our company has hired many non english speaking people, but they have made no povisions on how they are going to address communicating requirements. This isn't 1 or 2 differerent languages, but 5 or 6! I can't even audit them internally.

Is there a requirement that says they must make provisions????

our company has hired many non english speaking people, but they have made no povisions on how they are going to address communicating requirements. This isn't 1 or 2 differerent languages, but 5 or 6! I can't even audit them internally.

Is there a requirement that says they must make provisions????When I search the TS 16949 standard for occurrences of the words communication, communicating, communicated, etc... I find 22 instances. Even though TS does not have a explicit/direct requirement for addressing workforce that does not have English as a native language, it only makes sense that your organization find ways to communicate with your work force, don't you agree? Aren't you interested to know if your workforce has understood the requirements involved with different processes and activities?

Here's an answer in the form of a question not related to Quality.

How do you comply with legal requirements like those of OSHA, Workers Compensation, EEOC and many more?

Here's a couple of others from the hip. How do you teach them what to do? How to you develop their competence?

BTW, your not even close to being unique. I've been to workplaces where there are 10 or more languages spoken (California)

Also, you don't audit the people, you audit the process.

Addressing the communications process appears to me to be a Human Resources/Training and Top Management problem. Human Resources/Training ensures it happens and Top Management provides the necessary resources to allow it to happen.

Also, you don't audit the people, you audit the process.



I'm inclined to agree with Sidney. Communication has to be managed. There are also requirements in TS that the auditor must know the languages in use, or use a translator, so he can audit (That could be challenging in some of those Calif. plants).

Also, to audit the processes, you generally have to interview the people...?

This is an interesting problem.
Here now we have lots of workers that came from Eastern Europe. They speak several languages that are completely different from Portuguese or English.
I audited a Hotel in which almost all the workers in room service were from Rumania. There was no possible conversation between me and them. The floor responsible made the translation.
But one thing important, it was a certification audit and it written that the “official” language to be used during the audit was Portuguese.
Anyway we as registrar had to be flexible, but that could not happen always... :mg:

Believe me I'm very interested to know that my company understands and communicates the requirements effectively. And yes, I am auditing the process....but he couldn't even demonstrate what I was asking him, he couldn't tell me what the quality policy statement was or even point it out (its hanging off his badge). He totally and completely had no clue. I don't know how they trained him, he has only been on board about a month. Even the basic items that should be done, he could not show me when asked. I observed him, but I did not see that he was doing all he was supposed to do. I guess the guy next to him sets him up & checks stuff for him, but IMO he isn't able to perform his job if that is what is happening. Not to mention its not fair for the other guy to do that much more work. I didn't have time to take up issue with HR today, but I plan on it first thing Monday.

We have a plant in CA too and yes, lots of language issues there. I believe they just posted tons of visual work instructions, but we aren't there yet! I've been down this road with HR previously, but there were only maybe 2 languages back then. I seriously don't know how they are training these people. HR assures me that english comprehension is a requirement of employment!!!

We may even have more than 5 or 6, that was just a conservative guess.

If there was a requirement in the standard it just gives me some leverage to go on when approaching the issue because for whatever reason "they" (HR) don't see it as a problem :mg: I want to say I remember seeing a requirement stating something along the lines relating to language, but maybe it was QS? We are also AS 9100, maybe I need to comb that standard.

Thanks for the replies.:thanks:

Believe me I'm very interested to know that my company understands and communicates the requirements effectively. And yes, I am auditing the process....but he couldn't even demonstrate what I was asking him, he couldn't tell me what the quality policy statement was or even point it out (its hanging off his badge). He totally and completely had no clue. I don't know how they trained him, he has only been on board about a month. Even the basic items that should be done, he could not show me when asked. I observed him, but I did not see that he was doing all he was supposed to do. I guess the guy next to him sets him up & checks stuff for him, but IMO he isn't able to perform his job if that is what is happening. Not to mention its not fair for the other guy to do that much more work. I didn't have time to take up issue with HR today, but I plan on it first thing Monday.

We have a plant in CA too and yes, lots of language issues there. I believe they just posted tons of visual work instructions, but we aren't there yet! I've been down this road with HR previously, but there were only maybe 2 languages back then. I seriously don't know how they are training these people. HR assures me that english comprehension is a requirement of employment!!!

We may even have more than 5 or 6, that was just a conservative guess.

If there was a requirement in the standard it just gives me some leverage to go on when approaching the issue because for whatever reason "they" (HR) don't see it as a problem :mg: I want to say I remember seeing a requirement stating something along the lines relating to language, but maybe it was QS? We are also AS 9100, maybe I need to comb that standard.

