Our audit starts next month with the readiness review, and we are , ugh, in good shape. Where I am concerned (as the new quality manager) is that our metrics are rapidly developing. We were QS prior to this monthj and we had a weak auditor, so my company got away with too much. We had metrics, but did not have enough to focus on our goals. My organization is rapidly evolving and developing the metrics we need, and I beleive this shall continue. But, when you look to our 12 months of records, you see alot of disarray, changes, and a number of metrics very recently developed.

Do you think our new auditors will accept so much change, so close the the audit. We have big customers (the big two letter one) that are demanding we get certified this summer, and the organization wishes to get it done and get into a running mode, rather than this in between mode. I have been pushing for months, and the organization is starting to get there, but we are now weeks away from the readiness review.

I'm trying to discuss this with the auditor, but have not got him on the phone yet. We want to be above board and honest.

Do you think we can pull this off, or are we already dead due to the 12 month requirement. We had much in place, but are changing so much now...
Concerned...
Thanks:eek:

I think you can survive a TS audit because you do have 12 months of information. Even though your metrics have changed. If the metrics are determined by top management to fit your business and customer needs, then the auditor should see the improvements. You indicated things a coming around, so from that I think you have documentation to show improvements. Metrics are not static objectives. After you discuss these concerns with your auditor you should get some idea what is expected. My 2 cents worth.
Wish you the best.

As someone who's stage 1 audit finished aproximately 30 minutes ago, I think you should be fine. As long as you show that you have identified the problems with the metrics and have based your revisions/new metrics and their targets on sound reasoning the auditors should work with you (after all it is a demonstration of corrective action and in places continuous improvement).

Our metrics for the last year were pretty ropey in places and even included a major NC against the managment process late last year, however we were able to show through our managment review documents and monthly KPI data that we had addressed the issues and were improving.

Oh and we were given the green light to progress to stage 2 :biglaugh:

I really wouldn't panic, the standard only requires that you have 12 months of performance metrics availble, some disarray or lack of continuity is to be expected when you make a major change in your QMS (such as the TS transition).

What the auditor should be looking for is how are your metrics trending. There is no magic number as to what is an acceptable or unacceptable metric i.e. 500 ppm may be just as acceptable as a 50 ppm if the trend is heading in the 'right' direction. It is far more important that you can demonstrate that you have the correct metrics in place to adequately gage both the effectiveness and efficency of your COP's.

Good luck

just66horns- your question and description of your situation is so similar to what we experienced that I could have submitted the exact post back when. Our subsequent experience with the audit was just as described by the responses that you have recv'd thus far. We even had some metrics and procedures that were subsequently modified simply because we were too ambitious initially for our resources. Nevertheless, as you and others wrote, we were genuine in our efforts, analysis and improvement. Good luck and keep your head up:-)

ctb