Hi,
I would like to have your opinion about the following. First let me explain briefly the situation.

Since 2006 our company has a TS16949 certificate. I am amongst other things responsible for the internal audits. At this moment we still have some open audits from 2006 (and also 2007), meaning no reaction from departments on the auditfindings, or the agreed countermeasure has not been performed. There are various reasons for this, and this is not limited to audit findings but also other matters are far behind in schedule.

At this moment I would like to stop the internal audit program, because obviously audit findings will be similar to the previous ones or will result in new action points, which due to (whatever) will not be solved.
So, in stead of internal auditing I would like to spend time on assisting others to close the open items, implement improvements, close corrective actions…..
Management does not agree, they want the internal audits to be performed because of the TS-certificate. But as far as I can see, the open audits, not followed/ implemented corrective actions etc is far more serious than a (possible) nonconformity next TS-surveillance audit for not performing the internal audits according to plan.

What do you think, can I stop the internal auditing program for this year?

Myriam

IMO, I would said I will stand at your management side.

If there is a requirement for the internal audit, we must perform on it.
Auditor will not care the effectiveness of internal solving the problem on the particular issue as long as you provide them a list of plan that you can close the CAR.

Go to basic, why we have the audit? Continuous improvement, right?
In this case, you need management support to close up all the overdue CAR.

I believe we all are having the same problem when dealing CA.

We can have a thousand of audits but no CA taken, the whole activities still not effective.

I realise that this is a TS related question and I am not too sure if the the requirement is the same as ISO 9001 but clause 8.2.2 suggests that we refer to the 'status and importance' of the processes when planning audits and also consider 'results of previous audits'.

I would not think that you should stop the audits but you may wish to re-schedule them so that you can put more effort into clearing the existing problems.

A question I would ask as your auditor would be 'what method do you have for escalating non-cleared NC's to a higher level'?

You will have a major nonconformity if you stop your audits since it is the area every 3rd party TS Auditor will review on each visit. Do not stop them.

The previous audits are still open and it looks like the corrective action from the respective managers is not going to be completed unless top management is more insistent. I would suggest that you stress to top management of this situation but be careful. Push too hard and it could be said that you have an attitude. Your company will have a major or minor nonconformity from the 3rd party TS Auditor if they are not completed. Hopefully, you are successful with top management.

Do not jump in a do the respective manager's job by attempting to perform their corrective action. It doesn't work and we in the Quality field have finally realized this.

Your 3rd party TS Auditor will motivate top management for the internal audit corrective action so be prepared.

Thank you all for your reactions,
I realize I can not stop the program, I also did not mean completely stop but postpone audits/ reschedule them as Colpart suggested. (no internal audits anymore in 2007, start again in 2008)

David, I guessed that a (major) nonconformity would be the worse thing that could happen. And you are right we should not perform the corrective actions of other managers.
Fact is that for some time now we get (minor) nonconformities for not completing corrective (and other) actions in time. Responsibility lies with (top)management , I know. If this still is the case next surveillance audit it will post probably be again an NC.
It is just sometimes so frustrating, I understand what you mean not too push too hard. I regularly get the comment I want too much and I want things to happen ‘immediately”. Immediately meaning within a specific mutually agreed time frame.
Informing top management about the situation has been done. Action taken on this is a meeting with top management, corrective action holder and me. Some open items are discussed and new target date is set at which this has to be solved. Sometimes with success, sometimes this item is then discussed again the next meeting.

So, I will reconsider what to do, re-scheduling the audits and assist in solving problems, or keep on auditing as usual. I really don’t know yet.

Myriam

Thank you all for your reactions,
I realize I can not stop the program, I also did not mean completely stop but postpone audits/ reschedule them as Colpart suggested. (no internal audits anymore in 2007, start again in 2008)

David, I guessed that a (major) nonconformity would be the worse thing that could happen. And you are right we should not perform the corrective actions of other managers.
Fact is that for some time now we get (minor) nonconformities for not completing corrective (and other) actions in time. Responsibility lies with (top)management , I know. If this still is the case next surveillance audit it will post probably be again an NC.
It is just sometimes so frustrating, I understand what you mean not too push too hard. I regularly get the comment I want too much and I want things to happen ‘immediately”. Immediately meaning within a specific mutually agreed time frame.
Informing top management about the situation has been done. Action taken on this is a meeting with top management, corrective action holder and me. Some open items are discussed and new target date is set at which this has to be solved. Sometimes with success, sometimes this item is then discussed again the next meeting.

So, I will reconsider what to do, re-scheduling the audits and assist in solving problems, or keep on auditing as usual. I really don’t know yet.