Thanks for the replies.:thanks:


I think there are lots of requirements. What you describe is clearly nonconforming.

6.2.2 Competence, awareness and training
The organization shall
a) determine the necessary competence for personnel performing work affecting product quality,
b) provide training or take other actions to satisfy these needs,
c) evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken,
d) ensure that its personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives, and
e) maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills and experience (see 4.2.4).

5.5.3 Internal communication
Top management shall ensure that appropriate communication processes are established within the organization
and that communication takes place regarding the effectiveness of the quality management system.


6.3 Infrastructure
The organization shall determine, provide and maintain the infrastructure needed to achieve conformity to product requirements. Infrastructure includes, as applicable
a) buildings, workspace and associated utilities,
b) process equipment (both hardware and software), and
c) supporting services (such as transport or communication).

6.4 Work environment
The organization shall determine and manage the work environment needed to achieve conformity to product requirements.

And, not least, the processes and systems have to be demonstrated to be effective. What you described is not effective.

HR assures me that english comprehension is a requirement of employment!!!

If there was a requirement in the standard it just gives me some leverage to go on when approaching the issue because for whatever reason "they" (HR) don't see it as a problem :mg: I want to say I remember seeing a requirement stating something along the lines relating to language, but maybe it was QS? We are also AS 9100, maybe I need to comb that standard.

Thanks for the replies.:thanks:

I'm gonna call a big BULL5HIT on this one.

1st...HR is full of krap and I'm not even there to smell it. They are putting warm bodies into open slots. If English comprehension is a requirement then how come people can't understand and speak it? DUH!

2nd...If you're a "competent" auditor then you shouldn't be asking about requirements of the standard.

3rd...There ain't no way that ya'll are AS9100 with all these lack of competency issues. Your people aren't competent, your HR apparently is lacking in competency (or veracity, or both), and you've confessed to lack of competence in pleading ignorance of what you're auditing.

Without even looking I'd wager that Roles, Responsibilities and Authority are not defined past some bogus org chart and some job descriptions; competency development is a sham if it exists at all; and internal communication follows gravity.

Your "system" has got more holes in it than my shotgun riddled back and legs.

Thanks hjilling - Any one of those would be great to use.

And Randy - I'm not here to rip apart my company or question my competence. I'm here to ask a simple question. I looked, but could not find what *I thought* was something specific relating to language. Forgive me if I can't quote chapter and verse on a dime.

We have major customer and 3rd party audits on a regular basis (more than10 a year) and I can assure you our roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. We have one of the most thorough 16949 auditors I've ever had the pleasure of meeting and while yes I agree we have room for improvement here, we have held our certs for a number of years and am very proud to be where we are now. And last I checked EVERYONE has room for improvement in regard to their quality systems. My statement about HR & understanding english was typed with a hint of sarcasm, perhaps I didn't type it sarcastic enough? If I had it my way Mrs. Corp HR Manager would have been down the road long ago, but its not my call. And yes I know they are putting in warm bodies, they have had a revolving door in regards to mfr help. Unfortunately the company has resorted to "temp" agencies and other hiring methods I'm not impressed with.

It is not like we have large groups of people that speak different languages, we have one guy from russia, a handful spanish speaking, a couple from india and so forth. Their comprehension varies (I've audited some and have had no problems). The majority does speak english.

If you have all the audits you say and all that other stuff is fact what's the problem? Why have they not found non-conformance? if they have, why hasn't it been fixed? Are you saying that your CA/PA process sucks too? As for holding your certs a number of years, you've supplied evidence here and opened some trails that make me want to say MAJOR

As an auditor you should be the most knowledgeable person about what is required and what your audit criteria specifies.

Are you creating out of your own misunderstanding an issue?

jilling gave you some good stuff, I would suggest you learn a little about it.

Something isn't right in River City (from the move "Music Man")

It is a relatively new problem that has come from using the temp agencies.

Randy I'm very surprised to see your "moderator status", your attitude doesn't not make for a very welcoming or supportive environment. I belong to numerous forums and never have I seen a moderator communicate the way you do. And I'm certainly not going to sit here and defend anything we do to you because you are simply not worth the effort, as I have nothing to prove to you.

I have learned that you can be pretty creative with this standard and you can interpret some sections and apply to a variety of issues. I am fully aware of the sections that were quoted to me, but the fact that jhilling offered such a sensible reply I thought I would acknowledge it.

Don't worry about my status, and my bark is much worse than my bite, just ask around. I tend to have a challenging style. I have found that it stimulates the thought process for most folks and they can reason their own solution out.

As for supportive, my supportive method is to try to get folks to be honest with themselves. Once people are honest about their own problems then they have a tendency to be more responsive with solutions that are offerred.

You have now offered out some more evidence...the Temp Agencies! Who is actually guaranteeing the language ability of the employees? The temp agency or the HR Manager? The temp agency is a supplier, are they audited? Is the "material" you are receiving meeting the required specifications? Are you saying now that you may have a problem with non-conforming product suppied to you?

You're hungry. Are you wanting a fish or do you want to learn how to fish?

As for supportive, my supportive method is to try to get folks to be honest with themselves. Once people are honest about their own problems then they have a tendency to be more responsive with solutions that are offerred. Thanks for clarifying Dr. Phil

And while yes I can poke the hornet's nest or I can whack it out of the tree, its an issue I'd like to see get resolved. Unfortunately HR is in denial and they are going to have to work through this as long as I'm in the position I am in.

Thanks for the suggestion regarding the temp agencies, I will ask to see what kind of "specifications" HR has supplied to them and see if it clearly states it is expected that they comprehend english.

I'm afraid I've had enough mental stimulation for the evening, have a nice night.

Use the "System" to resolve the issue. HR cannot say they are exempt.

I'm gonna call a big BULL5HIT on this one.

1st...HR is full of krap and I'm not even there to smell it. They are putting warm bodies into open slots. If English comprehension is a requirement then how come people can't understand and speak it? DUH!

2nd...If you're a "competent" auditor then you shouldn't be asking about requirements of the standard.

3rd...There ain't no way that ya'll are AS9100 with all these lack of competency issues. Your people aren't competent, your HR apparently is lacking in competency (or veracity, or both), and you've confessed to lack of competence in pleading ignorance of what you're auditing.

Without even looking I'd wager that Roles, Responsibilities and Authority are not defined past some bogus org chart and some job descriptions; competency development is a sham if it exists at all; and internal communication follows gravity.

Your "system" has got more holes in it than my shotgun riddled back and legs.


Randy,

He/she was asking for some direction and comments regarding the language issue he/she is currently facing. There was no need to express your opinion in such great verbiage.

Kreco,

Hillings information/paragraphs are what you should consider where the requirements are. It is good advice.


Coury Ferguson

Are you saying now that you may have a problem with non-conforming product suppied to you?

Randy might want to stick with the environmental consulting. I doubt if, in this case, people supplied by a temp agency would be considered "product".

Your "system" has got more holes in it than my shotgun riddled back and legs.
:topic: Hey Randy, was that a shot gun wedding you escaped from? :lmao:

Personnel supplied by a temp agency are no different than any other commodity necessary for production. Read below and show me where I'm wrong, hopefully you'll recognize it.

7.4 Purchasing

7.4.1 Purchasing process
The organization shall ensure that purchased product conforms to specified purchase requirements. The type and extent of control applied to the supplier and the purchased product shall be dependent upon the effect of the purchased product on subsequent product realization or the final product.
The organization shall evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply product in accordance with the organization's requirements. Criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation shall be established. Records of the results of evaluations and any necessary actions arising from the evaluation shall be maintained (see 4.2.4).

7.4.2 Purchasing information
Purchasing information shall describe the product to be purchased, including where appropriate
a) requirements for approval of product, procedures, processes and equipment,
b) requirements for qualification of personnel, and
c) quality management system requirements.
The organization shall ensure the adequacy of specified purchase requirements prior to their communication to the supplier.

7.4.3 Verification of purchased product
The organization shall establish and implement the inspection or other activities necessary for ensuring that purchased product meets specified purchase requirements.
Where the organization or its customer intends to perform verification at the supplier's premises, the organization shall state the intended verification arrangements and method of product release in the purchasing information.

IMO it's all about process results. Are the people "competent" enough to achieve desired results in their processes? If so, then their inability to communicate in English (or the company's primary language) isn't that important. If they can't achieve the desired process results, then it's a nonconformity.

Personnel supplied by a temp agency are no different than any other commodity necessary for production. Read below and show me where I'm wrong, hopefully you'll recognize it.

7.4 Purchasing

7.4.1 Purchasing process
The organization shall ensure that purchased product conforms to specified purchase requirements. The type and extent of control applied to the supplier and the purchased product shall be dependent upon the effect of the purchased product on subsequent product realization or the final product.
The organization shall evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply product in accordance with the organization's requirements. Criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation shall be established. Records of the results of evaluations and any necessary actions arising from the evaluation shall be maintained (see 4.2.4).

7.4.2 Purchasing information
Purchasing information shall describe the product to be purchased, including where appropriate
a) requirements for approval of product, procedures, processes and equipment,
b) requirements for qualification of personnel, and
c) quality management system requirements.
The organization shall ensure the adequacy of specified purchase requirements prior to their communication to the supplier.

7.4.3 Verification of purchased product
The organization shall establish and implement the inspection or other activities necessary for ensuring that purchased product meets specified purchase requirements.
Where the organization or its customer intends to perform verification at the supplier's premises, the organization shall state the intended verification arrangements and method of product release in the purchasing information.


If I understand what you are saying and please correct me if I am wrong:

You are identifying people (humans) as "product" produced or purchased?

If that is they way that the thought pattern is going then this is not exactly correct, in my opinion.

Human beings are exactly that-an intelligent being that has the capability of cognition be it rational or not and many other factors... that include determining "right from wrong."

I don't agree that this would apply in this particular situation. But, who knows maybe I am wrong in this thought (cognition).


Coury Ferguson

If I understand what you are saying ...
You are identifying people (humans) as "product" produced or purchased?

...this is not exactly correct, in my opinion.



Perhaps it would be less inflamatory if we consider the temp agency is providing a quality related "service" (a function which is covered by cl. 7.4).

That service is to screen, filter and prepare people per the parameters established with their customers.

So, on the one hand, it appears that agency is not fulfilling those defined customer requirements (a very common problem).

On the other hand, once if we have folks who don't understand the prevailing language (a common situation), we need to develop means to communicate. For example, a lot of companies are using a lot more digitial photos than written instructions. And, of course, there is the old option of bi-lingual Supervisors.

If I understand what you are saying and please correct me if I am wrong:

You are identifying people (humans) as "product" produced or purchased?

If that is they way that the thought pattern is going then this is not exactly correct, in my opinion.

Human beings are exactly that-an intelligent being that has the capability of cognition be it rational or not and many other factors... that include determining "right from wrong."

I don't agree that this would apply in this particular situation. But, who knows maybe I am wrong in this thought (cognition).


Coury Ferguson

Why don't you get indignant and try to rationalize this subject at the same time? Don't even go down the road you're thinkng of with me Clyde!!

Yeah, in this context people supplied by a temp agency are "product". That's the product of a temp agency...PEOPLE! "People" are bought, sold and traded all the time...ever hear of MLB, NFL, NBA and things like that? The "owners/teams" buy, sell and trade the players (people).

What's the difference between a temp employee, raw material, or anything else that is necessary to produce the product in order to achieve the ever elusive customer satisfaction? NADA! ZERO! ZILCH! Specs are required and specs have to be met. Read 7.4.2(b) and you tell me where I'm wrong.

This poor persons problem may be founded in this exact issue of your way of thinking. "Let's not hurt anyone by showing we're insensitive, so we'll work around the people that can't do the work because they don't understand and can't communicate" That's about as baseline stupid as it gets if this is the case.

Get real!

Perhaps it would be less inflamatory if we consider the temp agency is providing a quality related "service" (a function which is covered by cl. 7.4).

That service is to screen, filter and prepare people per the parameters established with their customers.

So, on the one hand, it appears that agency is not fulfilling those defined customer requirements (a very common problem).

On the other hand, once if we have folks who don't understand the prevailing language (a common situation), we need to develop means to communicate. For example, a lot of companies are using a lot more digitial photos than written instructions. And, of course, there is the old option of bi-lingual Supervisors.


Then this would fall under 7.4. Now are the requirements (Purchasing Instrument) specifically stating their requirements?

If this is not so, then I would identify it and either a "minor" or "OFI."


Coury Ferguson

Very good Coury. I agree with hjilling. Another issue is what could be the extent of potential harm? If it's severe then we might have a Major, but there are definitely some variables to consider.

Did I sound incensed earlier?

Very good Coury. I agree with hjilling. Another issue is what could be the extent of potential harm? If it's severe then we might have a Major, but there are definitely some variables to consider.

Did I sound incensed earlier?


Randy,

You have a very strong opinion and that is ok.

We must have missed the postings. Your's beat mine by a few seconds or minutes.

The issue of identifying it as non-conformance/opportunity is true. If the requirements have not been flowed down, then from an auditor's point of view, I would research the purchasing document (s) (objectively) deeper and see if there really is a complete failure of the Purchasing requirements/element.


Coury Ferguson

Very good Coury. I agree with hjilling. Another issue is what could be the extent of potential harm? If it's severe then we might have a Major, but there are definitely some variables to consider.

Did I sound incensed earlier?
I think you showed an incredible amount of restraint in light of the fact that you are a retired navy drill sargent.

I really think you missed the boat on this one though Randy. The temp employees are not a "product", they are a "service" provided by the temp agency.

Randy,

You have a very strong opinion and that is ok.

We must have missed the postings. Your's beat mine by a few seconds or minutes.

The issue of identifying it as non-conformance/opportunity is true. If the requirements have not been flowed down, then from an auditor's point of view, I would research the purchasing document (s) (objectively) deeper and see if there really is a complete failure of the Purchasing requirements/element.


Coury Ferguson


Keep in mind, I already posted other clauses that are equally important. I was just agreeing that you can also have exposure in the 7.4 area.

Depending on how broad or extensive this breakdown would be, it can go in a number of directions. The OP is unclear whether it is systemic, as it sounded at first (which is where Randy got started), or if it is an isolated case. It sounds like it is systemic, but we can't be sure because we're not there.

Keep in mind, the original question was whether the standard addresses it. I think we have established it clearly does, which I guess was the point of this thread.

Happy Easter (and Passover) All...

Keep in mind, I already posted other clauses that are equally important. I was just agreeing that you can also have exposure in the 7.4 area.

Depending on how broad or extensive this breakdown would be, it can go in a number of directions. The OP is unclear whether it is systemic, as it sounded at first (which is where Randy got started), or if it is an isolated case. It sounds like it is systemic, but we can't be sure because we're not there.

Keep in mind, the original question was whether the standard addresses it. I think we have established it clearly does, which I guess was the point of this thread.

Happy Easter (and Passover) All...


Hjillings,

You are correct.

There are other paragraphs that this could be applied to, but yes Purchasing would be my first review. And then I would consider Paragraph 7.2 as my next step (but not as product but a service). It could very well be determined that during the review of 7.4 and 7.2 that there is a systemic problem which in turn would determine that a "Major" would be issued.

Happy Easter to you to and have a wonderful Good Friday.


Coury Ferguson

I think you showed an incredible amount of restraint in light of the fact that you are a retired navy drill sargent.

I really think you missed the boat on this one though Randy. The temp employees are not a "product", they are a "service" provided by the temp agency.

Actually, thed Navy doesn't have Sergeants, it has Petty Officers, and I was in the Marine Corps (a proud component of the US Naval Forces) and Army. Though I never was a Drill Instructor, I was an instructor in a variety of subjects. I'm actually a retired Platoon Sergeant

And I'm correct in using of the word "product" Refer to Section 3 of 9K

"Throughout the text of this International Standard, wherever the term “product” occurs, it can also mean “service”."

Actually, thed Navy doesn't have Sergeants, it has Petty Officers, and I was in the Marine Corps (a proud component of the US Naval Forces) and Army. Though I never was a Drill Instructor, I was an instructor in a variety of subjects. I'm actually a retired Platoon Sergeant

And I'm correct in using of the word "product" Refer to Section 3 of 9K

"Throughout the text of this International Standard, wherever the term “product” occurs, it can also mean “service”."


Webster Dictionary Definition of Service:

"b : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity -- usually used in plural <charge for professional services>

Webster Dictionary Definition of Product:

2 a : something produced b : something resulting from or necessarily following from a set of conditions <a product of his environment>
3 : the amount, quantity, or total produced"

I still think this would be a service and not a product.

Coury Ferguson

Actually, thed Navy doesn't have Sergeants, it has Petty Officers, and I was in the Marine Corps (a proud component of the US Naval Forces) and Army. Though I never was a Drill Instructor, I was an instructor in a variety of subjects. I'm actually a retired Platoon Sergeant

And I'm correct in using of the word "product" Refer to Section 3 of 9K

"Throughout the text of this International Standard, wherever the term “product” occurs, it can also mean “service”."
Okey dokey, not first error, or last. I accept that as instruction on proper millitary lingo.

Let me get into the fray here... :cool: (as I am itching for a debate on this one!!!!!)

Temporary employees provided by a staffing agency are indeed "product" and are subject to control over outsourced processes as well.

