Cleanliness - TS 16949:2002 Clause 6.4.2 - Cleanliness Of Premises - Definition of

[moses56]

Hi to all, (newly registered today).

Can anybody take the ambiguity out of clause 6.4.2 (ISO/TS 16949:2002).
What is the measure of cleanliness?

[Rob Nix]

Welcome to the Cove Moses!!

The key is stated in 6.4.2:

...consistent with the product and manufacturing process needs

Cleanliness requirements vary vastly with the industry you are in. If most of the employees were asked, "Is the place kept clean enough to ensure safety, quality and productivity?", then the most popular answer would be your measure.

[Sandyr]

[QUOTE=Rob Nix]Welcome to the Cove Moses!!

I have a new question for all of you. I was told that I have to audit the Level I and Level II documents before the registration audit as a part of the internal audit. Does this mean I am checking to make sure all of the new TS requirements have been added into our documents? Or am I missing something?

[moses56]

Sandyr,
Thanks for the welcome.
Going through the stages of implementing TS 16949 myself, I have not heard of a specific requirement to audit Level I and Level II prior to doc.review.
6.2.2.1 does however state the organisation shall audit its QMS to verify compliance with this technical standard.
This could be interpreted as ensuring all the additional clauses of TS, have been reviewed and are compliant.
Whether this means by audit, I don't know.
Interesting one!

[moses56]

Thanks for the answer Rob,
I can now wallow in the mire,with peace of mind.

[tomvehoski]

Cleanliness of premises is a pretty open question most times. The standard does require it be "appropriate", so while oil on machines may be OK in a screw machine shop, it would not be in an environment where appearance items are painted, handled, etc.

In actual audits I have seen it vary widely. The auditor I have been with in a TS2 audit the last two days said the only two majors he has written so far have been against this clause - one for a dirty mens room. I had a client almost go over the table at an auditor for slamming their cleanliness after they did a major clean-up - he found a couple stray pieces of steel under a bench they missed, nothing else . I even asked an auditor to write a minor against a client because I could not convince the owner he needed to clean up his shop. I have also heard comments from auditors like "It's a welding shop, it is supposed to be dirty".

If you want to define what clean is in a procedure or work instruction, that may take out some of the guess work. For example, you might have a process that every night the floor is swept, chips picked up, machines wiped down, etc. If not, it will basically rely on common sense and the auditor's opinions.

As for documents, you are not required to cover every requirement in TS2 in a documented procedure. I would recommend auditing all of your documents against practice, and also review the standard against both the documents and the processes to make sure you have covered all of the "shalls".

Hope this helps,

Tom

[Sam]

Originally Posted by tomvehoski

Cleanliness of premises is a pretty open question most times. The standard does require it be "appropriate", so while oil on machines may be OK in a screw machine shop, it would not be in an environment where appearance items are painted, handled, etc.

In actual audits I have seen it vary widely. The auditor I have been with in a TS2 audit the last two days said the only two majors he has written so far have been against this clause - one for a dirty mens room. I had a client almost go over the table at an auditor for slamming their cleanliness after they did a major clean-up - he found a couple stray pieces of steel under a bench they missed, nothing else . I even asked an auditor to write a minor against a client because I could not convince the owner he needed to clean up his shop. I have also heard comments from auditors like "It's a welding shop, it is supposed to be dirty".

If you want to define what clean is in a procedure or work instruction, that may take out some of the guess work. For example, you might have a process that every night the floor is swept, chips picked up, machines wiped down, etc. If not, it will basically rely on common sense and the auditor's opinions.

As for documents, you are not required to cover every requirement in TS2 in a documented procedure. I would recommend auditing all of your documents against practice, and also review the standard against both the documents and the processes to make sure you have covered all of the "shalls".

Hope this helps,

Tom

Tom,
Interesting post. It does point out the "control mentallity" of the auditor when given the opportunity to express their opinion on such vague issues. I would question the major on the "mens room". How does this apply to TS2? If it does then it should be covered in the scope.
Also, you refer to "clients" so I will assume you are a consultant. Para 4.1 of the "rules" states that "consultants to the organization cannot participate in the audit".
How does this work?

[tomvehoski]

Sam,

I was a consultant until last September, when my billable time dropped to about 20 hours/month and I was laid off. After five months unemployed (aka independent consulting) I am now with an automotive electronics supplier as a process engineer. We just went through the TS2 upgrade this week as a support site (design mostly) to the Mexico manufacturing facility (to be audited later). I observed the entire audit and participated a bit, but as I have only been here a few weeks it was more of a learning experience about the company for me.

Back when I was consulting, auditors were usually fine with my presence and even some participation when they realized I would not try to answer questions for the client or control the direction of it. One TS2 audit I was told I could not participate, not even to answer an administrative question about a SIC code in the opening meeting. I stayed off site most of the audit to avoid any issues. I did argue a couple nonconformances via phone through their management rep, and won. Would have saved everyone a lot of time if I could have talked to the auditor directly for 2 minutes.

I know some consultants will pose as an employee during an audit. I never liked that - would much rather say I am the consultant, I helped set up the system, they run it. I could answer questions about why the system was set up a certain way, but if my client could not answer a question they should have known the answer to, I wanted them to sweat or else they would never learn.