Quote:
|
In Reply to Parent Post by Howard Atkins
There have been a number of discussions on this issue but I am starting a new thread as I want to try and make some sense of the situation
There are a number of audits in the standard:
*-Audit of the QMS to ensure conformity and effectiveness
*-Audit of the manufacturing process to determine effectiveness
*-Audit of the product to verify conformity
Added to this there are requirements by certain customers such as GM and DCX to perform "Layered Process Control Audits" (DCX description),
In the CSR of the big 3 there is added in the Ford spec the following:
"4.39.4
Process and Product audits may be conducted by appropriate process specialists from the affected areas without full quality management auditor training."
As this does not appear in the GM or DCX requirements or in the IATF guidelines then it would appear that the default is that those performing process and product audits MUST be qualified as auditors. If you have Ford and GM as customers will one "auditor" be accepted by Ford but rejected by GM or by the CB?
|
We have taken the approach with several clients as suggested by the Ford CSR, using two "classes" of internal auditors -- "systems" auditors, trained extensively, and "manufacturing process" auditors, trained only to do shop floor audits. I've not had any objections to this from registrars, including
many non-Ford suppliers.
Quote:
|
In Reply to Parent Post by Howard Atkins
As we know the QMS is composed of process then in fact according to Ford then all audits can be performed by "appropriate process specialists from the affected areas without full quality management auditor training."
How does this meet with the requirements that auditors shall not audit their own work.
In other words when is an audit an audit and when is it an inspection?
|
I see two issues here - first, the independence issue, second, the difference between audit and inspection.
First, I would not have an individual audit their personally performed work. It gets a little dicey when you have the supervisor of an area audit his/her own
area; yet that's exactly what the "layered audit" people say to do. I personally am OK with this provided that there are occasional independent audits, too.
Second - audit vs. inspection -- may look like the same action, but they differ in their purpose and result. If an inspection fails - then you hold the product;
disposition it (scrap, repair, re-grade, sort...). and you are done.
If an audit fails, then you may need to do all of the above, but also do a root cause determination and corrective action.
I suppose that this is a little philosophical, but that's my read on it.
Regards...............Brad
Auditor qualification in ISO/TS 16949 for different types of audits
Linear Mode
