Our auditor wrote us up for our internal auditors not being trained to Core Tools. We did have our system structured in such a way that the evidence for competency was (1) a training record / certificate, (2) completion of an external course (i.e., AIAG, etc.) or (3) an assessment based on the internal auditor's past performance and made by their supervisor documenting their competency of the Core Tool. It was implied by the 3rd party auditor that the completion of a detailed exam on each of the Core Tools (APQP, MSA, SPC, etc.) by each internal auditor is what we need to implement to demonstrate that our auditors are trained and competent in the Automotive Core Tools. It was stated that the internal auditors should be the experts for these tools. Do you agree? Does anyone have any tests / assessments they have used? We are struggling with this one as many of the auditors have a quality background, have worked with each of these core tools, and are felt to be competent by their supervisors based on past performance.

This auditor is way off on an opinion trip. Was this a 3rd party audit, internal audit, or customer auditor? Internal auditors for TS and even customer specific requirements that I've worked with do not specify testing or a writtten exam in each of the core tools. Usually the TA16949 internal audit course includes the core tools. This should be stated on their certificates, or shown in the course description,index, or topics listed. Further, if you have a skill matrix for the auditors, it should include core tools.

I'm guessing that the auditor is thinking 'sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander'. Just because the TS auditors have had to demonstrate some kind of competencies in the Core Tools, so should internal auditors, using the same methods. Telling you they have to be experts is bizarre!

I'd be interested to know the course the internal auditors have been on, especially since it was AIAG - that alone should have been sufficient.

I'm a bit concerned about the supervisor confirming competencies for a Core Tool, such as APQP. What criteria were used by the supervisor?
I'd need to get some more background on what the supervisor used, if you're looking for some kind of endorsement that it's a good way to go.

Have you got any examples where an auditor has found a non-conformance where the Core Tool wasn't being implemented effectively? Could you share it here?

Bottom line is - Ralph's correct - it's an opinion trip here, unless there's substantive evidence of ineffective audits due to a lack of Core Tools knowledge.......

Andy

I have a question - are you a supplier to Ford? If so, they have very specific requirements for auditors that does include evaluation. There are a couple of loop-holes in Ford's CSR you might be able to apply. You should review your customer specific requirements to identify additional auditor requirements.

Our auditor wrote us up for our internal auditors not being trained to Core Tools. We did have our system structured in such a way that the evidence for competency was (1) a training record / certificate, (2) completion of an external course (i.e., AIAG, etc.) or (3) an assessment based on the internal auditor's past performance and made by their supervisor documenting their competency of the Core Tool. It was implied by the 3rd party auditor that the completion of a detailed exam on each of the Core Tools (APQP, MSA, SPC, etc.) by each internal auditor is what we need to implement to demonstrate that our auditors are trained and competent in the Automotive Core Tools. It was stated that the internal auditors should be the experts for these tools. Do you agree? Does anyone have any tests / assessments they have used? We are struggling with this one as many of the auditors have a quality background, have worked with each of these core tools, and are felt to be competent by their supervisors based on past performance.

It's helpful when questioning an auditor's finding to give the exact wording of the finding, including citations. What did the auditor cite as the relevant "shall"?

Thanks for all of your feedback . . . exact wording of finding is "No evidence of auditor training to the latest revisions of core tools. "

Yes, we supply Ford.

Yes this was a 3rd party auditor.

Yes, internal training was conducted by RABQSA certified trainer.

In addition, the auditors did not look at any of our documented procedures. They only observed our activities and comments. They were not willing to look at our documents when we asked them if they wanted to or tried to pull them out for discussion purposes. Is this common practice during a certification audit (Stage 2)? Seems a bit odd.

Thanks for all of your feedback . . . exact wording of finding is "No evidence of auditor training to the latest revisions of core tools. "


That answers one part of the question. Did the auditor provide a citation to the clause in the standard, or other documented requirements, that was allegedly violated?

I too got the same write up. I had the team of Internal audit take core tool training. It is differant than internal audit training. They all got a certificate for the AIAG core tools it was a 3 day workshop. It satified the auditor but it was costly.
I know your frustration.
Cheryl

I believe that the auditor is writing this up against
Ford Motor Company Customer Specifics for ISO/TS 16949 (http://www.iaob.org/pdfs/FordspecTS2nd_08_November_2006.pdf)

Internal Auditor Qualifications

Internal quality management system auditors shall be qualified per 4.39.1 or 4.39.2 below.

4.39.1 Be trained and evaluated in the following areas:

• The Technical Specification ISO/TS 16949:2002

• Related core tools (e.g. APQP, SPC, MSA, FMEA, PPAP)

• Applicable customer-specific requirements, and

• The automotive process approach to auditing. And, as part of the training, participates in practice sessions equivalent to one audit day in:

• Case study audits, and/or

• Auditing role plays/simulations, and/or

• On-site audits.
Core tools and customer specifics can be taught by company or industry recognized experts/specialists.

4.39.2 Or, have conducted at least 5 internal ISO/TS 16949:2002 internal audits during the prior 24 months under the supervision of an auditor trained as specified in 4.39.1 . The audits will need to have covered all requirements of the technical specification and all processes directly impacting Ford part quality at least once over the 5 or more audits.

I believe that the auditor is writing this up against
Ford Motor Company Customer Specifics for ISO/TS 16949 (http://www.iaob.org/pdfs/FordspecTS2nd_08_November_2006.pdf)



Thanks, Sidney. It appears that perhaps the auditor in question had a problem not with evidence of training, but evidence of evaluation, as the CSR calls for internal auditors to be "trained and evaluated" per the listed requirements.

I would have to agree that the evidence is what they appear to be looking for. Other than an assessment test or (expensive) external training such as what AIAG conducts, how have others met this requirement? If you gave an assessment can you post an example of your testing?

I am curious if training documentation included PPAP 4th addition based on the audit finding?

Not specifically in the notes, but, yes, this was communicated as also being grouped in with what they were calling the Core Tools.

Hi
In that case if Ford is not our customer, we can dictate what could be the training evidence for Internal Auditors? Because, me myself, I don't have all the Core Tools training like APQP, MSA, PPAP. What I have is a traning for TS16949.
Best regards,
raffy :cool:

Okay, forgive my ignorance, but where in TS16949 does it say that internal auditors need to have core tools training and that it be provided by an expert?!?!

We took the ISO9001:2000 3 day internal auditor course...is that sufficient to meet the internal auditor qualifications for TS?!?! I keep reviewing the standard and can't find anything! We don't site those requirements in our manual so to me, we're ok?!?!

I know under Ford it's required, but I can't find anything else in our CSRs that say we need core tools training?!?!

I'm starting to second guess myself...should i be??

It is a Ford specific requirement and if you do not supply Ford, don't worry about it.

If you supply Ford, then all your Auditors must take auditing training from a Ford approved trainer. I know that I had to take training at AIAG in Southfield, Michigan so that I could train auditors. The strange part was that there really wasn't much training in the core tools and the exam at the end had only a couple of core tool questions that were super easy.

Okay, forgive my ignorance, but where in TS16949 does it say that internal auditors need to have core tools training and that it be provided by an expert?!?!

We took the ISO9001:2000 3 day internal auditor course...is that sufficient to meet the internal auditor qualifications for TS?!?! I keep reviewing the standard and can't find anything! We don't site those requirements in our manual so to me, we're ok?!?!

I know under Ford it's required, but I can't find anything else in our CSRs that say we need core tools training?!?!

I'm starting to second guess myself...should i be??

Hello Sheryl,

These requirements are not in ISO/TS 16949:2002. They are included in some Customer's CSR's. Look at Sidney Vianna's post #9, he included the Ford requirements. It's a good idea to get Core Tools training from a reputable training provider. Some people here in The Cove are well qualified to provide Core Tools training. Bottom-line? Check your customer's requirements.

Stijloor.