Hello everyone!

Our facility recently had a customer audit. One of the findings was for not including such as “…all personnel performing work against this order shall be qualified based on skills or experience.”

The standard mentions that this be included in purchasing information “where appropriate.” (7.4.2)

Who decides when it is appropriate and what criteria would you use?

Thanks!

:bonk:

Hello everyone!

Our facility recently had a customer audit. One of the findings was for not including such as “…all personnel performing work against this order shall be qualified based on skills or experience.”

The standard mentions that this be included in purchasing information “where appropriate.” (7.4.2)

Who decides when it is appropriate and what criteria would you use?

Thanks!

:bonk:
You've answered the question. You did! :) ...and then your customer decided that wasn't sufficient ... so they did! :D

But seriously. The idea is that there are instances when you need to use people with relevant qualifications ... an classic case is for coded welders in structural steel. In this case you want to make it clear to your supplier that they can't just bring people in off the street to work on your shuttle launch vehicle (for example). You may be able to go back to your customer and discuss the 'is it appropriate?' question.

:applause:
Good answer Paul!

So it’s as I thought, it is up to us to determine what is appropriate.

We are a Heat Treating company so we do not have a large “suppliers” list.

I believe that the auditor was looking at calibration services. We have been using the same service for years without trouble so I do not see where this should be required unless we have an issue in the future.

Thanks for the input!

:D

So it’s as I thought, it is up to us to determine what is appropriate.

We are a Heat Treating company so we do not have a large “suppliers” list.

I believe that the auditor was looking at calibration services. We have been using the same service for years without trouble so I do not see where this should be required unless we have an issue in the future.

Thanks for the input!

:D

In my opinion:

It is not that you haven't had any problems for years with your Supplier, it really is a matter of did your supplier make any changes to personnel that may affect the product shipped to your customer.

The other possibility is that your customer wants you to flow that down in your purchase orders.

But basically, it is up to you to determine where appropriate is, unless your Customer wants something different. They are your customer.

Please remember that a customer audit is not at the same level of impartiality as that of a CB.
The customer can require what he wants and does not have to justify it from the standard.
You should discuss this with the auditor and come to an agreement

So it’s as I thought, it is up to us to determine what is appropriate.

Yes, just so.

In and of itself, it doesn't sound like much of a finding, and isn't a nonconformity on the info presented. (In fact, it could indicate that their auditor may not be as knowledgeable about 9001 as they should be.)

But if they want it to be written into the purchase documentation for their peace of mind, or for any other reason, then it becomes a customer requirement, and then that changes things. In that case, you would have to do it (or not accept the order).

Please remember that a customer audit is not at the same level of impartiality as that of a CB.
The customer can require what he wants and does not have to justify it from the standard.
You should discuss this with the auditor and come to an agreement

Howard, I fully agree with you that the customer can define their requirements and doesn't have to justify it from the Standard.

But I wouldn't be discussing this with their auditor - I'd be doing it via whatever roles & structure is in place to make or vary commercial agreements, eg, Sales Manager, Business Manager etc.

I think this was an awkward way for your customer to indicate they wanted more. Now that they have broached the topic, ask them for a fuller explanation of what they want or expect.

As far as audit nonconformances go, this doesn't look like a very good one, but pay attention to what your customer really wants.

But I wouldn't be discussing this with their auditor - I'd be doing it via whatever roles & structure is in place to make or vary commercial agreements, eg, Sales Manager, Business Manager etc.You are right. And it's going to be the second round! :argue:

We think rarely about an improvement action solving the customer requirement missing. It could be a good approach if you deal with an aware customer, usually the big ones appreciate this behavior. It makes the difference in a tendering process usually.

A sample?

ok, well we keep our first commercial agreement and I engage to provide a training for the controller in charge of your products. both will win in a constructive relationship! :agree:

I agree, this is a contractually issue. I got the feeling that they were performing an old style QS/ISO audit. They were really working hard on their checklist!

If the customer wants this to be in our PO’s to our suppliers then that is OK, but they wrote it against ISO section 7.4.2. The standard does not say that our customer makes the determination. The organization does this. If they had previously made the request then it would be a finding.

This would lead me to believe that this would be a customer requirement, and not a violation of 7.4.2. I believe that this should not have been a finding but a request from the customer to start adding this on our PO’s.
Am I thinking about this in the wrong way?


Thanks for the input. It really helps the thought process when I can put my thoughts on paper (electronic paper anyway).
:agree:

Jane and Howard - IMHO the absolutely correct responses!

