Battle of the Customer Approved Inspection Method - Root Cause of Nonconformance?

B

BruisedOrange

As if I'm not already deeply entrenched in a major depression because my Packers are 0-3, now this.

Our registration audit is scheduled for October 6th and 7th.

Today, our owner and customer has informed us that our inspection method (you know, the one that hasn't changed since we started this business three years ago) is unacceptable and far, far below their minimum requirements.

Since we started this business, we have been regularly sending our owner/customer a little something called a Proposed Inspection Method for their approval. To date, our owner/customer has neither signed and returned for approval nor rejected these proposals.

At no time has our owner/customer issued a corrective action addressing or resulting in a 'root cause' finding of inadequate inspection methods.

What I face now is a registration audit wherein, when asked for objective evidence of having determined customer requirements for inspection of product, my reply will sound something like, "Uhhh....buuhhh.....welllll......mmm.....ah?"

I know that each of you is a Genius of International Standards and if you cannot help me, then can someone please at least send me a plane ticket going anywhere from the Indianapolis airport for October 5th? No need for round trip, one way coach will do nicely.

For the love of Pete. Seriously. AGGGHHH!!!
 
BruisedOrange said:
What I face now is a registration audit wherein, when asked for objective evidence of having determined customer requirements for inspection of product, my reply will sound something like, "Uhhh....buuhhh.....welllll......mmm.....ah?"
LMAO :lol: I'm sorry, I'm not laughing at you, but with you: What a splendid description of an audit reply... :lmao:

Anyway, that response will probably not be necessary: Since you have been sending those "Proposed Inspection Method" for their approval, all you need to do is to produce copies of those messages when asked. I doubt that your registrar would clobber you for that reason. The lack of responses will speak for itself, :rolleyes: and you can hardly be blamed for not getting answers. You have after all tried, right?

/Claes
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
I have faced situations like this in the past. So have many others.

It may be too late for this go-round, but, typically, I and others played :ca: by appending little time bombs in the notices to the customer:
"If we have not learned to the contrary in writing from you by [date], we will consider acceptance of any shipments as concrete evidence that you approve of our inspection methods (PPAP or any other "thing" can be substituted here.)

Documentation is the key to salvation. Add a line to shipping documents as well, "Acceptance of this shipment is evidence of acceptance of all inspection methods per our letter dated [date.]"

Finally, KEEP THE RECORDS!
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Claes Gefvenberg said:
LMAO :lol: I'm sorry, I'm not laughing at you, but with you: What a splendid description of an audit reply... :lmao:
I've found that those types of responses are more often successful when sung:cool: .

Claes Gefvenberg said:
Anyway, that response will probably not be necessary: Since you have been sending those "Proposed Inspection Method" for their approval, all you need to do is to produce copies of those messages when asked. I doubt that your registrar would clobber you for that reason. The lack of responses will speak for itself, :rolleyes: and you can hardly be blamed for not getting answers. You have after all tried, right?

/Claes
The OP shouldn't show the auditors anything unless there's a requirement somewhere for the methods to be approved by the customer--there isn't such a requirement in the standard.
 

CarolX

Trusted Information Resource
BruisedOrange said:
What I face now is a registration audit wherein, when asked for objective evidence of having determined customer requirements for inspection of product, my reply will sound something like, "Uhhh....buuhhh.....welllll......mmm.....ah?"!!!

I think you have done this, the fact they did not respond is a different matter altogether.

BruisedOrange said:
I know that each of you is a Genius of International Standards and if you cannot help me, then can someone please at least send me a plane ticket going anywhere from the Indianapolis airport for October 5th? No need for round trip, one way coach will do nicely.

Flattery will get you everywhere with this group......:lol: :biglaugh: :lmao:
 
JSW05 said:
there isn't such a requirement in the standard.
Quite so, but 7.1c and 7.2.1b could come into play here. BO has obviously felt the need for more information, tried to get it and been less than successful.

Still: As Carol says, I think BO has done his level best.

/Claes
 
B

bmccabe - 2006

:lmao: :lol:

:rar: :biglaugh:
Da da da da da. Audit time’s commin’ short… Da da da da da. Get me a cab to the air port.

But seriously folks: I feel your pain. We pull the same things here, so I shouldn’t be too specific (Da da da da da . you may be our vendors …. ) Just show what records you do have, smile and nod (Da da da da da. Time for a weeklong bender.... :beerdive: ….)
 
S

SailorWard

And seldom, in the History of Man, has a Serious Inquiry generated so much fun and laughter--and knowledgeable responses! :lol:

That's the Best Part of this Forum: the ability to "hide" the knowledge in humor. "Hide" right in plain sight, of course! :applause:
 
B

BruisedOrange

The reason this is even on the table for discussion today....well, more accurately the reason this has been dumped in my lap to take care of today....is that this issue was raised in our pre-assessment audit.

Two important points: Our pre-assessment audit was not performed by our registrar, but by a consultant so this isn't necessarily something that we can be sure will come up again next week. Also, this was not listed as a finding in our pre-assessment audit but was discussed at great length and created enough uncertainty with management to cause them to investigate (which resulted in our owner/customer addressing the issue!).

My gut instinct when my fearful leaders brought this to me today was that this is a storm brewing between us and our owner/customer...that we can successfully avoid getting into in our audit.

The conversation on this in our pre-assessment audit ended when I raised the question, "Can you show me where in the standard I am required to produce records of approved inspection method proposals bearing a customer signature?"

1) Go, me. I'm pretty tight with our consultant. He teaches me great things. (He also offered me a job, so woohoo) He taught me to ASK that question in audits when I'm against the wall and don't think I should be.

2) Current storm brewing notwithstanding, we DO have records of having sent the proposed inspection method to the customer and, much as with supplier corrective actions, no one can physically FORCE someone to sign your darn paperwork. Period. Push comes to shove, I'll tell the auditor that, too.

It's a delicate dance we're learning here - - - you might remember that our ONE owner is also our ONE customer. It's a tangled web.

Carol and I have something in common. I often say I'll do or have done my level best. Sometimes I even throw in some curse words, depending on what kind of mood I'm in.

Airport: My trip to Jackson Hole, WY is already set in stone for post-audit life. Everyone, hurry on over to www.rustyparrot.com and take a lookee lookee at what this girl plans to do to reward herself for a year of doing her level best...

THANKS!!
 
Top Bottom