We work for both non-automotive and automotive industry (ISO TS ans ISO 9000 certifications), we will have an audit in the end of this month, I have the information from our planning department that is not predicted to produce automotive parts in the audit day, do we have to change our planning?

Thnak you in advance

It would be a plus to manufacture your automotive parts during the audit, but not a necessity. The auditor would be looking at the process of producing the parts so whether or not they are automotive doesn't really matter in my opinion. I assume you use the same machines to produce automotive and non-automotive parts and have the same process for both? If so, no big issue.

Yes it is common an injection moulding process, same machines for all!

Sounds like another catch 22 created by the system.

What will happen if the auditor finds a non conformance during the audit? The audit scope specifically excludes non-automotive parts and processes. Can objective evidence even be considered from outside the audit scope? Can a NC be written against something outside the audit scope? I understand AJAMODEO's comments but I would be hard pressed to accept an automotive standard audit conducted against non-automotive objective evidence.

IMHO you need to inform your registrar and let them reschedule the audit for when you can demonstrate your QMS within the audit scope. Either that or your planning group should make sure you have automotive processes to audit.

Dave

isn't it funny...i mean...does it matter, whether you produce automotive or non-automotive parts when you are auditing QMS?....remember, you are verifying the effectiveness of QMS....and why would you not include non-automotive parts in the scope of the audit?

There should be ample records to support the QMS and any observational findings should be addressed as a part of continual improvement.

...remember, you are verifying the effectiveness of QMS....?
As it pertains to automotive parts and processes.

...and why would you not include non-automotive parts in the scope of the audit?
Because 16949 applies only to automotive parts and processes. That's the intentionally circumscribed scope of the standard, whether it makes sense or not. Auditors need to see objective evidence of the efficacy of the system which, imo, can't be done if the relevant processes aren't running.

While I agree that in theory, any of the common production processes should be able to demonstrate the system, in my opinion it would be best to have at least a few automotive parts running for part of the audit time. As JSW05 points out, TS16949 is specifically intended to cover the automotive products; there could be nagging doubts on the effectiveness of the system, if the production process cannot be observed on at least one automotive product.

Brad Pritts
Consultant

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

While I agree that in theory, any of the common production processes should be able to demonstrate the system, in my opinion it would be best to have at least a few automotive parts running for part of the audit time. As JSW05 points out, TS16949 is specifically intended to cover the automotive products; there could be nagging doubts on the effectiveness of the system, if the production process cannot be observed on at least one automotive product.

Brad Pritts
Consultant

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
What's being missed here, I think, is that there are documentation requirements for automotive processes that might not be used for non-automotive products; many companies that do both types of business will produce flow diagrams, PFMEAs, control plans, etc. only for automotive products. Evaluation of an automotive manufacturing process should include comparing the control plan, for example, to what's actually done in production, which you can't do if the job addressed by the PCP isn't running. As another example, automotive customer-specific requirements (such as GP12 for GM) should be verified, which also can't be done if the job isn't running.

Just because there are no automotive products physically running that day does not mean that the automotive processes cannot be audited. There is still likely automotive product lying around somewhere, and the records related to automotive processes are available, and people that normally run automotive parts can still be interviewed. I say, no need to reschedule.

Just because there are no automotive products physically running that day does not mean that the automotive processes cannot be audited.
There is still likely automotive product lying around somewhere, and the records related to automotive processes are available, and people that normally run automotive parts can still be interviewed. I say, no need to reschedule.
So it's not important to see evidence that process documentation reflects what actually happens when a process is running? Sorry, but I've seen too many occassions when after reviewing documentation and finding it satisfactory, and then later seeing the actual process running, I had to wonder if I might be looking at the wrong process. Making assumptions about a process based on documentation, parts of undetermined origin and the biased statements of auditees is not how objective evidence is collected.

I’ve seen this many times in the cove, “if you not sure ask”. Call the registrar and explain the situation, if you need to be running automotive parts re-schedule, if not don’t. Maybe I’m just over simplifying! :)

Here's a slightly off-topic angle based on this question. JSW05 makes an interesting point with regard to what "automotive product" means, and what "quality system" means.

If you have both auto and non-auto products, what elements of the system are common? Do you develop D-FMEA's and P-FMEA's? Do you develop production control plans? What about preparing (not necessarily submitting) a PPAP to the full PPAP requirements?

If these aren't done for the non-automotive products, then there's no doubt in my mind that the registrar needs to audit an "automotive" product, because these APQP items are a major element of the quality planning process.

I haven't seen a lot of companies with mixed automotive and non-automotive products. I have seen several automotive companies that make aftermarket and OEM parts. Some of these companies treat both the same; they just keep the APQP info for their own records, as the aftermarket customers don't require it (or know what to do with it!). Others skip the whole process and run the aftermarket parts on the cheap, with minimal quality planning.

The interesting thing about these two types of companies: The APQP done by the first group is usually better done. They have grasped the benefits of the APQP process and find it valuable. (Otherwise, they wouldn't do it when there was no customer demanding it.) The second group did the APQP as a paperwork, chickens*** exercise, so even when they did it for an automotive customer, it wasn't that useful.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

Brad

I shall try to reply with our own case. As discussed in one earlier Thread, We are producing Aluminum Foil in our Hindalco Plant. This foil is going for both the purpose Non Auto customers (Majority; >90%) and for making raditors (around 5 -7%) which we are supplying to many Tier-1 suppliers.
We have asked our TS2 auditors regarding audit of manufacuring foil which is supposed to be used in raditors. Incidentlly, on those 2 days (including night shift) we did not have any schedule of major process (i.e. Aluminum Rolling Process) but only Heat Treatment process and that too combining this process with Non Auto Foil (Packaging Foil). But auditors saw the Heat treatment process, audited the precaution while doing HT and audited all the common processes such as HR process, Purchase process. Besides this they have seen the records of Product Audit, Lay out Inspection, Process Audit, Customer Complaint Handling Process and all the records related to TS2 requirements such as PFMEA, MSA , APQP, PPAP etc.
It is expected from us (or for any mature organisation) that we are complying the standard and not just doing two three activities (in front of auditors) for sake of Certification.
An experience auditor will understand the situation and may conduct the audit even though that perticular product is not under manufacturing at that perticular time. But here I shall emphasize that your system should exhibit enough maturity to say so.

Hello All:

Product Realization is one of the many processes that makes up the management system. If we accept that the organization must be realizing automotive product on the day of the external audit, then must someone be desiging an automotive part on that day too? What about pruchasing automotive raw material while the auditor watches? Doing a PPAP right then and there? Calibration? Resource planning? Internal auditing?

There are many, many processes where the auditor reviews the available objective data, for proof of process conformance to requirements, from processes that are not running on the day of the audit.

Why would product realization be different?

Regards, Dirk

We work for both non-automotive and automotive industry (ISO TS ans ISO 9000 certifications), we will have an audit in the end of this month, I have the information from our planning department that is not predicted to produce automotive parts in the audit day, do we have to change our planning?

Thnak you in advance
:agree1:
We have the same situation at our company, The Auditors during the Pre-Audit phase will review your "TS 16949 Subscribing Customer Requirements" and ask for conforming evidence. The evidence S/B recorded.