Permissible Exclusions - ISO 9001

[Deburr]

Deburr,

Yes, from a certification point of view you are correct in excluding 7.3 from the system that governs your deburring service.

John

One more possible exclusion I am considering is 7.4. I do not purchase raw materials, any kind manufactured details or product that is incorporated into the finished product like screws or coatings. I purchase tooling like carbide burrs and abrasive products to remove burrs and that type of thing. Does 7.4 apply to me? For example, other than reading what is on the packaging, I wouldn't have any idea how to test what size grain was actually used in making the sanding disc I just purchased. I have to rely on the manufacturer to provide that. Would 3M or Norton Abrasives supply test results without adding additional costs? I don't think so, but I never have asked.

 

[Big Jim]

One more possible exclusion I am considering is 7.4. I do not purchase raw materials, any kind manufactured details or product that is incorporated into the finished product like screws or coatings. I purchase tooling like carbide burrs and abrasive products to remove burrs and that type of thing. Does 7.4 apply to me? For example, other than reading what is on the packaging, I wouldn't have any idea how to test what size grain was actually used in making the sanding disc I just purchased. I have to rely on the manufacturer to provide that. Would 3M or Norton Abrasives supply test results without adding additional costs? I don't think so, but I never have asked.

Most certainly 7.4 applies. Those production consumables have a direct impact on your service. Not only does it apply, it would probably be very simple to apply and administer it.

 

[Msandman]

Hey Everyone,

I have looked through this thread couldn't find exactly what I need and need some guidance for the 7.3 exclusion. We are a small manufacturing facility that produce non-threaded fastners. We design only to customer requirements and never to produce "new parts". The customer provides drawings that we clean up and they are usually modifications to standard parts.

Would this qualify as an exclusion? My thinking is that it would, but we should still have a procedure on how to handle customer part requests.

Any info. would be great!

Thanks,
Mark

 

[Stijloor]

Hey Everyone,

I have looked through this thread couldn't find exactly what I need and need some guidance for the 7.3 exclusion. We are a small manufacturing facility that produce non-threaded fastners. We design only to customer requirements and never to produce "new parts". The customer provides drawings that we clean up and they are usually modifications to standard parts.

Would this qualify as an exclusion? My thinking is that it would, but we should still have a procedure on how to handle customer part requests.

Any info. would be great!

Thanks,
Mark

Who has the ultimate design approval authority?

Stijloor.

 

[John Broomfield]

All,

Not including your design process in your process-based management system could be folly.

Please remember your products include services unless you are selling a commodity by price alone. If you are to stay in business you will differentiate your product by the standard of service your organization provides.

Even if your customer provides prints and specs you still have the service part of product (not necessarily the after-sales service) to design and continually improve.

If you include your service design process in your system the chances are your registrar will willingly exclude it from the certificate if customers provide prints and specs for the goods they buy from you.

Even then you may further differentiate your business by including your wonderful customer service in the scope statement on the certificate.

I see no good reason to exclude design from any management system.

John

 

[Msandman]

Thanks for the replys. To answer the questions...the customer has the ultimate design approval. Once approved, we produce the part to apporved drawing.

 

[AndyN]

I see no good reason to exclude design from any management system.

John

John, can you confirm your meaning? Include the design requirements if the organization doesn't hold product design authority, but apply it to some aspect of an unrelated process?

The design requirements relate to product design (authority). If it could be included in every case, why can it be excluded. "Design" isn't anything the client wishes it to be, there are well established norms by which it is included or excluded. Plus, why make a client pay for the design process to be audited during a CB audit, only to discover they don't actually design product, but make to a customer's design.

In the case given, I see no reason to burden the client with the responsibility for a process they don't do! 'Cleaning up' drawings isn't design! All my suppliers could have done that for our designs (in a past life) because we weren't the experts!

 

[JaneB]

Not including your design process in your process-based management system could be folly.

If - and only if - "design" really is a process that is actually performed by the organisation and is really part of their system.

Otherwise, the folly would be to insist on including a specious 'design' process when they really don't do it.

I see no good reason to exclude design from any management system.

Gosh, really?? Gee whillikins, I sure do.

This contention deserves its own thread to debate, rather than derail this thread. NB- I started a new thread here.

 

[JaneB]

Here's the link to the new thread.

 

[John Broomfield]

John, can you confirm your meaning? Include the design requirements if the organization doesn't hold product design authority, but apply it to some aspect of an unrelated process?

The design requirements relate to product design (authority). If it could be included in every case, why can it be excluded. "Design" isn't anything the client wishes it to be, there are well established norms by which it is included or excluded. Plus, why make a client pay for the design process to be audited during a CB audit, only to discover they don't actually design product, but make to a customer's design.

In the case given, I see no reason to burden the client with the responsibility for a process they don't do! 'Cleaning up' drawings isn't design! All my suppliers could have done that for our designs (in a past life) because we weren't the experts!

Andy,

Andy (and Jane),

My point about service design was widely misunderstood here. :mybad:

I am referring first to the definition of product. An organization that simply provides goods with no design is providing a commodity that is sold and bought solely on price.

It is a race to the bottom. So, what should an organization do to stop this decline in profitability and sell value instead?

Improving the quality of the goods is part of the answer. But I am concerned here about the rest of the product: service.

Service is important to many customers. This opportunity is missed as many organizations exclude design from their system. They ignore the importance of service being designed and continually improved.

The service part of the product can add value appreciated by the customers.

As it is a valuable part of many products, service should be designed, service specifications established, maintained and used to continually improve customer service. The investment in the design and improvement of service will enable the company to sell more value to customers.

Indeed, we would then see a race to the top and improved profitability.

Advertising customer service on the certificate is another decision that depends on the marketing value of promoting customer service in this way.

John