Our registrar called the other day demanding they come back in this month for a one day Audit. We are not scheduled for another audit until Late June. This obviously made me some-what suspicious. I am thinking they themselves were hit with a non-conformance. Why would they feel the need to visit on-site? Wouldn't it be easier to fax or mail them the evidence they need? Has anyone ever heard of this sort of thing?

I am sure there must be more to this. Generally, you are under contract for specific audit days. Call your registrar and ask for an explanation.

Dave

Has anyone ever heard of this sort of thing?Nope.... That is a new one to me. Dave is right, of course: Call them. This is not something they'd do for the pure fun of it, so there must be some special cause behind it all. It's only fair that they tell you what it is, and frankly I'm surprised the haven't done so already. I think you're right to be suspicious.

/Claes

Something isn't right and if they can't provide a good and legitimate reason why this action is necessary tell them they can wait until the contracted time period. If they insist to the point of demanding you can always change the contract, you're the customer not them.

Out of curiousity...when were they last on-site for an audit?

How long have they been your registrar? Did they initially tell your organization the wrong number of mandays and just caught the mistake? What else did they say when they called? Did you talk to them - or did someone else relay the conversation to you? I doubt they just called and said "we demand to come back for another day" - there had to be some sort of explanation.

Our registrar called the other day demanding they come back in this month for a one day Audit. We are not scheduled for another audit until Late June. This obviously made me some-what suspicious. I am thinking they themselves were hit with a non-conformance. Why would they feel the need to visit on-site? Wouldn't it be easier to fax or mail them the evidence they need? Has anyone ever heard of this sort of thing?Cari is on the right track. Since you are certified to QS-9000 and ISO 14001, chances are your registrar probably discovered that they have not spent "enough" audit days during the year and need to "fix" it.

Another possibility is that your employee headcount has increased and they need to "adjust" auditor-days so they are not caught. Either way, like many people already inferred, you should have an OPEN communication with your registrar and a reasonable explanation should be provided. Don't ever be afraid to ask why.

Hey Sidney!!!!

We're not talking about you are we :lmao:

Nope! But it is easy to find out who the registrar is, though. http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bigwave-d2.gif

Thanks for the quick response.

Our last audit was July (TS16949). We actually did ask them why they thought it was necessary for them to visit. But they dance around it. It was very frustrating. These guys have merged with another group and have had some administrative issues. Even so, it still does not explain why they are being so coy with us. And you are right. We are the customer..and we have already started to look at switching Registrars....The only problem with that is some "Rules" (version 2) states we have switch by Dec 15th or else we are looking at another 5day audit. At least that is the way it was explained to me.

Thanks again for the help

What rules? The new registrar will have to follow some guidelines, but they have some latitude when certificates are transfered. Ask around.

Are you talking about the rules for the IATF recognition? Also, can you let us know the registrar? Sidney says its easy. How so?

Following our recent TS surveillance audit, our auditor is coming back for 1 day (within 75 days) to close out the N/C's. Apparently, something to do with the new rules that start 15th Dec. Also, any N/C's found during the audit can no longer be closed out before the closing meeting. This is due to the recognition that it is seen as a quick fix rather than Root Cause Analysis. Only what i'm told though and yet to see it in black and white.

What rules? The new registrar will have to follow some guidelines, but they have some latitude when certificates are transfered. Ask around.Randy, for TS certification, there is NO dancing around the rules. And the rules that apply in this case are (https://mows.aiag.org/source/Orders/index.cfm?task=3&CATEGORY=STANDARDS&PRODUCT_TYPE=SALES&SKU=TS%20RULES%2D2&DESCRIPTION=&FindSpec=&CFTOKEN=4510666&continue=1&SEARCH_TYPE=find&StartRow=6&PageNum=2&FindIn=):

AUTOMOTiVE CERTIFICATION SCHEME FOR ISO/TS 16949:2002 Rules for achieving IATF recognition 2nd Edition 2004. Effective December 15, 2004.

This new edition defines the IATF common registration scheme and rules for ISO/TS 16949:2002. These requirements are binding upon all stakeholders (certification bodies, organizations, and oversight offices) in the IATF scheme for ISO/TS 16949:2002 certification. Rules 2nd Edition is effective December 15, 2004. This new edition can also comes "packaged" with copies of ISO/TS 16949:2002 (TS-2K). The packaged price is $30 for members and $90 for non-members.

The answer to finding who the Registrar is lies in the profile of the original enquirer, who identifies the organization he works for. With a simple google search you link to their website and see two certificates displayed. One for QS-9000 and one for ISO 14001. I did not see the one for TS-16949.

Following our recent TS surveillance audit, our auditor is coming back for 1 day (within 75 days) to close out the N/C's. Apparently, something to do with the new rules that start 15th Dec.
Interesting. Welcome to the cove, Notts!! :bigwave:

Sidney - now that we know we're talking about TS, does this sound like what's going on for dchiles and his registrar? In the first post he did say that he thought it was unnecessary for them to come back on-site, why couldn't he just fax or mail them evidence.

dchiles - what do you mean "danced around" and "coy". I've never had a question for any of the registrars I've dealt with that I didn't get a straight answer from. Again, I must ask, is the conversation with the registrar being relayed to you - or are you speaking with them yourself?

OK, cool....TS is out of scope for me right now.

Nope! But it is easy to find out who the registrar is, though. http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bigwave-d2.gif
Well, count me in the "newbie" category here.

Is there a central registry for TS16949 as there is/was for ISO9001:2000 and QS9000 similar to http://www.whosregistered.com/?

