary to my understanding in "1-", the factory would now need to become a certificate holder.


So, obviously we need some additional understanding in order to properly answer. Regardless, this does indeed sound like a significant change...one you will want to discuss directly with your customer (assuming you are first tier to an OEM ??) and with your registrar.

Hope this helps.

Be well.

 

[Fatima97]

So...a single centralized control of the QMS is the mandate. Based on what you describe, my understanding is as follows...
1- "before", the organization utilized a corporate scheme, ie. the HQ held the oversight and, the factory was under the auspices (scope) of that single HQ held certification? Is that correct? (or did the factory hold its own certification?)
2- "current new" ...m,y understanding is that NOW the factory is a regional HQ and, therefore, I assume the factory will manage oversight of its QMS (and possibly that of others in the region as well ?) If that is correct, then contrary to my understanding in "1-", the factory would now need to become a certificate holder.


So, obviously we need some additional understanding in order to properly answer. Regardless, this does indeed sound like a significant change...one you will want to discuss directly with your customer (assuming you are first tier to an OEM ??) and with your registrar.

Hope this helps.

Be well.

In the before, yes we are in a corporate scheme, where each factory managed its own country, while the processes in areas out of the factories countries were managed by the HQ (sales & customer satisfaction).
Now, we will still be in a corporate scheme and the HQ will remain an HQ, but instead, each factory will manage its own region including the processes that were managed directly by the HQ. Now HQ is just processing the information from all regions, and it's also a manager of one of the regions already.

 

[eloygiles]

This looks like a significant change. When a plant takes ownership of regional sales and customer satisfaction, those functions usually come into scope for IATF 16949 even if they sit in another country. I would flag the new sales office as a remote support location and ask your certification body to plan audit coverage accordingly.

Practical next steps: notify your CB, share an updated org chart and process map showing who owns sales and CS by region, and propose a simple scope update that names the sales office as an RSL. Example wording you can adapt:
“Design and manufacture of [product], with Sales and Customer Satisfaction provided by [Sales Office, City, Country] as a remote support location.”

If you are still under a corporate scheme, confirm with your CB whether your site should now be the certificate holder for the region or remain under the corporate certificate. Getting this on their radar early helps them size audit time and avoid surprises at recert.

 

[John C. Abnet]

In the before, yes we are in a corporate scheme, where each factory managed its own country, while the processes in areas out of the factories countries were managed by the HQ (sales & customer satisfaction).
Now, we will still be in a corporate scheme and the HQ will remain an HQ, but instead, each factory will manage its own region including the processes that were managed directly by the HQ. Now HQ is just processing the information from all regions, and it's also a manager of one of the regions already.

Respectfully, this seems like 'double-speak'. In other words, these comments seem to be justifying the original HQ as the central QMS control, while also attempting to relinquish that control to the 'new' regional HQ (mfg factory). Your organization can not claim both in this context.

The terminology that is important for your organization to grasp in regard to a "corporate scheme" is as follows...
- location...where the central quality management system function....responsible for defining, structuring, controlling the ...QMS resides.
- defined central location where the QMS function resides that is responsible....

From your most recent comments, it sounds to me like the 'regional HQ...factory' is now that location and the original HQ is now, at most...a remote support location for ????
Remember, it does not matter that your "HQ will remain an HQ". The corporate scheme does not need to reside at a "HQ".

From what I understand, your "...factory will manage its own region including the processes..."
is now the central location that controls your QMS.

Hope this helps.

Be well.