Hello, we have a third party certification body that is giving us the service of the TS16949 audits, surveillance & certification audits. trying to find a cost saving ideas, it is possible to cover surveillance audits with Lead auditors from our organization and use third party certification body services just in certification or recertification audits?
thanks.

Hello, we have a third party certification body that is giving us the service of the TS16949 audits, surveillance & certification audits. trying to find a cost saving ideas, it is possible to cover surveillance audits with Lead auditors from our organization and use third party certification body services just in certification or recertification audits?
thanks.

Not if you want to maintain an accredited TS certification! It wouldn't be 'independent' with your own leads, would it? The IATF/IAOB would throw a fit!

Why are you looking to reduce costs like this? Aren't you getting much value from your CB's visits? A proactive, progressive and customer focused CB looks past simple compliance and will look at your system to find cost savings worth much more than the costs of those visits!

BTW - welcome to the Cove!

Not if you want to maintain an accredited TS certification! Not to mince words, but I believe the proper term is recognized. Remember, the TS certification process exists outside of the IAF accreditation process. A proactive, progressive and customer focused CB looks past simple compliance and will look at your system to find cost savings worth much more than the costs of those visits!Be careful. The IATF is concerned about CB auditors not crossing the consulting line. While CB auditors might be able to identify opportunities for improvement, this is being done very carefully, these days.

BTW - welcome to the Cove!


thanks Andy, and of course that I want to maintain our certification, and the proposal is just surveillance audits not certification/recertification audits, CB's audits are more now a requirement to receive a check for the "service".

thanks Andy, and of course that I want to maintain our certification, and the proposal is just surveillance audits not certification/recertification audits, As Andy said, if you want to maintain your certification, it is MANDATORY that the CB auditors perform surveillance audits at intervals no longer than 12 months apart. There is no cost savings possibility there. Actually, the IATF requires that one of the auditors involved with the certification audit is involved with the surveillance audits.

Not to mince words, but I believe the proper term is recognized. Remember, the TS certification process exists outside of the IAF accreditation process. Be careful. The IATF is concerned about CB auditors not crossing the consulting line. While CB auditors might be able to identify opportunities for improvement, this is being done very carefully, these days.

True, Sidney - the overall effect is the same, tho'

Also, yes, I read you 5 x 5 - wouldn't an OFI result in cost savings........?:notme:

thanks Andy, and of course that I want to maintain our certification, and the proposal is just surveillance audits not certification/recertification audits, CB's audits are more now a requirement to receive a check for the "service".

I understand the concept - it just won't fly for any part of the process! It it would, somebody (creative) would have done it by now, of course.........;)

I used this about 12 years ago to beginning the ISO process. We used external audits from another company who were ISO trained and certified lead auditors. This was done for the final audit of our QMS prior to registration and not to maintain registration. So if you could find certified TS for TS standard or an AEA for AS that is out of work or would do it as a shared resource. They do yours you do theirs, would the fact that if they are IAQG registered in OASIS for AS (not sure what the TS equivalent to OASIS is) would that work? Just a thought, maybe we could put someone back to work.

I used this about 12 years ago to beginning the ISO process. We used external audits from another company who were ISO trained and certified lead auditors. This was done for the final audit of our QMS prior to registration and not to maintain registration. So if you could find certified TS for TS standard or an AEA for AS that is out of work or would do it as a shared resource. They do yours you do theirs, would the fact that if they are IAQG registered in OASIS for AS (not sure what the TS equivalent to OASIS is) would that work? Just a thought, maybe we could put someone back to work.

With respect, Bob - that's not what the OP is asking - from what they've posted they are looking to reduce costs by doing the CB surveillance audits themselves! Nice idea, but improbable......I can't see a credible/accredited CB putting their name to a certificate when the audits are done by the customer who holds the certificate, can you?

And, as Sidney points out, the IATF/IAOB would have a hernia!

With respect, Bob - that's not what the OP is asking - from what they've posted they are looking to reduce costs by doing the CB surveillance audits themselves! Nice idea, but improbable......I can't see a credible/accredited CB putting their name to a certificate when the audits are done by the customer who holds the certificate, can you?

And, as Sidney points out, the IATF/IAOB would have a hernia!

I agree! :agree1: That scenario would undermine the already shaky trust that some customers have in the 3rd party audit system.

Stijloor.

Fair enough, but I was approaching the question (cost reduction) from another point. So I might have been :topic:

Thanks folks.

