The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  ISO 9000:1994
  Applicability of 4.9 When Design is Product

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Applicability of 4.9 When Design is Product
j r moses
unregistered
posted 14 January 2000 10:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i am involved in the development of the Quality Management System for a small company (20 employees) which is designing Plants for waste water treatment based on the specific requirements of the customers.
my client has the option of offering design alone or also supply equipment based on its own design and also take up installation / commissioning of the plant.

recenrtly we had the system audited by an external auditor who raised comments that the system did not adequately address requirements of section 4.9.

our argument is : there is no manufacturing involved. the section on 4.9 in our procedure adequately covers activities involving project planning and execution, operational requirements for maintaining the plant supplied and periodical inspection / analysisof the samples from the effluent after treatment.

is our argument valid ?
or
are we missing something important?

thanks

dr p r madhavan

IP: Logged

Christian Lupo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 15 January 2000 11:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess it would depend on the specific issues raised by the auditor. 4.9 does apply even though you are not a manufacturer, it is harder to address and it's possible that the auditor does not have adequate experience in your SIC code. But w/o specifics its difficult to tell if the auditor made the wrong decision.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 17 January 2000 05:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I want to ask a few people about this. I'll respond in a day or two.

How about you other folks reading this thread? Ideas? Experiences with a company whose product is a design?

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 18 January 2000 07:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Design is the process so 4.4 is extended to include the requirements of 4.9 as would any service organization's be extended....as in your extended scope......your sales and installation for instance need to met the requirements of 4.9.

There is no way, short of an audit, to tell if you were compliant or not.....words out of context are difficult at best to interpret.

This is one of the more difficult scenarios for an auditor....without experience in that field, they could do more damage than good. You need to understand where they are coming from and why they feel it was inadequately covered in order to make a decision.

IP: Logged

Jase Eyre
Forum Contributor

Posts: 13
From:Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 18 January 2000 07:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jase Eyre     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with Barb on this one. I have worked with a company whose 'products' are designs. Section 4.4 (~7.3 in the 2000 revision)applies without question, but 4.9 (~7.5) presents problems insofar as the requirements in this clause appear to be duplications of 4.4 (because design IS production in this case and have already been addressed). Surely the Standard doesn't want to do all this again?

Well, no. The Standard is merely being comprehensive. The problem of compliance can be overcome by bundling together 4.4 and 4.9 (or 7.3 and 7.5) in a single set of procedures or practices. Often, measures applied to comply with 4.4 also address the requirements of 4.9. This simply has to be made explicit to your registrar and demonstrated in your documentation.

Jase

------------------
JasE

IP: Logged

dr madhavan
Forum Contributor

Posts: 10
From:Madras, Tamil Nadu, India
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 19 January 2000 04:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for dr madhavan   Click Here to Email dr madhavan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In his book titled " ISO 9001 for Engineers and Designers (published by McGraw-Hill)", the Author - Stephen J Schoonmaker, lists the requirements for designers/engineers as Clauses: 4.2.1,4.2.3
4.1.1,4.1.2.1,4.1.2.3,4.1.2.2,4.1.3,
4.3,
4.4.2,4.4.4,4.4.6,4.4.7,4.4.8,4.4.9,
4.10 and 4.11.

does it mean that we do not consider 4.9 at all? there is no reference to this clause in his entire book for designers!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 19 January 2000 05:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would map the 4.9 requirements (as applicable) to your 4.4 procedures. You could do this on your quality manual. Where it is obvious that a 4.9 element doesn't apply, say so in your map or quality manual.

IP: Logged

Mark
unregistered
posted 20 January 2000 06:18 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would suggest a process-approach to documenting your management system, in which you follow your practices rather than clauses of the standard. Ensure that all requirements in ISO9001 are considered when documenting your processes, but in a way that remains relevant to the business. If your auditor is asking where the requirements of 4.9 are addressed, he/she needs a kick in the pants or else does not have appropriate experience to audit within your industry (as someone has already suggested).
The 2000 revision is a good attempt to making ISO9001 a process-based structure, and has less emphasis on "documented procedures", allowing you more flexibility to rely on qualifications, training records and customer feedback to prove (objective evidence) you have your processes under control. This will force auditors to be more aware of the industry practices without relying on your procedures and then robotically quoting from ISO9001 where he/she cannot find those words in your procedure. It will be both interesting and a challenge as we move towards 9k2k.

IP: Logged

dewie
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:BKK
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 27 January 2000 10:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for dewie   Click Here to Email dewie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IMHO the design company is ISO9002 because his product is what he designs. The process is how he does design.
In case that he wanna be ISO9001, his product is the drawing. The process is after he has finished verifying his design.
Is this a fool idea?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 27 January 2000 11:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That won't fly. Whether design is your product or if it is part of your process, you have to address 4.4.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!