We were recommended for certification to TS-2 last month dependent upon closing a few nonconformances. Our registrar accepted the action plans and we have only to wait for our certificate to arrive. :thedeal:

Just wanted to take a minute and thank all the cove inhabitants, those that have answered the questions I have put forth, those that have answered others questions, and those that have asked the very questions I came to ask, but did so before I could. I haven't posted much but read a lot and most of questions are answered before I need to ask them.

So thank you all! :bigwave:

Now, to go prepare for 2005's TS-3. :bonk:

JUST KIDDING!! hehe

Congrats!

Now, you can use that experience to help the rest of us. :agree:

BTW, how far north is Northern Michigan?

I would try to answer any questions that anyone has about the experience. If anyone has any specific questions, feel free to ask and I will do my best to share our experience.

Just a note, the standard is like the bible. It's meaning is dependent upon the interpretation of the reader. (And no, am not trying to stir anyone up, just that it sure seems to be about the same thing.) Who is to say which interpretation is "correct?"

As far as how far north Northern Michigan is, well, am darn near the U.P. I live in Boyne City, an hour or so north of Traverse City, about 45 mins south of the Mack. Bridge. Beautiful country up here and yes, we make car parts ;)

I would try to answer any questions that anyone has about the experience. If anyone has any specific questions, feel free to ask and I will do my best to share our experience.

Just a note, the standard is like the bible. It's meaning is dependent upon the interpretation of the reader. (And no, am not trying to stir anyone up, just that it sure seems to be about the same thing.) Who is to say which interpretation is "correct?"

As far as how far north Northern Michigan is, well, am darn near the U.P. I live in Boyne City, an hour or so north of Traverse City, about 45 mins south of the Mack. Bridge. Beautiful country up here and yes, we make car parts ;)

Know just wherre that is. I've got family in East Jordan and TC. The wife is from Atlanta (MI), and my folks own a campground near Alpena. Wrong side of the state, but still north of M-55 (that's where "up north" begins)

I would try to answer any questions that anyone has about the experience. If anyone has any specific questions, feel free to ask and I will do my best to share our experience. How about a brief spiel about the experience including any questions you can remember that they asked?
Just a note, the standard is like the bible. It's meaning is dependent upon the interpretation of the reader. (And no, am not trying to stir anyone up, just that it sure seems to be about the same thing.) Who is to say which interpretation is "correct?" As it was with QS, as it has become more so in ISO9K:2000, and is the reason for these forums to begin with. I have told clients for years that they have to be ready to present, discuss (think debate), and stand behind, their interpretation of the standard.

Congrats!

I aggreed with Marc comments, a brief - general explanation of your experience can help others ( with same direction as me) to pass sucessfully through this VIA CRUCIS..

R U a design responsible? How did you manage with 7.3? What are they looking for the most? I´ve heard it´s PDCA in every single process you´ve stablished in the process interaction matrix. Is it very diferent from those regarding QS? Did you recieve NC´s ? Where? ´Who´s your CB?

I´ve much more but I think these will clear my mind out!
At least for now!

Thanks and CONGRATULATIONS!

Billy

How about a brief spiel about the experience including any questions you can remember that they asked?


Well, let's see...am fairly busy today so will be back later/tomorrow with things I don't get to mention.

We had 3 auditors for 3 days. Each auditor, of course, interpreted things a bit differently which made for an interesting time.

Since they audit by process, they all ended up auditing the same areas (i.e. doc cntl, rcd ctl, etc ) at one time or other, which brings their unique interpretation into play. One auditor felt we did a great job with our quality manual, another felt we had the worst quality manual he had seen. :bonk:

Inputs/outputs were hit hard. They were looking for the "physical" inputs/outputs of a process. For example, an output of your Final Inspection process is not "Reduced PPM or Reduced Customer Issues" or the like, it would be "Approved Product" or "Rejected Product". Something they could "touch", so to speak.

Process effectiveness was hit on fairly hard. How do you determine that your process is effective. (As well as efficiency. You have measurables to show whether you are efficient at a process as well)

Process approach auditing is a necessity. We used the MSA checklists, modified to include our process owners, where appropriate, and audited as a team. However, they disapproved of the checklists. In the end, we received a nonconformance for how we audited internally, so we revised our method to mimic the auditors, performed several audits and submitted that with our action plan. Basically, they don't like you to audit using the checklists and as a matter of fact, they informed us that they could no longer use them on audits. Basically, audit the process and how it is supposed to work, whether everything is happening as it is supposed to happen, whether the process is generating the desired outputs and whether or not the process is effective. This will bounce you around to several areas, most of the time and you end up auditing quite a bit, but it actually seems easier.

Will post more tomorrow, off to answer Tattva :)

Well, they try to convince us we are design responsible but the fact is, we do not do design at our location. We have a corporate location that is a design facility and they design for all the locations in the group.

We can not actually be certified until they are and this wasn't an issue since they were TS-2 certified about 5 months ago. However, the IAOB has reinterpreted the standard and now the design center has to be re-audited.

We will probably receive our certification at the beginning of the year.

The approach to auditing is different than the way it was done with QS. Not sure, but to me, that was the biggest change.

See prior message for the nc's. We also received one for communication process not being in place, even though it was. It was an easy fix so we didn't argue too heavily.

I had thought that according to the standard, there were only 7 procedures required to be documented; Internal Nonconformance, Preventive Action, Corrective Action, Training, Record Control, Document Control and Internal Auditing. Ford has a couple to add, bringing the total to 9.

This requirement in 4.2.2 changes that, according to the cb. You are required to have a documented procedure for every support process, according to their interpretation...

The organization shall establish and maintain.....
a) ......
b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them.....
c).....

This supposedly requires us to document "everything", bringing us back to QS requirements. Since we hadn't removed any procedures, we were ok but we do intend to to wage this battle at a later time.

Well, off to a meeting..... :bigwave:

Well, they try to convince us we are design responsible but the fact is, we do not do design at our location. We have a corporate location that is a design facility and they design for all the locations in the group.

I'm seldom surprised by the things auditors do or say, but this interpretation that you are design responsible disturbs me greatly.

In my opinion, a strong case could be made that your facility was like a contract manufacturer, making products to someone else's design specifications, with no design authority of your own. The fact that you are corporately linked to the other location is immaterial if no one at your location has input into the design.

If however, bosses at your facility have authority over designers at a different location, even if those designers are third party independent contractors, the auditors have a valid point.

I hope you will keep us updated on this aspect.

Well, let's see...am fairly busy today so will be back later/tomorrow with things I don't get to mention.

We had 3 auditors for 3 days. Each auditor, of course, interpreted things a bit differently which made for an interesting time.

Since they audit by process, they all ended up auditing the same areas (i.e. doc cntl, rcd ctl, etc ) at one time or other, which brings their unique interpretation into play. One auditor felt we did a great job with our quality manual, another felt we had the worst quality manual he had seen. :bonk:

Inputs/outputs were hit hard. They were looking for the "physical" inputs/outputs of a process. For example, an output of your Final Inspection process is not "Reduced PPM or Reduced Customer Issues" or the like, it would be "Approved Product" or "Rejected Product". Something they could "touch", so to speak.

Process effectiveness was hit on fairly hard. How do you determine that your process is effective. (As well as efficiency. You have measurables to show whether you are efficient at a process as well)

Process approach auditing is a necessity. We used the MSA checklists, modified to include our process owners, where appropriate, and audited as a team. However, they disapproved of the checklists. In the end, we received a nonconformance for how we audited internally, so we revised our method to mimic the auditors, performed several audits and submitted that with our action plan. Basically, they don't like you to audit using the checklists and as a matter of fact, they informed us that they could no longer use them on audits. Basically, audit the process and how it is supposed to work, whether everything is happening as it is supposed to happen, whether the process is generating the desired outputs and whether or not the process is effective. This will bounce you around to several areas, most of the time and you end up auditing quite a bit, but it actually seems easier.

Will post more tomorrow, off to answer Tattva :)

Checklists:
Refer to the note at the end of 8.2.2.4.
Also, checklists were used at the supplier auditor training course at AIAG.

Well, they try to convince us we are design responsible but the fact is, we do not do design at our location. We have a corporate location that is a design facility and they design for all the locations in the group.

We can not actually be certified until they are and this wasn't an issue since they were TS-2 certified about 5 months ago. However, the IAOB has reinterpreted the standard and now the design center has to be re-audited.

We will probably receive our certification at the beginning of the year.

The approach to auditing is different than the way it was done with QS. Not sure, but to me, that was the biggest change.

See prior message for the nc's. We also received one for communication process not being in place, even though it was. It was an easy fix so we didn't argue too heavily.

I had thought that according to the standard, there were only 7 procedures required to be documented; Internal Nonconformance, Preventive Action, Corrective Action, Training, Record Control, Document Control and Internal Auditing. Ford has a couple to add, bringing the total to 9.

This requirement in 4.2.2 changes that, according to the cb. You are required to have a documented procedure for every support process, according to their interpretation...

The organization shall establish and maintain.....
a) ......
b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them.....
c).....

This supposedly requires us to document "everything", bringing us back to QS requirements. Since we hadn't removed any procedures, we were ok but we do intend to to wage this battle at a later time.

Well, off to a meeting..... :bigwave:

Procedures:
There are only seven procedures required. Clause 4.2.1d requires additional documents as needed.
What are the two required by Ford?

Documented procedure for each support process?
WRONG! You are required to define the processes. How you do it is up to you.
Who is your registrar? Others may not want to select thembased on your problems.

What are the two required by Ford?

Documented procedure for each support process?
WRONG! You are required to define the processes.