Well, count me in the "newbie" category here.

Is there a central registry for TS16949 as there is/was for ISO9001:2000 and QS9000 similar to http://www.whosregistered.com/? See http://www.whosregistered.com (http://www.whosregistered.com/iso/form.php?table_name=north_america)

Sidney - now that we know we're talking about TS, does this sound like what's going on for dchiles and his registrar? In the first post he did say that he thought it was unnecessary for them to come back on-site, why couldn't he just fax or mail them evidence.Cari, I prefer not to make assumptions here. You see, yesterday when this thread got started, we did not know that TS was part of the equation. Now we do.
The TS rules are much more involved than for other Schemes. There is a lot of control and bureaucracy involved.

I also learned that, it helps a lot to get the two (or many) sides of the story, before you can make a call. Many times, here in the Cove we are limited to a single side of the stories.....

In answer to Wes, I don't know of any publicly available database that would list all of the TS-16949 certified organizations. If you look at the advanced search features of WorldPreferred (http://www.worldpreferred.com/), it looked like you could search for TS certified organizations, but I ran a search to compare with DNV's list of TS certified organizations and found discrepancies, so I do not believe that the WorldPreferred TS records are 100% accurate.

Thanks to Sidney and Al. The site I cited (cool word use, huh?) DOES include TS16949 registrations. The subject company of this thread is listed, along with its registrar. I agree with Sidney that many folks are still feeling their way with TS rules and regs. That said, the side of the story we have makes the registrar seem awfully undiplomatic in the way it deals with this particular registrant. You can bet your sweet patootie if I was the registrar, I would have a well-thought out approach as to why I was going to pick the registrant's pocket for a few more $.

In other threads, I have frequently railed at the problem of being "squeezed" between customer and registrar, compounded by bosses breathing down your neck with admonitions to "Get it done!" Some of us may enjoy enough power and prestige to stand up and demand better explanations, but most of us operate in an atmosphere of fear, whether for ourselves, our coworkers, or the entire organization, if we somehow alienate a registrar and delay or derail our organization's "license" to do business and thus put ourselves or everyone in the organization on the welfare rolls.

Is there a solution? I don't have one. The fact is, some registrars DO run roughshod over the registrants, despite the concept of competition among registrars.

...That said, the side of the story we have makes the registrar seem awfully undiplomatic in the way it deals with this particular registrant. You can bet your sweet patootie if I was the registrar, I would have a well-thought out approach as to why I was going to pick the registrant's pocket for a few more $.
I simply cannot believe that any registrar would call a client demanding to come back on-site and then dance around an explanation. I think there's more to the side of the story we have heard. I see, dchiles, that you are the Sr. layout technician - are you the Management Rep. as well? I keep asking if the conversations are being relayed to you or if you are personally speaking to the registrar because I have a hard time imagining how someone could dance around the question "Why do you need to come back for another day?". Whether they were wrong about the audit manday requirements and need to fix it, or they are required to come on-site for corrective action verification per a new rule, or the organization's head count changed requiring more mandays - whatever - I just can't see why the registrar wouldn't just say that.

Yes, Cari, this information was relayed to me from my boss. I'm not trying to bash the company....I find it hard to believe too thats why i wanted to know if this had happened to anyone else. I did find out that they are not going to charge us for the one day visit. Even so, I find it odd we could not get a specific answer for WHY?
We did get a chance to talk to another person there.. and they hinted the cause for the one day audit could be that the two regisrars are merging and their governing body may have found something while reviewing the documents. Best answer we got...so far.
And yes we are TS certified...just so happens we haven't updated the web site in quite awhile. Wheres that IT person when ya need em?

OK - tempest in a teapot.
Next issue, please!

the main point got lost in the air!
I think the process of RCA ( root cause analysis) and implementation of (QM) systems in the organisations responsible for maintaining them in other companies is immature. Lots of instances come to the notice. This one is one among them.
Perhaps the concern itself for Hi Quality is lacking in general in all of us. That's why we are here to look for easy solutions.- To err is Human To err is not quality

Thareja

...I did find out that they are not going to charge us for the one day visit.
Well, at least that's cool! :agree1: Thanks for sharing your situation with us.

Our registrar called the other day demanding they come back in this month for a one day Audit. We are not scheduled for another audit until Late June. This obviously made me some-what suspicious. I am thinking they themselves were hit with a non-conformance. Why would they feel the need to visit on-site? Wouldn't it be easier to fax or mail them the evidence they need? Has anyone ever heard of this sort of thing?

Your assumption that the registrar received a non-conformance was probably correct. And it may have been for not being on-site for the correct number of man-days.
During the early registration periods for TS2 some registrars were not quoting the correct number of on-site man-days for the audit process. The tables shown in the "rules" are only a guideline, but some registrars were using these figures to quote. The IATF has a specific formula for calculating the required man-days and can be found in the FAQ section of the IAOB site.
Since you have a contract with the specified days this may be why you were not charged for "extra" day.

Speaking of the contract. If there is a contract thast states that so many mandays will be spent for this much money, then why should dchiles company have to put the time and effort into another manday with out some extra concession from the auditing company. The error was in the audit company. If we send bad product our customer reserves the right to charge us for any labor on their end that is caused by our nonconformity.
I still think the details of this are very fuzzy. But I am not sure I would just agree to someone coming back in because they screwed up. We do not have the time to baby sit an auditor if it was not our problem. Concessions (money) would have to be made.
FWIW
Mark

For lack of beating a dead horse icon :horse: