I just wanted to make a quick comment. I noticed that I've been hanging out around here for about a year now. Those of you that remember me may have noticed I've been pretty quiet lately. It's not because I haven't had anything to say, it's because I haven't NEEDED to say much. The quality of information being shared here is vastly improved over what I saw when I first came here. Y'all are doing a great job, and you've helped a bunch of people. I've had the pleasure of meeting a few forum participants and lurkers in my classes, and I hope I have the pleasure of meeting more. Keep up the good work, folks!

DW
That guy that certifies TS2 auditors

Hi Don - I'm hoping to see you in a class soon...

I just wanted to make a quick comment. I noticed that I've been hanging out around here for about a year now. Those of you that remember me may have noticed I've been pretty quiet lately. It's not because I haven't had anything to say, it's because I haven't NEEDED to say much. The quality of information being shared here is vastly improved over what I saw when I first came here. Y'all are doing a great job, and you've helped a bunch of people. I've had the pleasure of meeting a few forum participants and lurkers in my classes, and I hope I have the pleasure of meeting more. Keep up the good work, folks!
Any input you have will be appreciated! I just now noticed you do TS auditor cert classes.

I do have a question. Is it true that approximately 70% of course attendees fail the first class?

Sadly, I can't answer that question for two reasons:
1. I don't know what the failure rate is
2. Even if I did, the rules I must live by wouldn't allow me to answer.

The failure rate is not shared with the instructors. They (IAOB and Plexus) don't want us to know the failure rate (or pass rate) in order to help keep us as objective as possible. Kind of strange, but that's the way it is!

Sorry! I'm kind of dying to know myself!
DW

Sadly, I can't answer that question for two reasons:
1. I don't know what the failure rate is
2. Even if I did, the rules I must live by wouldn't allow me to answer.

The failure rate is not shared with the instructors. They (IAOB and Plexus) don't want us to know the failure rate (or pass rate) in order to help keep us as objective as possible. Kind of strange, but that's the way it is!

Sorry! I'm kind of dying to know myself!
DWWhatever happened to evaluating the course content and style?
It seems to me to be completely alien to Quality principles to hide any method of establishing a benchmark for continuous [continual?] improvement.

How do the students determine whether they [i][their ability, their study techniques] were the reason for failing or whether the content, context, and method of the course were adequate to prepare them for the exam?

Is it any wonder many consider the Quality profession to be SNAFU?

No personal aspersions here, just plain :frust:

I do have a question. Is it true that approximately 70% of course attendees fail the first class?

That sounds about right, I had heard as high as 75%

I am scheduled to attend this class in March as part of the CSR`s for Ford. What happens if you fail the class and why are people having so much trouble? Anything in particular?

I'm kind of dying to know myself!
It's between 60 and 70% according to those I've spoken with who took the course and kept in touch with their classmates.
That sounds about right, I had heard as high as 75%
So have I.

Whatever happened to evaluating the course content and style?
It seems to me to be completely alien to Quality principles to hide any method of establishing a benchmark for continuous [continual?] improvement.

How do the students determine whether they [i][their ability, their study techniques] were the reason for failing or whether the content, context, and method of the course were adequate to prepare them for the exam?:
The ASQ has long used this in their 'certification' schemes. You pass or fail, but don't get to know what you missed and such. After college I was shocked. I wanted those papers back so I knew where I failed and could focus on that area, for example. I took the CQE exam many moons ago and couldn't believe the secrecy and pettiness. In college part of the process was to study tests from the past, as well, to help understand the professor's style. We were taught that if you knew the material, the test content shouldn't matter. The only professors who tried to keep tests from leaving the class room were those lazy ones who used the same group of tests alturnating year to year.

I also felt the CQE test was poorly designed with too many 'questions' which had quite arbitrary 'answers'.

I am scheduled to attend this class in March as part of the CSR`s for Ford. What happens if you fail the class and why are people having so much trouble? Anything in particular?

There is a three part exam at the end of the class based on;
- Participation, Do you or do you not participate in class room activities/discussions,

- the core tools and the specification, 30 minute/25 question exam for supplier auditors. There is no classroom discussion/hints on these topics. You MUST know the content prior to taking the test,

- Presentation, On the morning of the exam you are randomly assigned a clause from the specification and given 30 minutes to prepare a presentation defining the Inputs, Activities, Support Processes,Linkages/Interfaces, Outputs and Measurements. You then make a ten/15 minute presentation.

If you fail, as I did, then you only have to re-take the portion you failed, which haven't; mostly due ti time and primarily due to funding.

Eight weeks prior to taking this exam I took the ISO 14001 exam and passed. It was a much more rigorous with equal amounts of time spent on the specification and auditing the process.
With the TS2 course we did have classroom presentatiions and mock audits between groups, but there was very little discussion and virtually no critique from the instructors.

Thanks for the information Sam. I guess I better start getting prepared. It sounds unlike any course I have ever attended.

Ditto - Thanks, Sam!

Any others out there with experiences / details to share?

Whatever happened to evaluating the course content and style?
It seems to me to be completely alien to Quality principles to hide any method of establishing a benchmark for continuous [continual?] improvement.

How do the students determine whether they [i][their ability, their study techniques] were the reason for failing or whether the content, context, and method of the course were adequate to prepare them for the exam?

Is it any wonder many consider the Quality profession to be SNAFU?

No personal aspersions here, just plain :frust:

Evaluations ARE conducted - every participant is requrested to fill one out - prior to the exam. And yes, they find that as humorous as we do! :)

In addition, course content and performance on exams is monitored and analyzed - just not by the instructors. That's done at the IATF level. Instructors can, and have, provided feedback on the exam process through Plexus and the IAOB - most of us aren't shy about that, and we're as keen to see qualified auditors pass as they are. There's been a number of changes introduced into the exam process since its inception as a direct consequence or participant feedback. Written exam questions have been added and deleted, a significant change was made in the oral exam process to make it easier for participants to understand what was actually being asked - it's an ongoing process.

While I personally disagree with not providing more specific feedback to participants, I understand the rationale. This is a professional certification exam - to get the certification, candidates are required to demonstrate that they understand and can apply the requisite body of knowledge as defined by the certifying organization. If they don't understand it, they don't pass the exam(s), and they need to go back and study until they do. Telling people what they missed makes it easier for them to pass next time - and it's not supposed to be easy.
DW

Telling people what they missed makes it easier for them to pass next time - and it's not supposed to be easy.
I disagree. I don't think it's supposed to be an 'easy' vs. 'hard' thing at all. I was disappointed to hear it put in those terms. I thought it was supposed to be about competence and knowledge.

Telling people what they missed tells them where they should focus their study. It tells them where the are weak. This is bad?

If the idea is to help people in areas where they are weak, telling them WHERE they're weak helps them focus on areas where they need to study. By not telling the person, the test people cause lots of lost time. It forces students to look at everything again, even what they know (of course they don't know what they don't know or do know). This in turn also induces students to question what they do know.

It is a 'professional certification' course / test, but if the implication is that the test should be hard, as you state, as opposed to ensuring the person is competent in the areas of study, that's a shame. If I know the material it should be easy for me. If I don't, it will be 'hard'.

I believe this is why I hear the same two things from almost everyone I have spoken to who has taken the course / test - It's often very subjective and, It's about money. This is unfortunate as it demeans the entire process.

I respect your opinion. Let me clarify mine. That's how I, personally, view how the process is set up. My opinion, NOT that of Plexus, IAOB or IATF.

Having said that, I do feel that more detailed feedback should be provided to CB auditor candidates, for all the reasons you stated.

You hit the nail on the head - it's all about identifying who's competant to perform audits, according to the criteria set forth by the IATF. That's not an easy task. Nor should it be - auditors have a lot of responsibility. That's what I was trying to say when I said the process was "not supposed to be easy". I don't know of anyone involved in this process personally that's on a mission to make the exam process any harder than it already is. I'm here to tell you I'm not.
DW

:applause:

Don does an excellent job in training. Recently, I was fortunate enough to have Don for TS16949 Internal Auditor training and it certainly improved my knowledge and interpretation of the Specification. We just completed our Stage 2 with a recommendation for registation from the CB. Thanks Don for helping another soldier get the stripes.

AWWWW! That's about the best compliment I've ever received in my entire career, and certainly the best compliment a trainer could possibly receive. Thank YOU!
DW

Ditto - Thanks, Sam!

Any others out there with experiences / details to share?

Marc & everyone at the Cove: Thought I would add results from surveying the members of the Class I was in.

Course title: RAB Accredited ISO 9001:2000 Lead Auditor with AIAG ISO/TS 16949:2002 Supplier Auditor Certification

Training Org: Plexus (2 Trainers & 2 Observers)

Date: Jan. 26 - 30, 2004

Class Size: 17 participants

I surveyed those who were in the class and here are the results:
7 passed (41.1%), 8 didn’t (47.1%), 2 have not received any results (11.7%).

