SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development

[ChuckHughes]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

I guess that shuts me up!

Regards,
Doug

Me too.... Its time to go out and shovel some more.

Chuck

 

[Howard Atkins]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

SI's are mandatory from publication
These requirements already appeared in the Ford and GM CSR's.

There is in fact a legal loophole to the demand of 100%certification to ISO9001

 

[Douglas E. Purdy]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

This discussion has motivated me to purchase the new 17021. Hardly an opportunity purchase....not like a new tool...

Both documents are focused on development and maintenance of a creditable audit program. The only area that I see may have some additional value to this discussion is Section 4.2 of 17021 that deals with Impartiality. 17021 is written for Certification Bodies and issues of ownership/partnership or other business relationships that may jeopardize impartiality are discussed here. I think this may also be an issue with 2nd party audits of suppliers with whom the organization has some arrangement of mutual benefit. Section 4.2 points out four areas called "threats to impartiality":

1. Self interest threats: Interests the client has in assessing the auditee as compliant [my words here and below, not 17021]. How about "spin off businesses"? My owner's cousin runs the company that supplies us with parts (See 4. Intimidation below)
2. Self review threats: Looking at your own work. Don't send an engineer to audit a vendor that builds parts according to your prints. Can I assign purchasing people, QC inspectors, Shipping and Receving people?
3. Familiarity: The vendor has bailed us out of many jams and we love them.
4. Intimidation: If the vendor audit report shows noncompliant areas, what will my registrar's anal-retentive auditor think about my status. Am I gaining another finding from my registrar everytime I write a nonconformance to my vendor?

Some food for thought in each of these.

It is still snowing.......

What about Section 9? What does it add to the SI?

Thanks,
Doug

 

[Douglas E. Purdy]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

The company just procured ISO/IEC 17021 and when I began Reading Section 9, I became very upset with this Sanctioned Interpretation. The 10 pages that make up Section 9, Process Requirements, is full of requirements for a certification body. Do we really have to meet all these requirements in order to establish a 2nd Party Audit System for those suppliers who are not registered to ISO 9001? I would like to see how someone, who is not a certification body, developed their 2nd Party Audit System.

(See also ISO 17021:2006), Section 9.

That one goofy looking sentence really adds a whallop to the Sanctioned Interpretation!

Doug

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

Do we really have to meet all these requirements in order to establish a 2nd Party Audit System for those suppliers who are not registered to ISO 9001?
(See also ISO 17021:2006), Section 9.

That one goofy looking sentence really adds a whallop to the Sanctioned Interpretation!

Doug

I understand your frustration, but the phrase (See also ISO 17021:2006), Section 9. can be understood differently from The organization must comply with ISO 17021:2006, Section 9.
As long as you ask here, you will get opinions and opinions only. The only authoritative source for a definite answer would be the IATF/IAOB. I would encourage you to contact them.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

I understand your frustration, but the phrase (See also ISO 17021:2006), Section 9. can be understood differently from The organization must comply with ISO 17021:2006, Section 9.
As long as you ask here, you will get opinions and opinions only. The only authoritative source for a definite answer would be the IATF/IAOB. I would encourage you to contact them.

I've always looked at this type of "dilemma" similarly to the way I looked at tax laws as a business exec:

1. First, I talked to my professional advisors and determined a "best course of action." (In this case, an organization registered to a Standard would ask its registrar for an opinion/interpretation which the registrar would use during an audit based on the organization's circumstances in the same manner as I asked our CPA and attorneys.)
2. Second, if we (us and advisors) couldn't agree, we considered asking the IRS for a "letter opinion." (Actually, this isn't as scary as it sounds - akin to following Sidney's advice re: IATF/IAOB. )

Usually, our decision to seek a letter opinion only came about if we faced a criminal sanction (read jail) versus a civil one (read $$$) - for $$$ sanctions, many organizations are willing to gamble; only fools gamble with jail time. With TS, the worst that can happen is the registrar changes his mind and issues an NC - which the organization then "fixes." Doesn't seem like a terrible penalty or high likelihood of occurrence (think of this as FMEA.)

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

With TS, the worst that can happen is the registrar changes his mind and issues an NC - which the organization then "fixes." Doesn't seem like a terrible penalty or high likelihood of occurrence (think of this as FMEA.)

Wes has a very good point here. If your registrar is expected to confirm if your supplier oversight process follows the ISO 17021 Section 9 requirements, chances are, the TS auditors have never seen nor have a copy of ISO 17021....:mg:

 

[Douglas E. Purdy]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

Well, as recommended I have sent an Email to IOAB on the subject (see attached).

Doug

 

[Douglas E. Purdy]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

[I hope this is ethical, if not then the moderator can delete it.]

I shared with you my Email to the IOAB, so I thought I would share their response too. See attached.

Doug

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: SI 5 06 - ISO/TS 169494:2002 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system developme

Re: ethics of sharing.
My interpretation is the INTENDED recipient (Doug) can do anything he wants with the message.

My interpretation of the message itself:
"ignore the clause!"