Warehouse and shipping/receiving activities need to be part of our scope?

R

Roberto Vigo

I work for a fastener company and recently went thru an ISO 9001-2008 Surveillance Audit. The auditor wrote us a Major CA, because "The warehouse and shipping/receiving activities were not noted in the scope". Is this something that must be on the scope?
 
V

Vthouta

It's really a tricky question. It depends on how you have presented the scope in the quality manual. Definitely, I'm sure in general no one mentions that specifically about the the warehouse and shipping/receiving in the scope of the QMS.

As shipping/receiving comes under the part of the product line/service that you will be mentioning in scope of the quality manual.

But, it is presented in the QMS interaction diagram which will be clear to the auditor.

I'm not sure about the finding, but it's really an interesting question to know and even I will be waiting for an exact answer from other professionals.
 

insect warfare

QA=Question Authority
Trusted Information Resource
I work for a fastener company and recently went thru an ISO 9001-2008 Surveillance Audit. The auditor wrote us a Major CA, because "The warehouse and shipping/receiving activities were not noted in the scope". Is this something that must be on the scope?

What does your scope statement say exactly? If these activities were previously annotated or described in your quality manual as components of your QMS, and your scope statement already gives a broad description of what you do, then you should've been OK.

Scope statements don't need to include every single thing you do, they simply need to describe in a nutshell what is covered under your organization - for ISO 9001 this is usually limited to products and services. Things like receiving, operations and shipping are normally inherent in most (if not all) organizations, so I'm already having trouble following the CB auditor's justification as a major NC (do they really need to re-visit on-site to verify a wording change?).

FYI, our scope statement reads (verbatim) "Repair and Refurbishment of Cellular Products" and is present on our 9K, 14K, 18K and R2 certificates. Our CB has no issues with this whatsoever, and YES we do have a shipping and receiving area....

Brian :rolleyes:
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
How do you get a "major" for a certificate "error" on a surveillance audit? Seems to me this would be handled at the registration audit. This is the kind of nonsense that gives upper management their negative outlook on ISO. I'd get rid of the auditor.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Load of dung, especially if he's a contract auditor which could mean that he's just trying to increase his revenue


Use your right to appeal on this one, and ask that he not come back
 
M

Moonlight17

Agree on all the above.
Our scope reads the same for 9k, 14k, 18k & 27k. It does not state we have warehousing, receiving & despatch - although we do have these areas - who doesn't?:2cents:
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Is this something that must be on the scope?
The line of thought needs to be: Are there any processes/activities which can impact product conformity and customer satisfaction for the stated scope of certification which were not assessed by the certification body?

If the answer is yes, that situation needs to be corrected. A nonconformity was probably not the proper mechanism to capture the situation, and a dialogue should be had with the registrar to rectify the situation. Typically a "special audit" is used to "correct/increase/decrease scopes of certification".

The need to cover processes/activities should have been one of the aspects discussed during the Stage 1 audit and, it seems, whomever performed the stage 1 audit might have goofed in this respect. You can (and should) ask the CB how did that happen.
 

AndyN

Moved On
I work for a fastener company and recently went thru an ISO 9001-2008 Surveillance Audit. The auditor wrote us a Major CA, because "The warehouse and shipping/receiving activities were not noted in the scope". Is this something that must be on the scope?

Ha! What a bad auditor! Just as Randy says. How can it be a Major" for a start? Secondly "scopes" always have been somewhat vague and open for "interpretation". If the auditor was to have engaged their brain for just a few minutes, to think, the CB has "approved" the scope - especially at previous audits! Not all "activities" are necessarily listed as part of the scope, either. No, reject the major, tell the CB you don't want this auditor back, they should be aware of their lack of "customer service" and that you put THEM on notice for this error!
 

Randy

Super Moderator
OK, now it's more clear but it's not totally on you. Scope statements are now required to be more clear than in the past and I've had to rephrase quite a few for clients, not because they didn't do it, but because we (the CB) erred.

This NC still stinks :horse::horse:
 

AndyN

Moved On
Agree on all the above.
Our scope reads the same for 9k, 14k, 18k & 27k. It does not state we have warehousing, receiving & despatch - although we do have these areas - who doesn't?:2cents:

That's one of the craziest things I've ever read! How CAN an ISO 9001 scope be the same as an ISO 27001 scope? Or for ISO 14001? Agreed that the activities don't all have to be listed, as you state. But I fail to see how an EMS, QMS, ISMS and HSMS scope(s) can be the "same"...
 
Top Bottom