Myriam

I hope that you are process auditing and not element auditing. Again, that would be a major nonconformance so audits do not have to be on a schedule but could happen when you are hit with a customer complaint or high scrap/rework situations but all processes should be performed in a calendar year.

I would suggest that you maintain your audits but in areas where there is an ongoing unresolved corrective action, note it in the new audit that it has not been resolved and the dates of the previous audits where it had been reported.

You represent the company from a quality perspective but you are not responsible for quality!!

Good Luck!

Yes you can stop the audit program anytime you wish, and at the same time get your certificate and send it back to your certification body, plan for a large drop in revenue and maybe look forward to the busness shutting down.

I absolutely support your decision.:applause:

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

Keep auditing with a smile on your face, feed management to the wolves when your next surveillance audit happens but cover your butt with documentation - um I mean, partner with your registrar and use them for leverage to get management support in closing the open corrective actions, but just make sure your prior efforts to address the older findings are well documented. ;)

Now that I got the BS out of my system I'll try to be more respectful of your problem.

The problem doesn't exist in the audit program, it rests with your management. Continue with the audits and at the top of your to do list issue a major non-conformance against the CA process and then issue a major against 4.1 because your system has not been maintained. Your evidence for the 4.1 major would be the major against CA's and the other existing NC's and the failure to meet committments in your policy.

You guys will lose your TS cert if action isn't taken.

Sigh.

I agree you can not stop your audits. You can delay them, however, if your program allows for that. But beware of the audits piling up when their rescheduled time comes.

The managers of non-responders should be told about what has been happening; your position would be strengthened if you kept records of when you asked whom for what. I hope you have this specific information to elevate this problem.

A number of causes could be at hand, such as:

1. The recipients do not understand the process.
2. The recipients do not agree with the audit findings.
3. The recipients do not understand what is the appropriate response to the CARs.
4. The recipients are used to hand holding and want you to make it easy for them.
5. The recipients are not being held responsible to perform this support of the QMS. That is, it is not a part of their work performance evaluations.
6. There is such a strong focus on production and firefighting that people are strung out.
7. Top management has not voiced support for the process.

Before taking this up to higher management, it might be a good idea to make sure that #1,2 and/or #3 is not the case. Send only to management those issues that need their intervention.

I do not see why this can't be done while keeping the audits going.

Hi,
I would like to have your opinion about the following. First let me explain briefly the situation.

Since 2006 our company has a TS16949 certificate. I am amongst other things responsible for the internal audits. At this moment we still have some open audits from 2006 (and also 2007), meaning no reaction from departments on the auditfindings, or the agreed countermeasure has not been performed. There are various reasons for this, and this is not limited to audit findings but also other matters are far behind in schedule.

At this moment I would like to stop the internal audit program, because obviously audit findings will be similar to the previous ones or will result in new action points, which due to (whatever) will not be solved.
So, in stead of internal auditing I would like to spend time on assisting others to close the open items, implement improvements, close corrective actions…..
Management does not agree, they want the internal audits to be performed because of the TS-certificate. But as far as I can see, the open audits, not followed/ implemented corrective actions etc is far more serious than a (possible) nonconformity next TS-surveillance audit for not performing the internal audits according to plan.

What do you think, can I stop the internal auditing program for this year?

Myriam

At our last Surveillance Audit, I received a minor non-conformity for not complying to our set Internal Audit schedule and not finishing off all of the Internal audits for the year. Even with the circumstances why the Audits where not finished ( Top management change and President of Company was in a serious accident, so everyone wore a lot of different hats to keep the Company running, therefore not enough time to get them done) the CB Auditor still wanted to see the Audit schedule followed.
Even with your Non-conformities open from the last internal audit I would continue with the internal audit. Your Auditors will surely have a non-conformity under " Corrective actions" as " corrective action not implemented and closed in a timely matter". This way you still show the CB that you are doing your job as a Auditor , and if you do receive a minor in that area from him, it is up to Top management to finally do something, otherwise it is bye-bye certification.

All good advice, so far Myriam.

I'd also look long and hard at the findings of the audit. It's often too easy to blame the others for not responding to an audit finding and with internal audits there's no harm to them (you're not going to have a fit and take down the ISO certificate, are you!)

It's been my experience that in too many cases, the audit findings didn't relate strongly to any issue that management cared much about. Sure it may be 'technically' a finding against the standard, but they won't understand that, necessarily. If that's the case with the one finding, you could withdraw it. If it is a real issue, audit it again and make the finding pertinent to a business issue, not just ISO.

