To ISO/TS 16949 Auditors
I have a question – Don’t you think that CSR auditing during the certification audit is fiction?
Why? During my audits I can see:
1-Auditors get lost in these requirements because of ampleness of automotive customers and wide scope of their requirements
2-It’s difficult to hold/put CSR requirements in audit (lack of time) – CSR scope sometimes is too big.
3-Audited firms usually fib and say that customers didn’t addressed any requirements, or customer requirements are implemented in central location (remote location) eg. in Hamburg, or these requirements are not applicable in this one audited firm (I don’t like to investigate - is it right or false during audit because I’m not police officer)
4-It’s difficult to make audited firms to ask formally customers about their requirements. When somebody ask customer about requirements sometimes customer invents requirements. People in firms think: “what for? CSR is only problem for us”
5-CSR requirements are formulated centrally, and sometimes customer purchasing offices, technical offices, STA, SQE completely don’t keep their own rules prepared by central location.
6-Many CSR requirements are rather enigmatic and seem to be guidelines rather then requirements. In the end sometimes nobody knows – is it obligatory or facultative (shall or should or recommend?)
7-Some manuals are CSR reference with comment „implement if applicable” and nobody knows who should assess is it applicable or not (audited firm often holds the view that everything is not applicable).
What do you think about it?

PS Sorry, I know my english is...

If your QMS is certified to TS16949:2002 and your customer has CSRs, then you must address those requirements. The TS auditor is expected to know about the CSRs and audit you for those in addition to TS16949. one auditor told me that he writes more NCs for CSRs than TS16949.
If you are doing business with Ford, GM, Chrysler, Visteon, etc, then you are expected to implement their CSRs also.
There is no use trying to dance around the issue,or fib about expectations.
When your customer comes to audit in addition to the TS16949 auditor, you will be held accountable to their CSRs. We have been audited for CSRs by both the TS auditor and during Ford visits.

Peters,

CSRs are a requirement from your customers. Both the external auditor and your customer might come in and audit the CSRs. It is best to understand the CSRs, implement the requirement and audit the CSR as part of your annual audit plan.

We use an evidence book to show to Ford (in our case) and the external auditor when asked.

Most elements of the CSR are straightforward. Some are not, then you have to deal with those as the best you can.

It is clear that the Ford CSR, Ford eMSA, Ford PPAP 4th edition requirements and Ford Phase PPAP are not written by the same group.

K.

To ISO/TS 16949 Auditors
I have a question – Don’t you think that CSR auditing during the certification audit is fiction?
Why? During my audits I can see:
1-Auditors get lost in these requirements because of ampleness of automotive customers and wide scope of their requirements
2-It’s difficult to hold/put CSR requirements in audit (lack of time) – CSR scope sometimes is too big.
3-Audited firms usually fib and say that customers didn’t addressed any requirements, or customer requirements are implemented in central location (remote location) eg. in Hamburg, or these requirements are not applicable in this one audited firm (I don’t like to investigate - is it right or false during audit because I’m not police officer)
4-It’s difficult to make audited firms to ask formally customers about their requirements. When somebody ask customer about requirements sometimes customer invents requirements. People in firms think: “what for? CSR is only problem for us”
5-CSR requirements are formulated centrally, and sometimes customer purchasing offices, technical offices, STA, SQE completely don’t keep their own rules prepared by central location.
6-Many CSR requirements are rather enigmatic and seem to be guidelines rather then requirements. In the end sometimes nobody knows – is it obligatory or facultative (shall or should or recommend?)
7-Some manuals are CSR reference with comment „implement if applicable” and nobody knows who should assess is it applicable or not (audited firm often holds the view that everything is not applicable).
What do you think about it?

PS Sorry, I know my english is...


Hello Peters,

I help my Clients with a CSR matrix that aligns the CSR's with the ISO/TS 16949:2002 requirements. Even though Customers have different specific requirements, many of them are pretty much the same with respect to intent.

The matrix serves two purposes:
1. It shows the Certification Body (CB) auditor that you are aware of and have recognized the CSR's.
2. It helps your internal auditors when they prepare for an audit. You will see that a number of these requirements can be verified at the same time, thus preventing you from auditing each CSR separately. That saves time.

Attached is a ISO/TS - CSR matrix. I do not claim that this one is completely up to date. I also had to xxxx out some of the Customer's names. You'll get the idea.

Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

Well...
When Ford is customer it's easy.
Ford has very clear CSR, corresponding with TS requirements (thank you Ford :cool: ).
Problem is when firm has VW as a customer.
Bigger problem is when firm has Skoda and BMW and PSA and Opel and Fiat and Daimler as a customer.
Extreme problem is when firm has Johnson Controls and Valeo and Faurecia and Delphi and Bosch and Mahle and Visteon and SEWS and Kimball and Lear and ArvinMeritor and Sitech and Teksid as a customer. How to audit this situation?!
Every TS auditor know (more or less) OEM requirements (know this and audit this - it's not the same).
But Tier I requirements are almost jungle :cool:

Well...
When Ford is customer it's easy.
Ford has very clear CSR, corresponding with TS requirements (thank you Ford :cool: ).
Problem is when firm has VW as a customer.
Bigger problem is when firm has Skoda and BMW and PSA and Opel and Fiat and Daimler as a customer.
Extreme problem is when firm has Johnson Controls and Valeo and Faurecia and Delphi and Bosch and Mahle and Visteon and SEWS and Kimball and Lear and ArvinMeritor and Sitech and Teksid as a customer. How to audit this situation?!
Every TS auditor know (more or less) OEM requirements (know this and audit this - it's not the same).
But Tier I requirements are almost jungle :cool:


Hello Peters,

I feel your pain. There's just no other way around it.
Would a matrix help?

Stijloor.

Thank you Stijloor :)
I know this attachment.
It could be useful :)

Peters,

Wow... I feel for you, dealing with that many CSRs.

And.. we were all hoping that TS (and QS-9000) would make our lives easier. No such luck.

K.

Peters,

Wow... I feel for you, dealing with that many CSRs.

And.. we were all hoping that TS (and QS-9000) would make our lives easier. No such luck.

K.

On the upside, if you have that many CSR's to deal with, business must be good!

Stijloor.

ralphsulser,

I agree completely with you. I am an auditor as well as a consultant and I have been bitten by CSR's in the past. If a company is preparing for ISO/TS 16949, they would do well to spend some time researching the requirements that they are already supposed to be complying to. If they crop up at the last minute, it can be a problem, particularly if it is something large like a requirement to be ISO 14001 certified.

Even if a company is not concerned with an auditor's perspective, are they not committed to meeting these requirements anyway? This isn't really about ISO/TS 16949, it is about due diligence.