I found the course to be very intense, not from a material standpoint but more the manner in which it was presented. Instructors were very knowledgeable and did their best to keep it from getting bogged down. IMHO about one half of the participants really did not have any business being in this course. They either didn't have the background / preparation to be there or were ill equipped in the use of the Core Tools and the Quality System Standards (ie:ISO/TS 16949:2002, ISO 9001:2000, QS 9000).

A secondary issue with the course is with the scoring / grading / evaluation portion. IMO there is to much subjectivity involved with this process. According to the Pre class handouts & the instructors in the classroom the scoring of the assignments (written NC's), the Turtle diagram (tested item), and your NC's written from the scenario given during the testing, all are scored primarily by the lead instructor. There is a secondary review of test results with scores between 60% & 75% to check scores and re-grading.

Thanks for the information Sam. I guess I better start getting prepared. It sounds unlike any course I have ever attended.

Mike,

What were the results of your class?

AIAG offers two courses for lead auditor certification; the one described here and the other which is for TS 16949 supplier lead auditor only. The agenda and grading process are different, but the subjectivity is the same.

Bigfoot, How did you obtain the class results? AIAG/Plexus will not release such information. I guess I can only assume that you callled each person in the class.

I do have to agree with you Bigfoot. Way to much subjectivity. I did not poll the whole class, but I did discuss the results with two of the participants. They seemed to have the same opinion as you and I. One of them said from what he understood, there was a 7 out of 167 who passed rate in our class.

Just curious, was the turtle diagram that you guys did in your class on management review or some other process. I thought I did quite good on this portion of the test until I got the results back. 27 out of 50. Needless to say, this killed me on the test. I did well on the other portions. I would love to see a turtle diagram on management review if anyone out there has one.

By the way, we are a certifed company to TS16949. I was the lead and only person responsible for implementation, so I must know something. What really gets me is this, these quality systems are supposed to give you freedom to implement a system that fits your company needs, which is what we have done. Then you go to one of these courses and find out that you are not competent according to one of the instructors opinions on what he/she thinks should be in your turtle diagram. Give me a break. Our management review was just fine according to the registrar. and its worked fine for our organization. Can you tell that I am a little peeved at the whole process.

Mike,
The real kicker to this process is that you do not have to be a certified lead auditor in order to implement and perform internal audits.
However, and this is a big HOWEVER, you have to have successfully completed training, such as AIAG internal auditing for ISO/TS 16949:2002, in order to audit your suppliers.
The pass/fail rate that bigfoot states lends credibility to the rumor that CB's are competing with organizations to gain control of the supplier auditing process.

AIAG offers two courses for lead auditor certification; the one described here and the other which is for TS 16949 supplier lead auditor only. The agenda and grading process are different, but the subjectivity is the same.

Bigfoot, How did you obtain the class results? AIAG/Plexus will not release such information. I guess I can only assume that you callled each person in the class.


Sam;
Going into the class I was aware of the industry "buzz" of the 25 - 30% 1st time pass rate and determined if the opportunity presented itself to be able to conduct some sort of a survey of the participants I would try to collect some data. During the class they collected business cards & email addresses for those who wished to be able to stay in touch with others in the group and made each person a copy of them. I conducted a poll via email of those who had expressed this interest. Additionally I was able to obtain results for the 3 in the group who chose not to leave an e-mail address through other contacts I have who were acquainted with these individuals. Of the respondendents only one is second hand so I feel they are fairly accurate. The most interesting result I found was the absence of results for 2 of the participants, which doesn't speak well of the notification process. :biglaugh:

As far as I am aware the Plexus trainers would only know the results of a class they were responsible for grading, and you are correct that AIAG won't release the results. I have had the opportunity to discuss the 2 courses you mentioned with some people who do training for them. Their response regarding the differences between the 2 courses lies mainly in the testing methods for the CB auditors. Both courses are very demanding, and my interpretation of their responses was that if you were not being required to take them, don't. :eek:

Mike,
The real kicker to this process is that you do not have to be a certified lead auditor in order to implement and perform internal audits.
However, and this is a big HOWEVER, you have to have successfully completed training, such as AIAG internal auditing for ISO/TS 16949:2002, in order to audit your suppliers.
The pass/fail rate that bigfoot states lends credibility to the rumor that CB's are competing with organizations to gain control of the supplier auditing process.
I am inclined to agree with your assessment, Sam!!