In the process of answering findings on my most recent surveillance audit, I am re-reading ISO/TS 16949:2002(E)."IATF Guidance to ISO/TS16949:2002" is a document containing recommended automotive industry practices, examples, illustrations and explanations, and provides assistance in the application to conform to the requirements of this Technical Specification.
This IATF Guidance document is not intended for certification or for contractual purposes(Emphasis in the original)
Does this mean that I can't get certified to the guidance?
OR
Does this mean that some auditor cannot write me a finding because I have covered the TS section but not every tidbit in the Guidance?

I can't put my finger on it right now but I am certain that I got a Preventive and predictive maintenance finding because I wasn't doing fluid analysis (guidance) even though there is no mention of it in the standard. I ended up writing a white paper on why I don't do fluid analysis (I don't have any hydraulic pumps, etc.) to answer the finding.

Icy Mountain:

1) Correct
2) Correct

Guidance documents are not auditable. It is a guidance.

A N/C should be written against a clause in TS 16949:2002.

On what grounds did the auditor write the N/C ?

In the process of answering findings on my most recent surveillance audit, I am re-reading ISO/TS 16949:2002(E).
Originally Posted by ISO/TS 16949:2002, Section 0.3.1 IATF Guidance to ISO/TS16949:2002

"IATF Guidance to ISO/TS16949:2002" is a document containing recommended automotive industry practices, examples, illustrations and explanations, and provides assistance in the application to conform to the requirements of this Technical Specification.
This IATF Guidance document is not intended for certification or for contractual purposes(Emphasis in the original)
Does this mean that I can't get certified to the guidance?
OR
Does this mean that some auditor cannot write me a finding because I have covered the TS section but not every tidbit in the Guidance?

I can't put my finger on it right now but I am certain that I got a Preventive and predictive maintenance finding because I wasn't doing fluid analysis (guidance) even though there is no mention of it in the standard. I ended up writing a white paper on why I don't do fluid analysis (I don't have any hydraulic pumps, etc.) to answer the finding.


The guidelines are NOT auditable as said
This IATF Guidance document is not intended for certification or for contractual purposes

Your specific point
Guidelines
Predictive maintenance methods should include a review of
appropriate items such as the manufacturer's recommendations,
storage, tool wear, optimization of uptime, correlation of SPC
data to.preventive maintenance activities, important
characteristics of perishable tooling, fluid analysis, monitoring of
circuits and vibration analysis as appropriate. (my emphasis)

Here we have a should, not shall and twice as appropriate. Even if this was verbatim in the standard there is no requirement to perform the actions

On what grounds did the auditor write the N/C ?That's what I can't put my finger on, certainly nothing recent, I'm much better at defending our system now. However, I have had many, many audits where the guidance comes out for more than just guidance; it's often used like a sanctioned interpretation. There is a reason that I have both the standard and guidance in the same binder with my single printed procedures manual. It was just one of those "eureka" moments.

It is my memory that the IATF Guidance document to TS 16949 was obsoleted even as a guidance document let alone a basis for registration.

Regards,

Dirk

From memory, the guidance wasn't much use.

I do remember that there was nothing on document control - although history shows that this requirement is 80% of the reasons for external audit findings - so it'd be reasonable to expect some guidance, wouldn't it?:bonk:

although history shows that this requirement is 80% of the reasons for external audit findings - so it'd be reasonable to expect some guidance, wouldn't it?:bonk:83.7% of statistics (including this one) are fabricated willy-nilly...If document control is still a source of a high percentage of findings in TS audits, it has much less to do with the requirements of the standard, and much more with auditor behavior that tends to focus on "tangible", auditable, "black&white" issues. Documentation control, quality records and other few issues still account for a large percentage of findings simply because auditors (in most cases) are afraid of tackling the real thorny issues such as management responsibility, competence assurance, monitoring of customer satisfaction, supplier performance, etc...

83.7% of statistics (including this one) are fabricated willy-nilly...If document control is still a source of a high percentage of findings in TS audits, it has much less to do with the requirements of the standard, and much more with auditor behavior that tends to focus on "tangible", auditable, "black&white" issues. Documentation control, quality records and other few issues still account for a large percentage of findings simply because auditors (in most cases) are afraid of tackling the real thorny issues such as management responsibility, competence assurance, monitoring of customer satisfaction, supplier performance, etc...


Hello Sidney,

I guess the Pareto Principle applies.....
Documents/Records: The Trivial Many.
The "thorny issues" as you call them: the Vital Few.

