TS 16949 survellience audit last week. Out of 3 divisions & 500 employees, we had only one minor finding which I am very pleased with.

However, the one finding has me a bit confused. To make a long story short, we had a customer reject (that just occured 2 days before start of audit,,, of course!:frust:) We had yet to implement a corrective action, what we had in place was 100% inspection at the end of the line to contain the situation. (no further customer complaints, none found in dock audits).

N/C states: GP12 in place resulting from report #blah blah, regarding berries in weld nuts was in effective as the final inspector had 8 bad parts during a 30 minute period, no prevention modes were in place.

We knew there was not prevention modes in place, it just happened. So to address this non-conformance, would be as simple as addressing the customers 8-d??

A non-conformance on your non-conformance seems a bit ridiculous, which element of TS16949 had you failed to fulfil ?

He sited 8.3 The organization shall deal with non conforming product by taking action to eliminate the non conformity and control reworked product.

Which I have no problem with really, except he knew this had just happened. Also, this auditor has been with us for 3 years, he knows we address customer issues (and in a timely manner).
My question,,, think he wrote this, just to write something?

Teri,

It almost seems that way. It makes me wonder if the auditor did do his/her due diligence before writing the non-conformance.

- Did the auditor discuss with you his finding before he/she wrote it up as a N/C ?
- Were you able to show him any evidence of what you/your company had done to contain the problem (inspection instructions, control plan audit, review of PFMEA)
- Is this concern (berries...) a repeat problem ?
- Were you able to show him an initial response to the PRR ?
- Did you sign the final audit report ?

If you have answers to the above question, my suggestion is to arrange a phone conference with the auditor. If the result of the conference is negative, than I would contact your client manager.

K.

"Low hanging fruit", "target-rich environment", "had to find something", (to name but three) all come to mind.........:rolleyes:

He sited 8.3 The organization shall deal with non conforming product by taking action to eliminate the non conformity and control reworked product.

Which I have no problem with really, except he knew this had just happened. Also, this auditor has been with us for 3 years, he knows we address customer issues (and in a timely manner).
My question,,, think he wrote this, just to write something?

Teri,
What you suggest is a possibility, some auditors feel the need to justify their existence, however since you have had this auditor for 3 years it would seem that you would have identified this trait in their prior visits.

From your description it sounds like the processing step was still putting out nuts with the berries (weld spatter?) in the threads, and the containment action was based on detection of the nonconforming nuts by visual inspection only. A suggestion to consider would be getting a sign-off from your customer on the GP-12 Containment plan and Interim actions agreeing with the countermeasures you have put in place.

There are three separate avenues which can be taken under 8.3. As your auditor has expressed the nonconformity in terms of 8.3a, they are forcing you into a position of only the one option by which you can respond, at least to the NC they issued. Unfortunately it is too late to argue that point with them now, but keep it in mind for future reference.

Teri, could you please explain why the issue was not discussed with the auditor prior to or during the closing meeting? As discussed several times in this forum, as much as possible, things should be clarified BEFORE the auditor departs. You stated in the original post that you made a long story short. Sometimes, the auditor have a concern about certain details that are left out of the post. Nobody better than the auditor him/herself to justify (or attempt to) the validity of the write up.

On another note, since you mentioned the auditor has been with your organization for 3 years, s/he must be replaced for the next 3 year certification cycle. So, chances are, you won't be seeing him/her again.

It does sound like low hanging fruit but as Sidney pointed out it's hard to know all the details of the scenario from these threads.

A couple more thoughts to consider:

- If your corrective action / complaints sytem is effective then this could be part of your appeal to the auditor.
- When completing your 8-D makes sure you go back and review your PFMEA to evaluate if this is a failure mode that you have not previously identified.
-If so, look at the S/O/D rankings as well.

Because the auditor specifically mentioned "prevention modes" the auditor may have been leading your company to the FMEA.

I have heard auditors say that when they have done surveillence audits in the past with no non-conformities, those companies are often targets for concern and audits from their customer(s). Who knows!

My question,,, think he wrote this, just to write something?An IAOB Certified ISO/TS 16949 Lead Auditor? I am absolutely shocked that you would even suggest such a thing!:notme:As discussed several times in this forum, as much as possible, things should be clarified BEFORE the auditor departs. You stated in the original post that you made a long story short.Now that's good advice. Maybe this was a mis-understanding and can still be straightened out.

The standard does not set a time limit on this nor is it a non-conformance, against the standard, to continue to produce non-conforming parts. It requires "...that product which does not conform to product requirements is identified and controlled to prevent its unintended use or delivery." It sounds to me like you have that covered.

Now, you have to "...deal with non-conforming product by one or more of the following ways:" (emphasis mine)
"action to eliminate"
"release or acceptance under concession"
"action to preclude its original use"

I think you covered this last one. So what if you produced 8 more weld nuts with berries:lmao: in 30 minutes. Your final inspector has them and is precluding them thus preventing their unintended use or delivery. You searched stock, your customer isn't getting any more, you have containment.

Look, people, there's immediate corrective action and systemic corrective action. How is it even possible to track down the root cause of this defect if you shut your line down and quit producing parts, good or bad? I can't imagine finding out why my welding machine is producing berries on nuts if I'm standing there watching it do nothing!

I had a customer ask if it was rushing things to ask for an 8D on his rejected unit tomorrow. I sent him the UPS tracking number showing delivery to me estimated at 10:30AM tomorrow and a copy of the suggested 8-D process from his website. Sure, I can give you a diagnosis of your unit tomorrow. But you also want root cause and systemic corrective action fully implemented and my team congratulated? Pay attention folks, an 8D is not a failure report!!! The merely difficult I do today, for the completely impossible...come back next week.