It sounds to me the auditor is 'flexing their muscles', without the benefit of knowledge of this requirement and its application.

And the only place to address this is through the commercial channels - 'We can do this to please your auditor, but the part price will have to go up as a result'.......

Clearly discussing with/questioning this particular audit will gain no ground - if they wrote it, they won't see the error of their ways and, indeed, may become aggressive in defending themselves over the perceived 'attack' on their position....

I believe you are correct, but don't let your feeling of how this should have been written interfere with your relationship with your customer.

Another question…

If we are going to let the finding stand what would be my reply?

Root Cause: The customer did not tell us of this requirement…

This one may be a little hard to write.

Thanks!

:bonk:

Another question…

If we are going to let the finding stand what would be my reply?

Root Cause: The customer did not tell us of this requirement…

This one may be a little hard to write.

Thanks!

:bonk:

The infamous "Retrain the auditor"........:lmao:

I agree, this is a contractually issue. I got the feeling that they were performing an old style QS/ISO audit. They were really working hard on their checklist!

It certainly sounds like a problem with their auditor - but it also highlights the importance of being very clear with audits from anyone (and particularly a second party) about the:

scope
criteria
process
auditor qualifications/experience (if possible!)


There's good reason why 9001 specifies requirements for Audit. I've seen some tremendous damage and time-wasting being done with very ill-equipped second party auditors, no defined audit scope, no/unclear criteria & process, resulting in audit reports full of dubious findings and alleged nonconformities! (As this one for example).

If the customer wants this to be in our PO’s to our suppliers then that is OK, but they wrote it against ISO section 7.4.2. The standard does not say that our customer makes the determination. The organization does this. If they had previously made the request then it would be a finding.
This would lead me to believe that this would be a customer requirement, and not a violation of 7.4.2. .
I agree with you.

I believe that this should not have been a finding but a request from the customer to start adding this on our PO’s.
Yes, I agree with this also.

I think you are thinking about this the right way, definitely not the wrong way.

The trick, though, will be to respond politely (rather than defensively) - as you know, one can be 100% right, but still lose a battle with a customer. And presumably you want to keep the customer.

It sounds to me the auditor is 'flexing their muscles', without the benefit of knowledge of this requirement and its application....

Clearly discussing with/questioning this particular audit will gain no ground - if they wrote it, they won't see the error of their ways and, indeed, may become aggressive in defending themselves over the perceived 'attack' on their position....

Yes, I agree.

Another question…

If we are going to let the finding stand what would be my reply?
A tactful one!

I would keep focussed on the outcome you want - eg, solution - rather than who's wrong/right. That said, you can still (gently but tactfully) disagree with the finding, something along the lines of
"Our interpretation is as follows. ISO 9001 says XYX (quote the actual clause).

We believe we are meeting that requirement because of (eg, we ensure our staff are suitably qualified via doing this and that) and our company policy is therefore not to include it on purchase documents. However, if you wish this wording to be specifically included in future purchase documents, we would be willing to meet this new requirement, but will treat it as a specific customer requirement to be met. Our Contracts Manager will be in touch with your Purchasing Manager to discuss this. "

PS: also, treat it as a learning experience, and look at what you can do in future to clarify the points I listed above from any future 2nd party audits.

helo, I think that before this take a look on chap 6 of the standard 9001. If y have a Q System is obviously that yr staff must be trained and qualified if it affects the Quality of the product/sevice

This falls right in line with customer requirements....apparently neither specified or determined in this case (7.2.1) and it's no different than a customer saying put in place a certified QMS in order to be our supplier.

This falls right in line with customer requirements....apparently neither specified or determined in this case (7.2.1) and it's no different than a customer saying put in place a certified QMS in order to be our supplier.

I agree, but I put the responsibility on the customer for this one. The customer should inform us of their requirements for specific PO wording during the quoting process. If we ask and they do not tell us, we cannot be responsible. We make every effort to meet customer requirements, when known, but something that is not normally put on a PO would be very hard to foresee as a customer requirement.

Remember, we have very few suppliers on our listing since we are a service industry (Heat Treating). We do put on the PO our requirements for certification to a specific requirement that (if I am not mistaken) spells out the training qualifications.

I want to thank everyone for their input. It is very helpful!

:thanx::thanx:

I agree totally that a requirement to 'do something' has to be a contract change, and that normally involves a cost. So, the issue must be dealt with by those with the authority to negotiate the contract amendment.

Sorry to see that auditor arrogance is still rife in some parts of the world.