It is my memory that the IATF Guidance document to TS 16949 was obsoleted even as a guidance document let alone a basis for registration.

Regards,

Dirk

Hello Dirk,

The "IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002" document is still available.
It's the "Quality System Assessment Checklist" that was withdrawn.

Stijloor.

Hello Dirk,

The "IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002" document is still available.
It's the "Quality System Assessment Checklist" that was withdrawn.

Stijloor.

I think you're referring to the Implementation Guide which is different from the original IATF ISO/TS Guide. The one shown on the AIAG website is the AIAG's implementation guide. The IATF one was withdrawn..........Confusing, I know, but that's the situation.

I think you're referring to the Implementation Guide which is different from the original IATF ISO/TS Guide. The one shown on the AIAG website is the AIAG's implementation guide. The IATF one was withdrawn..........Confusing, I know, but that's the situation.

Hello Andy,

I checked the AIAG website. I found this:

TS-GS: IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002
The IATF Guidance is limited to providing assistance in the application of ISO/TS 16949:2002. This document is for reference only and is not intended as a requirement for certification. Version 1 - 2002
Member: $ 13.00
List Price: $ 39.00

CQI- 7: ISO/TS 16949:2002 Implementation Guide
This guide provides organizations help in transitioning from their current quality management system to ISO/TS 16949:2002 Version 1 06/2003
Member: $ 19.00
List Price: $ 38.00

Hope this clarifies.

Stijloor.

Yup - its' there. You're correct.

83.7% of statistics (including this one) are fabricated willy-nilly...If document control is still a source of a high percentage of findings in TS audits, it has much less to do with the requirements of the standard, and much more with auditor behavior that tends to focus on "tangible", auditable, "black&white" issues. Documentation control, quality records and other few issues still account for a large percentage of findings simply because auditors (in most cases) are afraid of tackling the real thorny issues such as management responsibility, competence assurance, monitoring of customer satisfaction, supplier performance, etc...

What you're saying is at the heart of much of the rhetoric about external auditor effectiveness and the 'quality' of their findings.:agree1:

However, the point of my post was that since document control seems to be a recurring issue (even at the Cove there are many posts regarding the subject), there's no guidance from the AIAG/IATF on the subject.........

I, too, remember, (as Dirk does), that the guidance was withdrawn. Maybe the need for revenue helped it 'slip back' into availability.......

I think I agree... that is to say that black and whit issues with hard factual evidence are easy to defend. This year we are trying a different approach to what has happened before and although this may be old news for some what we are endeavouring to do is process audit, prior to the audit we produce simple process maps with the inputs and outputs left to right (listed) and controls & resources listed top and bottom. then look for objective evidence of these maps and walk through the process, so far it has highlighted that we do not always do what our documentation states but more importantly for areas such as marketing where there are less "controlled" documents it has helped us identify weak areas by getting the maketing manager to help us with inputs and then ask him for some evidence of these.

'it takes a long time to perfect one's skill and you only have a limited time in which to do it'.

However, the point of my post was that since document control seems to be a recurring issue (even at the Cove there are many posts regarding the subject), there's no guidance from the AIAG/IATF on the subjectAndy, I understood your point. My counter argument is that document control does not need any additional guidance, in terms of implementation. It is one of the most basic and straight forward clauses in the standard. Failure to comply with it has to do with discipline, the large number of opportunities for failure and the unbalanced focus by auditors on that subject. Just my opinion.

What you're saying is at the heart of much of the rhetoric about external auditor effectiveness and the 'quality' of their findings.:agree1:

However, the point of my post was that since document control seems to be a recurring issue (even at the Cove there are many posts regarding the subject), there's no guidance from the AIAG/IATF on the subject.........

I, too, remember, (as Dirk does), that the guidance was withdrawn. Maybe the need for revenue helped it 'slip back' into availability.......

Hello,

I must disagree with AndyN,

The following documents:
TS-GS: IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002
CQI- 7: ISO/TS 16949:2002 Implementation Guide

were NEVER withdrawn by IATF and AIAG.

I already knew this, but just to make sure, I spoke with Lisa at AIAG this morning to verify. Lisa stated that neither document was ever withdrawn or made unavailable for purchase.
The comment: "Maybe the need for revenue helped it 'slip back' into availability...." is without merit and inappropriate. Quality professionals (and auditors), must pass judgement based on objective evidence and not on hearsay.

Stijloor.

I ended up writing a white paper on why I don't do fluid analysis (I don't have any hydraulic pumps, etc.) to answer the finding.

And you wonder why more and more companies are going to self declaration of compliance...:bonk: