10.2.3 Problem Solving - What to look for at a non production remote site?

[DariusPlumdon]

Hello,

We have seen the information on the IATF site stating that many findings are being raised against 10.2.3 Problem Solving.

I am wondering if this is partly due to the Sanctioned Interpretation given the need to consider 'preventative action'??

I work for a 'remote' site in Europe, we do a little bit of Design, but primarily Sales related activity and Core functions (IT, HR, Procurement)
- All the manufacturing is in the Far East.
- The Core functions are more 'implementers', they are not really involved in decisions, that is done in the HQ in the USA

We have never had any Major, Minor or even OFI raised against 10.2.3, and want to make sure this continues! So 3 related but separate questions:

1. What areas/examples would you look to see in Design
- I do have several ideas & have seen evidence of this being done well in past audits, but am intentionally not stating them here as I am hoping to learn new suggestions?

2. What areas/examples would you look to see in Core Functions (IT, HR and particularly Procurement)?
- I really am struggling to think of examples where there have been 'problems to solve' in past audits, so any ideas would be appreciated!

3. If there is no case found in the audit (sampling) where a problem solving technique should have been used, BUT as an auditor I do check the documentation (which is strong) and ask the interviewees then what more am I expected to do ... I am assuming nothing!

I am more interested in the opportunities for problem solving, not the techniques to use, the techniques I have lots of

Regards

Dari

 

[Jen Kirley]

Hello Dari,

10.2.3 Problem solving is part of the Corrective Action clause. It seems to me you are looking for a problem to solve that may not exist.

Has the auditor raised nonconformities?

 

[ChrisM]

I echo what Jen said above, you can't create a "problem"; you have to wait for one to be reported before you can start to look into it.
How would you be made aware of a "problem" (and who would make you aware of one) so that you could begin to look at solving it? Where would you fit into a Team that would perform any investigations? Where/who would you contact to raise any necessary question to ensure that you had full details of a problem, how it was detected and who detected it?

 

[Johnnymo62]

I think ineffective problem solving is mostly caused by failing to identify real root causes. I really like the 3 legged 5 why for finding root causes because it addresses: 1) the defect, 2) escape and 3) systemic causes of 1 & 2. This tool can be used for audit findings as well as part defects. I also like to use the Cause and Effect Diagram (Ishikawa, fishbone). I often use both of these tools together. Also, verification of the effectiveness of any corrective actions is important to ensure the real root causes were found. Good luck.

 

[DariusPlumdon]

Thank you for the replies. I am trying to look for problem that do not exist; in past internal audits we have sampled 10.2.3 and never needed to raise a finding, are existing process was robust and where issues arose there was good clear action taken.
The point of my asking about this is the IATF listi of clauses where most NCs were raised by external auditors showed 10.2.3 much higher this year; this after a SI was released on 'preventative action' within 10.2.3 ... my educated guess is there is a link between the two.
My hope is that the SI will have little impact on us, as we have looked to take preventative action; and from the answers received I think this is the case, so thank you all.

 

[DariusPlumdon]

Well, we had our external audit & have now successfully actioned the NCs which have now been officially closed ... so I can give you an update.
Unlike previous years 'Problem Solving' was a constant issue through the audit, and one of the Minor NCs we had raised against us was on '10.2.3 - Problem Solving'. I think given the Sanctioned Interpretation being released auditors (well at least our auditor) seem to expect some form of root cause analysis such as Ishiwaka or 5Y for everything, no matter how trivial. It is a pity as it added no value; I hope the company I work for was the exception to the rule and other auditors are more pragmatic.