The area of competency of the "purchased product" (temp personnel) must be viewed not only in terms of the language barrier, but should consider the facts of competency in their native language, i.e. if a Spanish, Laotian, Czech, Russian, et al temp cannot read/write/communicate effectively in english or the preferred language of choice in your organization, and you provide translations of work instructions, product requirements, etc. in their native language, what confidence do you have as an organization that the individual (product) has achieved competency in their native language (or language of origin)? Are they functinally literate in their native tongue? Hmmmmmmmm....

Oh, and BTW... Dr. Phil may be getting a bad rap from many folks, but some of his Dr. Phil-isms work extremely well in the auditor area. So, how's that working for you?

Webster Dictionary Definition of Service:

"b : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity -- usually used in plural <charge for professional services>



Although I'm not sure the discussion is particularly fruitful--the temp agency isn't doing what it was contracted to do, apparently, and the agency's customer isn't holding them to the contract--I tend to agree with Randy on this one. It's a product. Look at the definition of "service" you've given above. The "useful labor" is the temp agency's efforts to qualify people in accordance with the contract, and the "tangible commodity" is the result--qualified people. If a human--qualified or not--isn't "tangible," what is?

I still think this would be a service and not a product.

And I think it really doesn't make any difference in the long run. There is a nonconformance, it appears, and the name you give to it won't make it smell any better.

Although I'm not sure the discussion is particularly fruitful--the temp agency isn't doing what it was contracted to do, apparently, and the agency's customer isn't holding them to the contract--I tend to agree with Randy on this one. It's a product. Look at the definition of "service" you've given above. The "useful labor" is the temp agency's efforts to qualify people in accordance with the contract, and the "tangible commodity" is the result--qualified people. If a human--qualified or not--isn't "tangible," what is?



And I think it really doesn't make any difference in the long run. There is a nonconformance, it appears, and the name you give to it won't make it smell any better.


Alright Jim, I will give you this one. Randy is correct in defining the Temp Employee as "product" (in my opinion) that provides a service.


Coury Ferguson

Webster Dictionary Definition of Service:

"b : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity -- usually used in plural <charge for professional services>

Webster Dictionary Definition of Product:

2 a : something produced b : something resulting from or necessarily following from a set of conditions <a product of his environment>
3 : the amount, quantity, or total produced"

I still think this would be a service and not a product.

Coury Ferguson

And I'm correct in using of the word "product" Refer to Section 3 of 9K

"Throughout the text of this International Standard, wherever the term “product” occurs, it can also mean “service”."
Since the discussion is in the context of ISO/TS - their definition is the one we should be using.

Webster Dictionary Definition of Service:

"b : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity -- usually used in plural <charge for professional services>

Webster Dictionary Definition of Product:

2 a : something produced b : something resulting from or necessarily following from a set of conditions <a product of his environment>
3 : the amount, quantity, or total produced"

I still think this would be a service and not a product.

Coury Ferguson

Mr. Webster's definition does not take precendence over the ISO/TS operational definitions -- ergo, ISO 9001:2001 and TS 16949, 3 Terms and definitions applies, "wherever the term "product" occurs, it can also mean "service".

The exception to this rule is found in SAE AS9100 Rev B, 1.1 General, Note: (to be used as guidance for the auditor) "product" applies only to the product intended for, or required by a customer. In the case of AS systems, temp employees would be a service used by the organization, UNLESS the organization's scope is to supply staffing services.

Mr. Webster's definition does not take precendence over the ISO/TS operational definitions -- ergo, ISO 9001:2001 and TS 16949, 3 Terms and definitions applies, "wherever the term "product" occurs, it can also mean "service".

The exception to this rule is found in SAE AS9100 Rev B, 1.1 General, Note: (to be used as guidance for the auditor) "product" applies only to the product intended for, or required by a customer. In the case of AS systems, temp employees would be a service used by the organization, UNLESS the organization's scope is to supply staffing services.


Alright I concede. I will not discuss the definition of "product or Service."

However, the answer to the question from the original post is: It can be documented as a non-conformance (Major or Minor) or an OFI


Coury Ferguson

Alright I concede. I will not discuss the definition of "product or Service."

However, the answer to the question from the original post is: It can be documented as a non-conformance (Major or Minor) or an OFI


Coury Ferguson

Agreed:agree1:

How it's classified depends on the impact, and none of us can see that from here.

The exception to this rule is found in SAE AS9100 Rev B, 1.1 General, Note: (to be used as guidance for the auditor) "product" applies only to the product intended for, or required by a customer. In the case of AS systems, temp employees would be a service used by the organization, UNLESS the organization's scope is to supply staffing services.

Not sure where your AS9100 quote ends, but it makes no difference. In any case, the temp employee is the agency's product, and the product performs a service (much as many inanimate products do).

Certainly this is not an OFI from the information presented here. The audit trails are tremendous!!! Training methodology, communication, management commitment, competency....

Putting on my Cowardly Lion suit from OZ: "Lemme at 'im, lemme at 'im"

Not sure where your AS9100 quote ends, but it makes no difference. In any case, the temp employee is the agency's product, and the product performs a service (much as many inanimate products do).

No, the temp agency is not registered to AS9100. The "product" is delivered to the customer of the AS registered company.

See below in the good doctors quote. "In the case of AS systems, temp employees would be a service used by the organization, UNLESS the organization's scope is to supply staffing services."

So if the AS9100 company was supplying consultants to its customer that it hired from the TEMP company, then the temp folks would be the product. Since they are going to provide a service to the customer of the AS9100 registered company. It all makes perfect sense to me. Very straight forward.

Current the the Temp agency is providing a service that does not go into the final product. :whip:

Quote: (Originally Posted by QualityPhD) The exception to this rule is found in SAE AS9100 Rev B, 1.1 General, Note: (to be used as guidance for the auditor) "product" applies only to the product intended for, or required by a customer. In the case of AS systems, temp employees would be a service used by the organization, UNLESS the organization's scope is to supply staffing services.

OMG:mg: I've had 3 or 4 people agree with me in the same day on the same thing:jawdrop:

I must be slipping....and badly at that:o

OMG:mg: I've had 3 or 4 people agree with me in the same day on the same thing:jawdrop:

I must be slipping....and badly at that:o


You are not slipping. Your points were reviewed and it was determined that you did have the right interpretation.

Coury Ferguson

I must surmise then, from the information presented here, that we can agree that Randy's interpretation of the standard(s) discussed here are correct. Concensus of interpretation of the requirements of the standards is required as a determination of competency as an AS9100 auditor... therefore, we can agree that Randy is COMPETENT! :applause:

I must surmise then, from the information presented here, that we can agree that Randy's interpretation of the standard(s) discussed here are correct. Concensus of interpretation of the requirements of the standards is required as a determination of competency as an AS9100 auditor... therefore, we can agree that Randy is COMPETENT! :applause:


:) :applause: :magic:


Coury Ferguson

You are not slipping. Your points were reviewed and it was determined that you did have the right interpretation.

Coury Ferguson

Just because he was right doesn't mean he isn't slipping:D

I must surmise then, from the information presented here, that we can agree that Randy's interpretation of the standard(s) discussed here are correct. Concensus of interpretation of the requirements of the standards is required as a determination of competency as an AS9100 auditor... therefore, we can agree that Randy is COMPETENT! :applause:

Consistent interpretation is one of the criteria. Rember the definition of competence in ISO 19011 though:

demonstrated personal attributes and demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills:lol:

Consistent interpretation is one of the criteria. Rember the definition of competence in ISO 19011 though:
Quote: (Originally Posted by ISO 19011:2002) demonstrated personal attributes and demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills
:lol:

I think this attribute stands out the most
7.2 Personal attributes
c) diplomatic, i.e. tactful in dealing with people;
:D

demonstrated "personal attributes" from ISO 19011:2002, 7.2 include:

ethical -
open-minded -
diplomatic -
observant -
perceptive -
versatile -
tenacious -
decisive -
self-reliant -

Hmmm... nowhere do I see in the Guidelines' Scope ("applicable to organizations... internal or external audits...) that these demonstrated personal attributes shall be applicable to message boards, discussions outside the scope of the audit, personal conversations, etc. I may be mistaken, though not likely.

I challenge anyone to show me a time where, in a room full of auditors or quality professionals, each person maintained each/every of these qualities consistently.

Second, the challenge extends to the personal arena -- I KNOW that I have violated the ethical, open-minded and diplomatic areas when engaged with a teenager or significant other (not often, not habit, and not proud of it) during conflict.

Third -- has anyone considered the statement "action commensurate with situation encountered"?

Just my $0.02 --

I'm just razzing Randy a bit. I consider it part of my duty as a member of the forums here.

... and I am just harassing TarHeels....:lmao:

demonstrated "personal attributes" from ISO 19011:2002, 7.2 include:

ethical -
open-minded -
diplomatic -
observant -
perceptive -
versatile -
tenacious -
decisive -
self-reliant -

Hmmm... nowhere do I see in the Guidelines' Scope ("applicable to organizations... internal or external audits...) that these demonstrated personal attributes shall be applicable to message boards, discussions outside the scope of the audit, personal conversations, etc. I may be mistaken, though not likely.

I challenge anyone to show me a time where, in a room full of auditors or quality professionals, each person maintained each/every of these qualities consistently.

Second, the challenge extends to the personal arena -- I KNOW that I have violated the ethical, open-minded and diplomatic areas when engaged with a teenager or significant other (not often, not habit, and not proud of it) during conflict.

Third -- has anyone considered the statement "action commensurate with situation encountered"?

Just my $0.02 --


I think maybe Tactful would be an addition and good use of the native language would also be appropriate.

As for your challenge I am not able to "show" you (I know you are not from Missouri or are you). But consistently speaking I have been in numerous discussions with Auditors and Quality Folks from the Customer's (the prime contractor) point and the many audit meetings.

Everything during those meetings were handle with everything required (as stated).:truce:


Coury Ferguson

Well then Coury... I'll invite you to the next annual auditor training session.... It certainly provokes thoughtful and insightful discussion and name-calling is optional.:naughty:

Well then Coury... I'll invite you to the next annual auditor training session.... It certainly provokes thoughtful and insightful discussion and name-calling is optional.:naughty:


Is it going to be in Southeast Florida before June 2006?


Coury Ferguson

I'm just razzing Randy a bit. I consider it part of my duty as a member of the forums here.

As well you should:lol:

For years tact and diplomacy required me to toss in a flash-bang before entering a room.:lmao: There are many variations.

... and I am just harassing TarHeels....:lmao:
...but what did I do? I have been known to be bit undiplomatic at times,..., but conflict :nope: , that is just something I try to avoid, if I can help it.:ca:

It must have been a slow day at work for all of you to expend so much effort on what turns out to be a fairly common situation: Top management in absentia instead of walking around, seeing how things are doing and introducing themselves to the troops.

We have no clue as to the nature of the work - it must not be very critical or difficult because the place hasn't come to a grinding halt [yet] even though some of the employees don't seem to have a clue of what their work instructions are.

From a business owner/manager's standpoint, the only thing guaranteed to catch attention and therefore some corrective action is whether there is a financial downside to the current situation which could be converted to an upside with just a little effort.

There are grants and tax breaks for employers who provide classes and courses for employees to improve their use of oral and written English. Check with the State Department in charge of Employment matters for organizations within the state for leads on how to get these dollars.

My point is "light a candle rather than curse the darkness."

Centuries ago, theologians used to argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin instead of how to improve the living circumstances for their faithful. My advice is to forget about defining exactly what clause is violated and concentrate on how to improve the business situation of the organization. Once that is accomplished, I'm pretty sure the adherence to clauses will fall right in place.

A picture tells a thousand words - we use a lot of digital photos, graphics, flowcharts, numerals etc in our work instructions. It certainly helps to a great extend in our multi-racial society. We have three main languages and foreign workers of at least 3 nationalities.

That was an interesting exchange or shall I call it 'Bantering'. Some of the sharper remarks really jolt my mind into the thinking and questioning mode and helped me to look at things from a fresh angle. I hope nobody feels offended and I must thank the participants for the lively input. All of you win by injecting some 'intellectual life' into this forum - a trade mark of the 'Cove'.

Your solution with pictures and graphs is quite common and well thought out.

Pictographs, one of the earliest forms of written communication, is still a viable solution when people who are functionally illiterate or speak different languages need to have information provided in an understandable fashion. Good job:applause:

And thanks for the kind comments about our "bantering". I also dislike dull, droning, and sappy sweet discussion. Please feel free to jump in and bait the hook yourself (so-to-speak).

Honestly, I had never come across so many 'sharpies' on QMS related matters before - and my claws are still rusty and joints creaky. Thanks to this forum, its being polished and serviced. To participate in such an intellectual exchange, one had to be reasonably sharp and quick. Otherwise, you stood out like a sore thumb.

To participate in such an intellectual exchange, one had to be reasonably sharp and quick.

And have a copy of the relevant standard in your hands at ALL times. Heaven forbid posting something in a "paraphrased" manner. With all these sharks in this tank (myself included), the correction (attack) would be sure, swift and result in a thorough tongue/keyboard lashing.

Isn't this why we're here? For me, working so much of the time alone, I don't get the opportunity to debate/discuss issues or interpretations of the standard with many individuals who have the level of knowledge and application as the Cove provides. I really do enjoy this place.