... it is possible to cover surveillance audits with Lead auditors from our organization ... Nope - those are called internal audits.:D:tg:

Nope - those are called internal audits.:agree1:. Exactly. And we all know how superficial and ineffective most (not all) internal audits are performed, around the World.

At the risk of hijacking the thread - sadly Sidney I have to agree about the state of many IA programmes. I can't remember the last time I saw a really effective internal audit programme during the audits I have been conducting.

They comply - sometimes only just - so I have been unable to raise an NC but I certainly give them a strong reminder that I expect to see some improvement next time :mad:

They comply - sometimes only just - so I have been unable to raise an NC but I certainly give them a strong reminder that I expect to see some improvement next time :mad:Colin, I believe that the CB community is part of the problem. We fail to enforce the expectation that internal audit, as a process, also needs to demonstrate effectiveness. ISO 9001:2008 8.2.2 b) requires internal audits to determine if the QMS is effectively implemented and maintained. The conformance/compliance piece is covered under 8.2.2. a).

An organization that has CHRONIC poor customer satisfaction indicators, atrocious process yields, continual late deliveries, excessive product return and customer rejects, obviously can not have an effective QMS. If the internal audit results don't show the system breakdowns, the internal audit process can be concluded, imo, as an ineffective process, violating 4.1.c) and 8.2.3 of ISO 9001.

But very few auditors make the correlation and write it up as non-conformity against ineffective internal audit process. I am not singling out anyone. This is a collective failure, once again, in my opinion.

Guilty as charged I am afraid Sidney. I do make the correlation you mention but so many small companies just don't allocate the necessary time and/or resources to the audits and where they use a consultant to audit for them, it is often not much better.

It takes a lot of water dripping on stone to get the message across.:nopity:

Colin, I believe that the CB community is part of the problem. We fail to enforce the expectation that internal audit, as a process, also needs to demonstrate effectiveness. ISO 9001:2008 8.2.2 b) requires internal audits to determine if the QMS is effectively implemented and maintained. The conformance/compliance piece is covered under 8.2.2. a).

An organization that has CHRONIC poor customer satisfaction indicators, atrocious process yields, continual late deliveries, excessive product return and customer rejects, obviously can not have an effective QMS. If the internal audit results don't show the system breakdowns, the internal audit process can be concluded, imo, as an ineffective process, violating 4.1.c) and 8.2.3 of ISO 9001.

But very few auditors make the correlation and write it up as non-conformity against ineffective internal audit process. I am not singling out anyone. This is a collective failure, once again, in my opinion.

I'll wade in here since I have long had the belief that the auditor training/provider requirements (ala RABQSA etc) do not drive much more than simple compliance and it's been that way for over 20 years! Even the much vaunted Australian led competency training requirements don't really address auditing effectiveness.

To quote a favorite British band........."The Song Remains the Same"

<snip>
To quote a favorite British band........."The Song Remains the Same"

:topic:

Led Zeppelin?

Stijloor.

thanks Andy, and of course that I want to maintain our certification, and the proposal is just surveillance audits not certification/recertification audits, CB's audits are more now a requirement to receive a check for the "service".Have a look at this IATF communique': Surveillance Audit Requirement (http://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/docs/IATF%20Certification%20Body%20Communique%202009-003%20-%20Certification%20with%20out%20surveillance%20audits.pdf)

Hi, thanks for the information .

My question was more related if will be possible to do the surveillance audits with our resources ( internal lead certified auditors), not exactly to eliminate them and apart of our regular internal audits but thanks again for the information.

We did some research in the IATF rules, then we confirm it will not be possible.

see you. ;)

I'll wade in here since I have long had the belief that the auditor training/provider requirements (ala RABQSA etc) do not drive much more than simple compliance and it's been that way for over 20 years! Even the much vaunted Australian led competency training requirements don't really address auditing effectiveness.

To quote a favorite British band........."The Song Remains the Same"

I agree with Sidney, and AndyN's comment. (warning: semi-plug will follow)... some of us have developed internal auditing training programs designed to teach auditors how to audit for effectiveness and improvement, not compliance only. And, my "students" have had very positive results.

I encourage all trainers to pursue that approach.

I agree with Sidney, andAndyN's comment. (warning: semi-plug will follow)... some of us have developed internal auditing training programs designed to teach auditors how to audit for effectiveness and improvement, not compliance only. And, my 'students" have had very positive results.

I encourage all trainers to pursue that approach.

I agree! :agree:

Helmut, I've been doing so for more than 20 years!
And my students are very receptive to this approach.

Stijloor.