I'm very interested in the ones required by Ford, we are a Ford subsidiary and we weren't required to have anymore than the "7"!

As for support processes, Sam is right, defined is a lot different than having a procedure!

I'm very interested in the ones required by Ford, we are a Ford subsidiary and we weren't required to have anymore than the "7"!

As for support processes, Sam is right, defined is a lot different than having a procedure!

Ford Specific Requirements
4.33 - Preventive Maintenance
The organization shall have a documented system for preventive maintenance. pg 16

4.44 - Control of Nonconforming Product
Returned Product Test/Analysis
The organization shall have a documented system for internal notification, analysis and communication of all Ford receiving plant returns. pg 22

Hate to post and run, but this was the easiest one to answer in the 2 mins I had. Be back in a few to answer the others. ;)

Ford Specific Requirements
4.33 - Preventive Maintenance
The organization shall have a documented system for preventive maintenance. pg 16

4.44 - Control of Nonconforming Product
Returned Product Test/Analysis
The organization shall have a documented system for internal notification, analysis and communication of all Ford receiving plant returns. pg 22

Hate to post and run, but this was the easiest one to answer in the 2 mins I had. Be back in a few to answer the others. ;)

IMO, documented system and ocumented procedures are totally different. A documented system is a "defined process". A documented procedure would not satisfy the Ford requirement.

I agree Sam.
analysis and communication of all Ford receiving plant returns.
This is nothing more than following the Ford QR/QC system and going through the disputes system. All that needs to be done with this is to add something to the CA/PA procedure that addresses customer contact/rejection.

I agree Sam.

This is nothing more than following the Ford QR/QC system and going through the disputes system. All that needs to be done with this is to add something to the CA/PA procedure that addresses customer contact/rejection.


Interesting....

I suppose that we treat them the same, for all intents and purposes. Our "systems" contain "procedures" and as such, I don't separate the two. Or perhaps we misuse the "words."

Checklists:
Refer to the note at the end of 8.2.2.4.
Also, checklists were used at the supplier auditor training course at AIAG.


Aye Sam, understood.

The auditors stated that they had been directed to discard the checklists and audit without them per the IAOB.

I suppose that we treat them the same, for all intents and purposes. Our "systems" contain "procedures" and as such, I don't separate the two. Or perhaps we misuse the "words."

By systems, I mean the Ford dispute system. They have specific forms, data, etc. that they require. By pointing to this system in your process you link them and you don't need to document any more steps.

All Ford is saying here is that you have a mechanism that allows problems (rejected parts) from the customer to be communicated through your system. Plus a means to provide answers in their required format (8D).

That can be as easy as adding 2 boxes to your flow: 1 - Notified of problem by the customer, 2 - Reply to problem in customer time requirements and format.

You'd want to do better with the wording, but it can be as simple as that.

Well, they try to convince us we are design responsible but the fact is, we do not do design at our location. We have a corporate location that is a design facility and they design for all the locations in the group.

We can not actually be certified until they are and this wasn't an issue since they were TS-2 certified about 5 months ago. However, the IAOB has reinterpreted the standard and now the design center has to be re-audited.

We will probably receive our certification at the beginning of the year.

The approach to auditing is different than the way it was done with QS. Not sure, but to me, that was the biggest change.

See prior message for the nc's. We also received one for communication process not being in place, even though it was. It was an easy fix so we didn't argue too heavily.

I had thought that according to the standard, there were only 7 procedures required to be documented; Internal Nonconformance, Preventive Action, Corrective Action, Training, Record Control, Document Control and Internal Auditing. Ford has a couple to add, bringing the total to 9.

This requirement in 4.2.2 changes that, according to the cb. You are required to have a documented procedure for every support process, according to their interpretation...

The organization shall establish and maintain.....
a) ......
b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them.....
c).....

This supposedly requires us to document "everything", bringing us back to QS requirements. Since we hadn't removed any procedures, we were ok but we do intend to to wage this battle at a later time.

Well, off to a meeting..... :bigwave:
Is this true? I will use DB´s phrase " WHERE¨S THE SHALL? " [QUOTE]We can not actually be certified until they are and this wasn't an issue since they were TS-2 certified about 5 months ago. [QUOTE].

Procedures:
There are only seven procedures required. Clause 4.2.1d requires additional documents as needed.
What are the two required by Ford?

Documented procedure for each support process?
WRONG! You are required to define the processes. How you do it is up to you.
Who is your registrar? Others may not want to select thembased on your problems.

I'll agree. :agree:

4.2.2 b) requires documented procedures your QM to have the required procedures. 4.2.1 d) requires any documentation that is necessary. Be they COPs, SOPs, MOPs, or lolliepops, it makes no difference. The important thing is that if the absence of a procedure means you have lost control, planning or operation of one of your processes, then you need a documented procedure. If you have effective planning, operation and control without a documented procedure, then you don't need one.

Your CB is wrong on this one, unless they are saying you have lost control.