Otherwise, any audit findings like this are subject to reporting to management review, so what happened there to resolve the issue, or is management review treated like the corrective actions..........??

All good advice, so far Myriam.

I'd also look long and hard at the findings of the audit. It's often too easy to blame the others for not responding to an audit finding and with internal audits there's no harm to them (you're not going to have a fit and take down the ISO certificate, are you!)

It's been my experience that in too many cases, the audit findings didn't relate strongly to any issue that management cared much about. Sure it may be 'technically' a finding against the standard, but they won't understand that, necessarily. If that's the case with the one finding, you could withdraw it. If it is a real issue, audit it again and make the finding pertinent to a business issue, not just ISO.

Otherwise, any audit findings like this are subject to reporting to management review, so what happened there to resolve the issue, or is management review treated like the corrective actions..........??

Good question Andy, unless Management turns their heads the other way when this subject comes up and no action is taken, how can someone expect the Dept. heads to follow suit and get it done.

I agree with the advice above stopping internal audits is a very bad idea and is more likely to make things worse rather than result in an improvement in your situation.

I would take the findings from the previous audit, review them to see if they still stand, any quick fixes you can do then do them, and report all this activity in the new audit report - the first step in any internal audit should be to review previous findings, if they all still stand re-state them and dont do any more actual auditing, but report this in the audit report.

Easy

I would take the findings from the previous audit, review them to see if they still stand, any quick fixes you can do then do them, and report all this activity in the new audit report - the first step in any internal audit should be to review previous findings, if they all still stand re-state them and dont do any more actual auditing, but report this in the audit report.

Easy:applause: This is getting to the heart of the matter: the audit/CA process effectiveness.

1. Make an audit for Corrective Action, and list these issues in your sample of audits.
2. Do a little research to see if there is a problem with awareness or buyin to the audit findings, such as I listed in an earlier post.
3. When you determine the findings should remain, present them as nonconformances to the next higher step in management. I would first visit with them and explain what all of this means.
4. Treat this as a corrective action in its own right.

When the registrar comes, this serves as the system's noticing a problem and responding to it. That might help you keep your certificate. Of course the audit schedule must still be followed, or you will have a Major as a recurring problem.

I don't know if you have any flexibility for scheduling written into your audit process spec, but it would help in cases such as the accident mentioned earlier.

This is getting to the heart of the matter: the audit/CA process effectiveness.I offer a slightly different view. The heart of the matter seems to be the fact that top management is not carefully evaluating the status of corrective and preventive actions, as required in the management review activities. It could be because this organization might have annual management reviews and the issue has not been discussed yet.

Provided the internal audits were effective in uncovering significant issues, the delinquency of responses should have been brought to top management's attention, who would have a chance to show if they are serious and committed, or not.

I offer a slightly different view. The heart of the matter seems to be the fact that top management is not carefully evaluating the status of corrective and preventive actions, as required in the management review activities. It could be because this organization might have annual management reviews and the issue has not been discussed yet.

Provided the internal audits were effective in uncovering significant issues, the delinquency of responses should have been brought to top management's attention, who would have a chance to show if they are serious and committed, or not.Well stated and insightful, as always. :applause:

Well stated and insightful, as always. :applause:

I would have just guess that committment isn't what it really should be.

That's why I have such a low Karma I guess:(

I would have just guess that committment isn't what it really should be.

That's why I have such a low Karma I guess:(And you would have guessed right. In any case I guessed it right away. But articulating the specific nature of it is more useful than a guess. I make the guess so often it's started to feel like a nervous tic.

I think we also have to get our heads out of the sand with internal audit findings.

You will report these to process owners/department managers, who will have a shed load of other issues coming at them daily, many/most of which no doubt are more important than the internal audit findings, however all of which are related to 'quality' - so on a daily basis they are responding to quality issues. Hopefully also they will manage their areas with a view to improving things, and be actively working on some improvement projects - these may well not be procedural improvements, they may be re-aligning a manufacturing process, installing some new equipment, re-vamping a training programme, etc, etc, etc - IF they are doing something like this why burden them further with internal audit findings ? Your internal audit should first look to see how they identify issues, what improvements they are doing, do the improvements relate to the issues, do the improvements relate to overall objectives - if there is something in place I think you should go no further with your audit !

If of course on the other hand they are doing nothing, then not only should you report this but probably the offending manager should be sacked !

Hows that for an internal audit approach ?

(slightly tongue in cheek by the way)

Indeed, M Greenaway, well put...........

The audits should be scheduled around the 'shed load' of issues to help management, so that when the audits are complete, they will see what is at the heart of the extra work on their plates.......that will make their support of corrective actions easy(er) to garner.