I need some direction in this new requirement. We are a QS-9000 certifed company; we are also a job shop, we produce as many as 75-100 orders a day of different product. Does this requirement mean that we have to do an audit (glorified inspection, IMHO) on every part number, or can we do a random sampling of orders to audit? Even at a self-prescribed frequency of annually, the sheer volume of part numbers would require me to hire an :inspector:, which ios something I have been diligently working to get away from. I do not understand how the B3 can tell us to emphasize defect "prevention: in our systems, (which makessense, obviously), and then require us todoadditional inspection. My process control systems were developed with prevention in mind.....This new requirement is a step backwards, IMHO.

Please enlighten me.

Thanks

Bryon

I'll take a stab at this if you'll cite the QS paragraph(s) which you believe requires dock audits. I left my manuals in the class room after I finished today but I'll look it over tomorrow and get back with you with my take on it.

Marc,

4.10.4.2 third Edition.....checkit out, and let me know

Thanks

I haven't been thru this section in an actual audit (being new this shouldn't surprise you) nor have I heard any interpretation. Sorry.

My take on this paragraph is they are, in fact, requiring dock audits. But, as with everything else with QS, application is going to be confusing, as in your case. QS is basically (besides being extremely poorly written) written to address high volume producers of things like steering wheels. How many of your products do you ship to the b3?

Part of the NOTE is interesting "Where ... PPM requirements are met, the frequency may be reduced." Reduced from what? What is an 'appropriate' frequency to begin with?

I would not be shy in calling your registrar and asking them their take. You pay them enough that they should have no problem explaining how they interpret this paragraph. I would LOVE to know their answer.

But - then again, don't despair. There will soon be pages upon pages of interpretation very soon, I suspect.....

Sorry I can't help beyond that. It could be a long winter!

I have recently designed (and am currently implementing) a quality system based on the Third Edition. I had an interesting experience concerning this topic with my Registrar because of my company's position on this issue.

We make a compound (bulk molding compound, or BMC) that our customers mold into headlamps for the Big Three. This compound contains styrene which will evaporate quickly if not sealed properly (and thus ruin the product). If a dock audit requires us to open our packaged product before shipping to perform repeat tests, then it will also introduce these deterioration and contamination concerns. We explained these concerns to our registrar and explained that since this requirement really was not intended for our type of product that we needed some flexibility. In fact, this requirement makes absolutely bad business sense for our product.
The registrar attempted to help by stressing the word APPROPRIATE in the requirement. I told him that our experts have determined that the appropriate frequency is "zero." (At least he was good humored)
He finally stated that we could do something that did not involve actually opening the container. He indicated that maybe just checking QC test records, again, before shipping would be adequate. I, personally, believe this requirement is nonsense and a waste of time in our specific application. If you have any other ideas about how we could be compliant and still not open our boxes to check the product I would be very interested.

The problem is that a lot of this stuff is nonsense. They took a general spec (ISO) and tried to mimic it. QS9000 is nothing more than a poorly drafted customer requirement.

OK - the dock audit requirement - Chad hit on it - provide something. It doesn't have to be product inspection, obviously (then again, maybe I should say not so obviously or obviously?

Brian - you're already registered. If you talk with your registrar about this and get an answer from them, please do let us know what the response is. Thanks!

In our case, our operator are doing product controls (4.10.3) and we have final inspections (parts, pakaging and labelling)done by quality techniciens (4.10.4).

After discussion with our Registrar, unfortunately, even if we think it is enough (our PPM demonstrate that), we must also do Final Product Audit (Dock Audit - 4.10.4.2)

Following the discussion, 2 options may be interesting if you have a good control of your products (low PPM and few complaints).

1.You may do Dock Audits inside your Internal Audit program

2. You may do Dock Audits focussed only on your problematic parts or productions (eg. following a complaint) until you get pretty confident. Your Control Plan should be updated in consequence.

Hope this can help.

Regards

For what it's worth, I've now consulted with 5 companies who have updated to QS Rev 3. On all occassions we had an interesting response, however our common approach related to a belief that, "A registrar cannot give you an NC unless they find objective evidence". Therefore I think ??? most quality people will agree with me that a final product audit is just an admission of defeat!!! So in all cases our frequnecy for conducting the final product audit was annually. This was documented in the Control Plan and the mechanism for change was when we had any customer returns, then the frequency was increased and then returned to annually after a period of time that was defined by product in the Control Plan.

