Multi-Division QMS Certification - Pros & Cons

[Jeff Putman]

ThE QMS Corporate certification possibility also depends on the fact if all mfg site provides part/components for automobile market.
However all the supply chain will be audited from product conception, marketing & sales up to the delivery and post service if any, passing from manufacturing stages.
Then you should also evaluate how to manage the entire certification, with the creation of quality manual and procedure.having an unique manual and well set procedure for corporate standpoint should help to have a common ground with all interested site to speak the same language and adopting the same quality methods ( I mean SPC, FMEA, control plan, MSA, and so on)
Using a Corporate approach will allow cost reduction , from general perspective and based on my knowledge, but I advice to make sure of this with a formal request to your CB, based upon on some parameters( number of employess, sites to be audited and son on). Clearly , this choice will also affect the maintenance of the certification for the future.
Hope this helps.

We're good with all sites manufacturing for the automotive market. Sales etc. are internal to our corporate headquarters, which is also a manufacturing site. Design is also internal.

Our quality manuals & procedures can be used by any of our divisions. Perhaps some sub-procedures might need to be site specific. AIAG core tools are used at each division and a computerized system is installed or being installed at all divisions which will commonize just about everything else (purchasing, scheduling, etc.).

The transition to a multi-site cert. may not be too bad.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Jeff Putman]

Perhaps if the QMS deployment is very clear and is mature enough, then an identification of the Lead site, other sites, Centralized functions and Common functions could benefit for a Multi-division QMS certificate. A draft guidelines is available in GHTF for this on medical devices QMS. Perhaps a similar guidance document for the TS must be available. If the QMS has grown and is mature enough, then I can say its a good proposition to have Multi-division QMS

You made me think for a minute with your comment about centralized and common functions.

For the most part our divisions have the same customers. I'm thinking it would not only benefit our coporation to commonize, but alos our customers.
Thanks

 

[somashekar]

We're good with all sites manufacturing for the automotive market. Sales etc. are internal to our corporate headquarters, which is also a manufacturing site. Design is also internal.

Our quality manuals & procedures can be used by any of our divisions. Perhaps some sub-procedures might need to be site specific. AIAG core tools are used at each division and a computerized system is installed or being installed at all divisions which will commonize just about everything else (purchasing, scheduling, etc.).

The transition to a multi-site cert. may not be too bad.

Thanks for the input.

Go for it ...Nothing is better than really taking it as a challenge and getting the success. Learning is a continuous process and all that I can see for you is success through learning and learning through success. Good luck ...

 

[vanputten]

One "Pro" might be that your TS 16949 scope would match how you really work - as one coporation instead of independent locations.

If the EPA shuts down another lcoation, either way your organiztion has a problem. It isn't like the location are independent from each other with no interaciton.

There may be "Pro's" from a bussiness perspective and "Con's" from a compliance certification stand point.

 

[JQuality]

One of the recent changes to the Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS16949 Rules for achieving IATF recognition 3rd edition is that when a facility in a corporate audit scheme is having it's certificate withdrawn, for whatever reason, only the affected site faces the consequences of that withdrawal.
In other words, one bad apple doesn't jeopardize all of the other sites in the corporate scheme.

This information is listed under 8.7 Certificate withdrawal.

 

[Jeff Putman]

One of the recent changes to the Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS16949 Rules for achieving IATF recognition 3rd edition is that when a facility in a corporate audit scheme is having it's certificate withdrawn, for whatever reason, only the affected site faces the consequences of that withdrawal.
In other words, one bad apple doesn't jeopardize all of the other sites in the corporate scheme.

This information is listed under 8.7 Certificate withdrawal.

Now that might just be what the President needs to hear to convince him to go ahead with the multi-site cert.

Our QMS & EMS audit is scheduled to begin in a few weeks and one of the V.P.s from the registrar is coming to talk about it.

Knowing what you just said might make all the difference.

Thanks.

 

[Teri - 2011]

Let me give you a worst case. Hypothetical situation: My operation is machining - and we keep up our system pretty well. Across town, the other location is plating, and they are lucky the EPA doesn't shut them down. So, my certificate hangs in their hands...and if they mess up, I am in big trouble. If there was a corporate quality person whose responsibility and authority is to ensure all plants keep their systems in order...you might have a better chance.

While not positive, I don't believe this is true. We have multi-sites (TS16949), every site is audited every time! We have one plant that is reliant on our "corporate" plant for engineering needs, etc, therefore their certificate list the corporate on it as a "support site". Our certificate just list us (no support site). Each of our sites has a certificate with that plants' name on it. The are numbered abc-01, abc-02 etc.