QS-9000 Clause 4.10.4.2 - Final Product Audit vs. Dock Audit

[Steven Truchon]

This has probably been covered before but here is my issue anyway.
We have a debate regarding the intent of the "dock audit" according to QS9K. Our QM insists that it is merely to verify that the correct part#, revision, quantity, packaging, and labeling are correct, and that product verification extending to any dimensional or other physical property inspection is pure redundancy and therefore not the intent of the standard.
I maintain that it does include a dimensional verification and should be based on sampling as indicated in the "note" at the end of 4.10.4.2.

I would appreciate any feedback on this one.
Thanks in advance.
Steve Truchon
Precision Resource-Florida

I would tend to agree that the product also requires verification of conformance. The 4.10.4.2 para does mention the word
"product" as part of the verification process. It does not require a specific method of sampling (i.e., mil-std) so I am assuming that your decided level of sampling should be based on what best suits your needs. It is the frequency that is of concern and the manipulation of that frequency. I have dealt with auditors that were very interested in how the frequency of the audits could change more so than the sample size. But I do agree that the product must be reviewed for conformance.

Steve,

Have had the discusion many times.

In a past experience and auditor asked me if dimensions were specified requirements, of course. He noted that the examples given are just that, examples, not a limited list. Read into this that the word "product" applies to product requirements/specifications.

Also, as I'm sure you know, the notes are for reference only, it does not even include the words "shall" or "should".

What has worked in the past is a dock audit report that includes packaging, labeling, identification.

On the form is an area that requires the inspector to take the traveler number that goes with the product back to the lab where final inspection records are stored. They verify that the parts are indeed within dimensional requirements, not by measurement, but by ensuring that all of the readings taken during final are indeed within spec limits and that the inspection form has been signed by appropriate personnel.

ASD...

[Roger Eastin]

Do a search on this one. We have had this discussion ever since the requirement came out. You will find a treasure chest full of interesting interpretations on final dock audits!

[Marc]

Yeah - a couple are http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000037.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000417.html for starters.

[Sam]

Steve, I agree with your issue on sampling.
As for dimensional verification I refer back to the records that were completed during in process and final inspection.
Packaging and labeling is verified and recorded at random.
Our products go from the shop floor to shipping to the truck to be shipped that day. I just cannot imagine holding up shipment while someone wants to do a dimensional verification.

We use dock audits to verify product that has had previous problems. If we authorize a return for product then through our corrective action system a dock audit is issued to be done for the next shipment. We preform a dimensional inspection. If we have stock and purged to verify a dock audit is not necessary. In most cases we do not carry stock due to our JIT.