Hi.
Can somebody help me and advise where can I find the update to the ISO/TS rules or IATF communique that says :

" The registrar XYZXYZXYZ has received the information on a new rule that affects ISO 9001:2000 / ISO/TS 16949:2002 clients.

The new rule states that extra time is required for ISO/TS 16949 to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of corrective actions raised and closed at the last audit. This extra time will be added to the next regular audit. The extra time will be calculated based on the number and type (particular importance and impact) of non-conformities, the lead auditor will determine how much extra time will be required for the next regular audit (e. g. 0, 5 hours per non-conformity). "

I received this from my registrar and my next assessment audit is to be extended but I can not find where and when was it published and what is the exact criteria.

Thank you in advance.

Hi.
Can somebody help me and advise where can I find the update to the ISO/TS rules or IATF communique that says :

" The registrar XYZXYZXYZ has received the information on a new rule that affects ISO 9001:2000 / ISO/TS 16949:2002 clients.

The new rule states that extra time is required for ISO/TS 16949 to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of corrective actions raised and closed at the last audit. This extra time will be added to the next regular audit. The extra time will be calculated based on the number and type (particular importance and impact) of non-conformities, the lead auditor will determine how much extra time will be required for the next regular audit (e. g. 0, 5 hours per non-conformity). "

I received this from my registrar and my next assessment audit is to be extended but I can not find where and when was it published and what is the exact criteria.

Thank you in advance.

It is probably in one of the following standards, in my opinion:

ISO 17021
ISO 19011

My guess would be ISO 17021. But I could be wrong. TS is not my specialty.

It would be in the Rules published by the applicable accreditation body for the Registrar.

Just look on your certificate to see who the AB is and then check the rules they publish on their website. No great secret here and nobody is trying to cheat you.

If you don't think it's correct for this to be done then you can tell your Registrar no, and they can remove your certification.

Every bit of this is in your contract with your Registrar.

I received this from my registrar and my next assessment audit is to be extended but I can not find where and when was it published and what is the exact criteria.

Thank you in advance.Typically, such directives are available at http://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/content.aspx?page=Rules%202nd%20Edition%20Sanctioned%20Interpretations%20and%20FAQs Keep in mind that, the information posted at this site might be slightly outdated.

Because the IATF Automotive Scheme bypasses the Accreditation Bodies, I don´t believe such directive is associated with any AB requirement.

Hi all.
Thanks for the general answers. Didn't help much, unfortunately. I thought, maybe someone did experience similar situation.
Simply it is irritating when I have to explain to my MD why audit man-days are increasing (from 2.5 to 3.5 for 1 year) before every audit without us increasing the personnel numbers.
But I guess - it's like a cop vs.driver .... there is always something wrong , so better shut up , pay and keep you certificate..... ( as per the advise above)
Regards.

" The registrar XYZXYZXYZ has received the information on a new rule that affects ISO 9001:2000 / ISO/TS 16949:2002 clients.

The new rule states that extra time is required for ISO/TS 16949 to verify the effectiveness and efficiency of corrective actions raised and closed at the last audit. This extra time will be added to the next regular audit. The extra time will be calculated based on the number and type (particular importance and impact) of non-conformities, the lead auditor will determine how much extra time will be required for the next regular audit (e. g. 0, 5 hours per non-conformity). "


Sounds like garbage (trash :D) to me. Another reason for making people defensive about their systems in the face of an audit. Guaranteed to make the arguments over NCRs interesting at the closing meeting. :bonk:

FWIW we have two states.
System generally complies - carry on with existing audit duration
Major nonconformity exists - additional visit required to determine whether certification can continue

Hi all.
Thanks for the general answers. Didn't help much, unfortunately. I thought, maybe someone did experience similar situation.
Simply it is irritating when I have to explain to my MD why audit man-days are increasing (from 2.5 to 3.5 for 1 year) before every audit without us increasing the personnel numbers.
But I guess - it's like a cop vs.driver .... there is always something wrong , so better shut up , pay and keep you certificate..... ( as per the advise above)
Regards.

Look at it this way: There were nonconfomances found that have to be verified on-site which would be outside the normal surveillance audit. Therefore, more time is needed.

If this was an AS9100 audit (initial), and there were NC's found that couldn't be verified by submitting documents to the Registrar, they must come back (special visit) to verify implementation of the Corrective Action. This is from a personal (experienced) point of view.

The TS 16949 scheme rules (in my copy page 26 point 3) require time spent reviewing corrective actions from previous audits to be in addition to the specified audit days.

How much time is added is up to the CB and adding a full day seems excessive. Unless you had big problems last time ask for justification. Typically my auditor takes no more than 30 minutes to close out a couple of minor issues.

