Registrars review Customer Complaints - QS-9000, Appendix B.6 Interpretation

D

D.Scott

#1
Here is an e-mail I got from my registrar.

"As a result of a recent accreditation body audit here at ------------, a modified interpretation of a QS-9000 and QS-9000/TE Supplement requirement has been brought forth. As a result of this developing interpretation, ------ has changed audit checklists for both surveillance audits and initial assessments. Audit checklists were updated in the element 4.14, Corrective and Preventive Action.

The raised issue pertained to the QS-9000, Appendix B.6 requirement that registrars review Customer Complaints and the Supplier Response during each surveillance audit. The accreditation body has introduced a more diverse interpretation of the meaning of "supplier response" in that, along with meaning that certified company's must respond or act on each and every customer complaint, they must also communicate their action(s), or no action, back to the customer for each and every complaint. In other words, we are all used to issuing corrective actions for legitimate customer complaints/returns but not necessarily responding back to the customer with our actions unless specifically asked to do so. A definite response or reply to the complaining customer is now a requirement of your corrective action system. Our auditors have been directed to look for objective evidence to that effect."

The registrar's name is omitted simply because I don't have permission to quote them.

Dave
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Atul Khandekar

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
The accreditation body has introduced a more diverse interpretation of the meaning of "supplier response" in that, along with meaning that certified company's must respond or act on each and every customer complaint, they must also communicate their action(s), or no action, back to the customer for each and every complaint.
You mean certified companies could 'respond' without communicating with the customer?
 
D

D.Scott

#4
You mean certified companies could 'respond' without communicating with the customer?
No, but is that communication always documented? A lot of our contact in the past has been by phone or e-mail. If the auditor has to find objective evidence of the communication, I need to start saving e-mails (topic of a prior thread) and loging phone calls.

If you have a system where all customer concerns are listed in your log and initial investigation establishes this concern requires no further action, do you communicate that to the customer? Sometimes, yes but I am sure we could all come up with "informational" or "unjustified" complaints where we didn't document our response to the customer.

I guess my thinking is that if the registrar took the time to notify us that the interpretation was made and they are revising their auditing checklist, they must see areas where a problem could exist.

Like you, I see this as a "should be normal practice" interpretation but I can see where I need to be sure my system doesn't have documentation holes.

Dave
 
#5
Although registrars can and do make their own interpretations of the standard it's always good to get a second opinion. Again this would be one of those "killer" requirements for the small company.
This looks like a question for the IASG to interpret.
 

JodiB

Still plugging along
#6
Sam said:
Although registrars can and do make their own interpretations of the standard it's always good to get a second opinion.
This isn't a registrar interpretation, it is an accreditation body's interpretation. All registrars accredited by this accreditation body must comply.

Companies could previously "respond" but not communicate with customers on the actions taken because the actions taken (the response to the complaint) were internal measures: the customer complains that the messages he leaves for so-and-so are never returned. The company starts a program of monitoring the number of voicemails that are stacked up in everyone's mailboxes. This isn't something that is told to the customer,but as a result of the company's new program, he just manages to get his messages returned.

Now to comply, the company will probably just send out a form letter that says something to the effect of "thank you for your comment about our service, product, etc. We have taken appropriate actions to address this and hope that you will be pleased with the results. Yada yada yada...Sincerely, the company"
 

Atul Khandekar

Quite Involved in Discussions
#7
If you have a system where all customer concerns are listed in your log and initial investigation establishes this concern requires no further action, do you communicate that to the customer?
You would certainly have reasons for 'No Action', (say, if this was covered already under some other complaint). May be this could be communicated. You could classify the complaints as per their 'severity' and 'occurence'? You could communicate about 'each and every' high severity complaint (I am sure this is being done already). Other complaints could be clubbed into one response (I am sure this is also done)

"informational" : Are these 'complaints'?
"unjustified" : WHAT??

rgds,
-Atul.
 
#8
Lucinda,
Regardless of my mis-use of the terminology, interpretations of the standard, when needed, is still a matter for the IASG.
 
R

Randy Stewart

#9
One World, One Quality System, One Billion Interpretations.

Does this apply to formal or informal concerns?
 
R

Randy Stewart

#10
What's The Intent???

I don't know about this one. I brought this up at our Steering Committee Meeting this morning and started a huge arguement (I know as usually Lucinda :D).
Is this referring to customer COMPLAINTS or customer CONCERNS? My fear is that we would lose documentation of the smaller concerns! If I don't document it I don't have to document a response. I'm not saying this is the way to do it. For those of you who deal with Ford in new models think about the AIMS issues. They post a dry marker board by the vehicle, as you walk around it you can post your "concern" on the board. Once a week we meet to go over the concerns. A sweeper can post a concern, i.e. window seems difficult to operate, and it can appear in your deck. This is an early model build (CP), does it require a documented response???:eek: The customer doesn't always require it, it may be cleared in the next meeting as a non-issue.
I don't know.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N Any experience with Registrars that deny Certification to a Registrant? Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
BeaBea Registrars with VAR (Value Added Reseller) experience Registrars and Notified Bodies 6
P List of ISO certificate registrars around the world - ISO certification databases ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
M Canada - Registrars that allow e-auditing for ISO 9001? Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
N I am looking at two Registrars Registrars and Notified Bodies 18
B IATF 16949 - Different Registrars for remote and manufacturing sites? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
C Changing Registrars Registrars and Notified Bodies 15
julsbear When will registrars begin audits for IATF 16949:2016? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
R Registrars offering to perform Second Party Audits - Have they failed their role? Registrars and Notified Bodies 105
L Are ISO/TS Registrars also controlled or governed by ISO17021:2011? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
J What are the steps to transfer TS 16949 certification or switch registrars? Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
B Why don't we have more representation from Registrars at The Cove? Registrars and Notified Bodies 14
G ISO Registrars/CBs citing for use of "Detection" in Risk Management ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 27
G Are there any ISO registrars that should not be selected and why? Registrars and Notified Bodies 9
J Suspension in OASIS - AS9100 Certification and its Registrars Registrars and Notified Bodies 9
V List of Registrars in Australia Registrars and Notified Bodies 7
S Listings of registrars certified to perform AS9100 audits? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 6
J Registrars Doing Synchronized (Combined) Audits to AS9100 and ISO 13485 Registrars and Notified Bodies 8
Q Global Accreditation Association, Bureau of Registrars Registrars and Notified Bodies 8
G Reporting QMS changes to third party auditors (certification bodies aka registrars) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
D Certification Organizations (Registrars) - Which are good? Registrars and Notified Bodies 16
GStough Verisys Registrars - Interesting Statements on Their Web Site Registrars and Notified Bodies 2
C Changing ISO 9001 registrars (second triennial)? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
C Notified Body References and Reviews - Changing ISO 13485 Registrars EU Medical Device Regulations 8
Q Registrars and Consulting - How far can a registrar go in consulting for a company? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
tsmith7858 ISO 22000 Registrars in US Registrars and Notified Bodies 11
Sidney Vianna Should Registrars "police" registrants websites? Registrars and Notified Bodies 18
R Requirement to Complete Missing Documentation - Changing Registrars Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
N Reputations of ISO 9001 Certifying Bodies (Registrars) - SGS, AJA, BVQI, SAI Global Registrars and Notified Bodies 5
Stijloor Consultants, have you received calls from Registrars lately? Registrars and Notified Bodies 9
X Where to start with ISO 13485 and Registrars near Seattle ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
R Website that lists Certified ISO13485 Registrars ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
G PPAP and IMDS Penalties and Registrars RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 16
quality1 Legitimacy of ISO 9001:2000 Registrars and Certificates Registrars and Notified Bodies 16
N Registrars / Certification Bodies offering consultancy and training services? Registrars and Notified Bodies 17
Wesley Richardson Domain Name Registrars and Hosting Services Solutions After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 5
WCHorn ISO/IEC 17025 Registrars - I'm confused about "accredited" registrars for ISO 17025 ISO 17025 related Discussions 18
samer What are the most famous registrars (certification bodies) in the world ? Registrars and Notified Bodies 9
Colin Different Methods CBs (Certified Bodies, aka Registrars) use to Report Audit Findings Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
Q Questions about two Certification Bodies (Registrars) Registrars and Notified Bodies 8
Sidney Vianna Are Unethical Registrars a Small Minority of the Registration Community? Registrars and Notified Bodies 48
L Audit Logs - What do you do when registrars ask for them? General Auditing Discussions 10
R Chinese Registrars: CQM Registrars and Notified Bodies 5
A Is there any kind of Ranking available for selecting the Registrars? Registrars and Notified Bodies 31
Sidney Vianna Article on concerns over price pressure effects on to Registrars Registrars and Notified Bodies 2
Q Looking for Names of Registrars in SE WI Registrars and Notified Bodies 11
P Can I have 2 certificates under 2 different registrars for ISO 9001:2000? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
C Which registrars require suppliers to have a TS 16949 requirements waiver? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 26
B Perry Johnson Registrars - TS 16949 Registrar Qualification Registrars and Notified Bodies 40
Paul Simpson Accreditation of TS 16949 registrars controlled by the IATF? Registrars and Notified Bodies 10

Similar threads

Top Bottom