Having said this all registrars wanted to give us an NC, we simply asked where was there objective evidence, they had none and that was the end of that!!

QS Rev 3 was in part released to integrate some of the requirements from European vehicle manufacturers, which unfortunately involves a lot around inspection.

I'm impressed with the approach. Would you please tell us which registrars were involved?

Dock Audit:
My AIAG control plan states check 3 pcs for control plan requirements. Stamp with dock audit stamp OK ready for Shipping.- Seal.
Most of our product goes in Cardboard boxes & we stamp the inside with our stamp.
Bill

I completed my 3rd edition just yesterday and took a minor on Dock Audits. Here is what my registrar said:
Once sealed the containers do not have to be reopened. Basicly all you are checking for is correct labeling and correct containers. My PPM has been zero for the last 6 months down from a glith of 250. He still wanted dock audits done at least quarterly. He says there ar two ways to svhedule dock audits. Pick a random day and audit every thing that goes out the door. Or. what I am doing by job number and auditing, now, every quarter. I'm using my gage control data base to trigger dock audits like I do gage calibration. until the audit is done she gets a flashing message "you have gages due for calibration".

Gage control software as trigger. Nice idea!

Marc,

The registrars were UL, Lloyds, SGS and BVQI.

Thanks!

Marc

-----------info----------
What / Who is Da Cheech?
www.dross.com/cheechwizard/ (http://www.dross.com/cheechwizard/)

Thomash,

I'm really very curious, why did your auditor state 3 months for the dock audit frequency??? It sounds somewhat subjective???

Can someone please tell me what the status of Dock Audits is with respect to TS 16949?

How are they auditing this now?

I agree that I don't think your auditor can prescribe audit frequency for you!

Basically YOU can decide what to dock audit. We also produce a bulk material that it is simply not practical to "undo" and completely check every aspect of the product. So in dock audits we check packaging, labeling, obvious defect or damage to the product as it sits, etc. We've never had an audit problem with that concept.

Can someone please tell me what the status of Dock Audits is with respect to TS 16949?

How are they auditing this now?

IMO it won't be audited any different than with QS.

"8.2.3.3 - Product Audit: The organization shall audit products at appropriate stages of production and delivery to verify compliance to all specified requirements, such as product dimensions, functionality, packaging and labeling, at a defined frequency."

It is up to the organization to determine the extent and depth of product audits.

Our auditor told us that Product Audits as referred to in TS 16949 are different from Dock Audits. Now we have to audit the product from start to finish in the process, not just when it is in inventory or at the "Dock".

It IS different in TS, the requirement for a dock audit, per se, was removed in favor of auditing the product throughout the process. Which makes a lot of sense when you think about it - waiting until the stuff's about to head out the door is too late in the process. All us QS types cheered when we heard the dock audit requirement was removed - but that said, most of the QS to TS folks I've talked with are keeping the dock audit as part of their processes under TS anyway. Never hurts to have that last check! :p

I don´t seem to understand this clause very well. I mean only until product is finished I can audit product, ´cause what will I audit for instance in the chemical blending, or in the pouring to the mould, or in the manufacturing area or across the entire process? :frust:

I´m not sure if I made myself clear! :eek: in case I have can someone please enlight me! :bonk:

Thanks in advance!

What are your controls or measureables in each of those steps? In other words, how do you know in the blending process that you blended it right? You have something already in place, no doubt, to measure that or check it? That IS your product audit.

It IS different in TS, the requirement for a dock audit, per se, was removedin favor of auditing the product throughout the process. For sure?

Yup. (Would I lie to you, Marc?! :D) The phrase "of packaged final product" and the NOTE about Dock Audit was part of QS - is notably missing from TS. TS instead says "the organization shall audit products AT APPROPRIATE STAGES OF PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY to verify conformity to all specified requirements. My understanding is that the intent is to declare a dock audit TOO LATE in the process to be discovering you screwed up - part of the whole TS emphasis on PROCESS. We should be looking at conformity of product all through the processes, not waiting for the poor souls in shipping to figure out that we messed it up. Because of the wording in TS YOU get to decide what the "appropriate stages" are. For some, that will continue to be at the dock - for other processes it may be several points in the processing. Just make sure whatever you decide gets noted somewhere as your "appropriate check." And watch out for an auditor pushing the belief that you MUST do it at the dock. No such "shall."

And watch out for an auditor pushing the belief that you MUST do it at the dock. No such "shall."

There is an indirect shall. A dock audit is still required from the standpoint that product on the dock is an "appropriate stage of production and delivery". So, dock audits should still be part of an overall game plan for product auditing. Of course, depending on the levels and type of control, there is a lot of room for maneuvering.

"Indirect shall"???

You just made that up, didn't you?

Actually, tho far be it for me to disagree with you, db, I do disagree. When TS specifically removed the "final product" and the "note" in QS that explains "this means a DOCK AUDIT" they opened the door for the supplier/organization to decide what "appropriate" is. In various settings dock audit won't be the appropriate place to audit product. Actually I'm happy to see this change - I've always thought dock audits were a stupid requirement - it's like saying, "YES, we have 100% quality product, and YES we check it throughout it's processing..... but we're gonna check it again right before it goes on the truck just to be sure. "

"Indirect shall"???
Ya like that indirect shall thing?

I really don't think we are in disagreement. I think I just need to make myself clearer. What I'm saying is that you just can't say dock audits are not longer required, so I'll not do any. If your circumstances dictate that you need to do dock audits, then you still need to do them. Just like there is no "shall" requiring you have a contract review procedure. But most companies I've worked with really need a procedure. If you really need a dock audit, then you need one, even if it is not required by the standard. On the other hand, if the only reason you needed on in QS was because of the "shall", then you can probably do without. Any clearer?

I always viewed this as a "shelf life" type of inspection. Humidity can be bad here in late summer, so our stampings can become subject to rust. Our shipping personnel check product going out to ensure the parts didn't rust.
400 blanks may go through the draw die operation and sit for 3 weeks until the secondary tooling is on line (necessary due to lack of design freeze from the customer). So the other dock audit performed is prior to delivering the drawn panels back to the Press Room.

I always viewed this as a "shelf life" type of inspection. Humidity can be bad here in late summer, so our stampings can become subject to rust. Our shipping personnel check product going out to ensure the parts didn't rust.
400 blanks may go through the draw die operation and sit for 3 weeks until the secondary tooling is on line (necessary due to lack of design freeze from the customer). So the other dock audit performed is prior to delivering the drawn panels back to the Press Room.

And this sounds like a situation where the dock audit would be considered at an "appropriate stage of production and delivery".

A product audit relative to the delivery process is the requirement. Call it a dock audit if you wnat.
The original intent of the a dock audit as described in QS9000 was NOT to break down packaged product and re-inspect. This was a myth perpetrated by over-zealous auditors. QS 9000 required that we "verify" conformance to all specified requirements (e.g. product, packaging, labeling) . . . . . ". For product this can be done by assuring that appropriate records are available that confirm acceptance, for labeling and packaging a checklist outlining customer requirements can be used.

In my openion Dock audit and Poduct audit are two different audit. In TS2, What Product audit requires is "audit of a product at different stage of Manufacturing". I think dock audit is to audit for pacakaging and lebelling requirements. Further, I am attaching our product audit format wherein all the stages of production are being covered.

Our auditor is one of the "Overzealous" types that Sam referred to. His idea of "Dock Audit" is for us to crack open a box and re-measure all inspection checkpoints on a sampling of the parts, based on which parts we have issues with. He has threatened to write a major next time if he finds we aren't doing it as he wants us to. We are shorthanded (and are going to stay that way, no money for more employees) so we may be in trouble next audit (in Oct.). :(

I've always thought dock audits were a stupid requirement - it's like saying, "YES, we have 100% quality product, and YES we check it throughout it's processing..... but we're gonna check it again right before it goes on the truck just to be sure. "
I had a chance to corner Dan Reid at an ASQ conference right after the QS-9000 1998 edition came out. I asked him why the dock audit requirement had been added in, when the philosophy of the standard was supposed to be to control throughout the manufacturing process. His response was something along the lines of "the big three have QS-9000 certified suppliers now, but they are still getting too much defective product." Essentially it was added as a band-aid...