Hi.
Thanks for the constructive response. I found the corresponding point in "the rules" too.
So now - it is between me and the CB. (It is a second advancement assessment ... and I do not have any major NC-s but 4 "minors" ... which after rounding should come to 0.5 m/days ( unless we spend 2 hours discussing each :D).
Thank you one more time .

Thanks to tyker for correcting me! I forgot this thread was in the TS area. He is right the automotive industry writes its own rules!

I still think it is garbage though!:lol:

Thanks to tyker for correcting me! I forgot this thread was in the TS area. He is right the automotive industry writes its own rules!

I still think it is garbage though!:lol:

Paul,

With all due respect:

The IATF has worked hard to create a "world-wide" constant approach in ISO/TS 16949:2002 certification audits and auditor training. They have the whole certification process documented in what we know as "The Rules." Something that was greatly missing during the QS-9000 era where gross inconsistencies were rampant. As a result, the automotive customers did not get what they were looking for. The IATF decided to take the certification process into their own hands.

Yes, it may be tough..but so far it has worked.

Stijloor.

With all due respect:Whenever I hear / read that at the start I know the boot is coming. :lmao:

The IATF has worked hard to create a "world-wide" constant approach in ISO/TS 16949:2002 certification audits and auditor training. They have the whole certification process documented in what we know as "The Rules." We agree so far - there are a lot of rules. :)
Something that was greatly missing during the QS-9000 era where gross inconsistencies were rampant. Again, with respect, :D there were a lot of rules in the "bad old" days of QS. I used to quote / audit / train auditors in accordance with the rules. Like all things there are people who work to the rules and people who do not. As an individual (and the CB I worked for at the time) I / we believed in working to the rules - even the stupid ones. :tg:
As a result, the automotive customers did not get what they were looking for. The IATF decided to take the certification process into their own hands.

Yes, it may be tough..but so far it has worked.

Stijloor.In this letter to Quality World magazine (http://www.xbs.org.uk/read_article.php?artid=17) I question whether it has worked (to read the article you have to register but some points are reproduced below).

The automotive industry is not practising what it preaches to its supply base of establishing and eliminating root cause. I believe that third party certification is used to paper over cracks where original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are not communicating effectively with suppliers on product requirements and production control systems.

The move to TS 16949 represents an opportunity lost for the automotive industry. Unless it understands what it expects from the certification process and what it needs to do (jointly with industry, accreditation, certification bodies and suppliers) then TS 16949 certification will continue to underperform in its eyes.

I have plenty of examples of where CBs are seen to obey the letter of the rules without meeting the spirit of requirements and the oversight by the "industry body" would never know because the nice neat reports showed it is OK.

I'll just leave you with one little teaser. One largish organization passed their TS surveillance audit in the time it took a friend of mine to get a coffee from the machine! :mg:

I'll just leave you with one little teaser. One largish organization passed their TS surveillance audit in the time it took a friend of mine to get a coffee from the machine! :mg:

At the risk of straying widely :topic: this is clearly unbelievable news.
You have a friend? :notme:


Back, however, to Domoreto's concern.
Everybody should remember that CBs, despite their protestations to the contrary, have no divine right to bully their customers. Any organization which believes it is being treated unfairly by a CB should challenge, protest, scream and do whatever it takes to bring them to their senses.

A 40% increase in surveillance time to clear 4 minors is outrageous and, if Domoreto succeeds in getting this overturned, and the CB applies proper corrective action to the root cause of their failing, other organizations may be spared this iniquity.

Whenever I hear / read that at the start I know the boot is coming. :lmao:

We agree so far - there are a lot of rules. :)
Again, with respect, :D there were a lot of rules in the "bad old" days of QS. I used to quote / audit / train auditors in accordance with the rules. Like all things there are people who work to the rules and people who do not. As an individual (and the CB I worked for at the time) I / we believed in working to the rules - even the stupid ones. :tg:
In this letter to Quality World magazine (http://www.xbs.org.uk/read_article.php?artid=17) I question whether it has worked (to read the article you have to register but some points are reproduced below).

I have plenty of examples of where CBs are seen to obey the letter of the rules without meeting the spirit of requirements and the oversight by the "industry body" would never know because the nice neat reports showed it is OK.

I'll just leave you with one little teaser. One largish organization passed their TS surveillance audit in the time it took a friend of mine to get a coffee from the machine! :mg:

Paul,

Thank you for your response and excellent points.:yes:

You and I have different ISO/TS experiences and viewpoints. That's great.

I admit that ISO/TS (its requirements, implementation and audits) is not perfect. No QMS standard is. Each of us can come up with examples why it works and why it does not work. I can only go by what I have personally experienced.

Compared to QS-9000, I believe strongly that ISO/TS and "The Rules" have created a (greatly improved) level playing field.

I work hard with my Clients to make it work for them. That's all I can do, and will continue to do so.

Stijloor.

I have never added more than an hour to a TS audit to close prior (minor) nonconformities. Adding a half day or more would be excessive in my opinion.

Talk about coincidences!

At the end of last week, the external auditor for one of our associate plants overseas gave us the audit plan which included an arbitrary increase in the surveillance visit duration of 50% (2 days to 3 days) to review corrective action from the previous visit. The plan arrived only 2 working days before the planned start of the audit and he expected our management to change their schedules to accommodate it.

In my opinion, none of the nonconformities raised previously require any special action on the part of the auditor. Everything can be covered as part of his normal audit activity.

So, a quick telephone call to the guy who heads up TS operations at the CB and, suddenly, we're back to 2 days.

Hi again.
It seems interesting discussion took place here....
Thanks for all the advise and support . I'm on the phone with the registrar and despite them being surprised from my disobedience, I think we are talking...
Concerning " The Rules" of TS16949 - yes, they did bring some structure but at the same time if you supply more than one OEM - you still need to obey and follow all the "specific customer requirements" ...which is ..... a back to the chaos move anyway ...
Personal opinion. :cool:

Hi again.
It seems interesting discussion took place here....
Thanks for all the advise and support . I'm on the phone with the registrar and despite them being surprised from my disobedience, I think we are talking...
Concerning " The Rules" of TS16949 - yes, they did bring some structure but at the same time if you supply more than one OEM - you still need to obey and follow all the "specific customer requirements" ...which is ..... a back to the chaos move anyway ...
Personal opinion. :cool:

My last auditor did both, Customer specific and TS16949. And most of our NC's are Customer specific driven.

I have been audited to ISO - QS - TS - AS at various times and the only instance where our CB had to add additional time to our audit schedule was because of a major non-conformance finding. The CB auditor came back to our facility to do an on-site audit to verify the corrective actions taken to resolve the major nc. Not knowing your situation I can't say for certain but if there were no major issues involved it would be hard to believe that another day would be required to review any non-conformance from your last audit schedule.

tlonkey

You as the customer are entitled to request to see the actual reference to the rule and the proper wording.

But new rules are to be published next month (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=28735).

Let's see what they say.

Why the rules are made to create unease for people. Why rules are not made to bring ease?

Why the rules are made to create unease for people. Why rules are not made to bring ease?

Why do you say this?
In this instance we do not know if there is a rule or it is a fiction of the imagination of "The registrar XYZXYZXYZ ".

Any one can cause upset by rumours, allways ask for the authority for the rule.
Just like in an audit you want to know the clause, in rules you want to see the document.

Why do you say this?
In this instance we do not know if there is a rule or it is a fiction of the imagination of "The registrar XYZXYZXYZ ".

Any one can cause upset by rumours, allways ask for the authority for the rule.
Just like in an audit you want to know the clause, in rules you want to see the document.

Hi .
No, this isn't a imagination - the lines are actually copied and pasted form the e-mail received form the registrar (which to me sounded like an.... "Extremely Dangerous Virus" chain letter...)
... and I do not (and do not want to) start any rumours.

I just asked if some colleague had a knowledge of additions or changes that I've missed or someone who's been in a similar situation. Thanks to the guys and gals who did answer and gave examples.:thanks:

Apparently the math is as follows: 2.65 (what it should be according to the schedule) is rounded to 3.0 ( can be rounded only "UP" ) and than another 0.5 m/day is added because of the (minor) NC-s. ( also rounded "UP" ) - which comes to 3.5 days.

Why not utilise the 0.35 M/d ?????

To much rounding. Sorry but that is my opinion.

There's no reason to be adding a half day for a few minor nonconformities (it is just a few isn't it?). I've done audits witnessed by the IAOB where I added a half hour to an hour to close the nonconformities and they had no problems at all. :confused:

Hi .
No, this isn't a imagination - the lines are actually copied and pasted form the e-mail received form the registrar (which to me sounded like an.... "Extremely Dangerous Virus" chain letter...)
... and I do not (and do not want to) start any rumours.

I just asked if some colleague had a knowledge of additions or changes that I've missed or someone who's been in a similar situation. Thanks to the guys and gals who did answer and gave examples.:thanks:

Apparently the math is as follows: 2.65 (what it should be according to the schedule) is rounded to 3.0 ( can be rounded only "UP" ) and than another 0.5 m/day is added because of the (minor) NC-s. ( also rounded "UP" ) - which comes to 3.5 days.

Why not utilise the 0.35 M/d ?????

To much rounding. Sorry but that is my opinion.

I did not mean to bit at you but rather the previous poster, I appreciate that you posted as you saw it. I apologise if I caused you any upset.

Have you got any reference for the rule?