Audit day - Production Planning - Must we be producing product?

A

andre-soares

We work for both non-automotive and automotive industry (ISO TS ans ISO 9000 certifications), we will have an audit in the end of this month, I have the information from our planning department that is not predicted to produce automotive parts in the audit day, do we have to change our planning?

Thnak you in advance
 
A

AJAMODEO

It would be a plus to manufacture your automotive parts during the audit, but not a necessity. The auditor would be looking at the process of producing the parts so whether or not they are automotive doesn't really matter in my opinion. I assume you use the same machines to produce automotive and non-automotive parts and have the same process for both? If so, no big issue.
 
A

andre-soares

Yes it is common an injection moulding process, same machines for all!
 
D

D.Scott

Sounds like another catch 22 created by the system.

What will happen if the auditor finds a non conformance during the audit? The audit scope specifically excludes non-automotive parts and processes. Can objective evidence even be considered from outside the audit scope? Can a NC be written against something outside the audit scope? I understand AJAMODEO's comments but I would be hard pressed to accept an automotive standard audit conducted against non-automotive objective evidence.

IMHO you need to inform your registrar and let them reschedule the audit for when you can demonstrate your QMS within the audit scope. Either that or your planning group should make sure you have automotive processes to audit.

Dave
 
Q

qualeety

it never cease to amaze me...

isn't it funny...i mean...does it matter, whether you produce automotive or non-automotive parts when you are auditing QMS?....remember, you are verifying the effectiveness of QMS....and why would you not include non-automotive parts in the scope of the audit?

There should be ample records to support the QMS and any observational findings should be addressed as a part of continual improvement.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
qualeety said:
...remember, you are verifying the effectiveness of QMS....?
As it pertains to automotive parts and processes.

qualeety said:
...and why would you not include non-automotive parts in the scope of the audit?
Because 16949 applies only to automotive parts and processes. That's the intentionally circumscribed scope of the standard, whether it makes sense or not. Auditors need to see objective evidence of the efficacy of the system which, imo, can't be done if the relevant processes aren't running.
 

bpritts

Involved - Posts
While I agree that in theory, any of the common production processes should be able to demonstrate the system, in my opinion it would be best to have at least a few automotive parts running for part of the audit time. As JSW05 points out, TS16949 is specifically intended to cover the automotive products; there could be nagging doubts on the effectiveness of the system, if the production process cannot be observed on at least one automotive product.

Brad Pritts
Consultant

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
bpritts said:
While I agree that in theory, any of the common production processes should be able to demonstrate the system, in my opinion it would be best to have at least a few automotive parts running for part of the audit time. As JSW05 points out, TS16949 is specifically intended to cover the automotive products; there could be nagging doubts on the effectiveness of the system, if the production process cannot be observed on at least one automotive product.

Brad Pritts
Consultant

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
What's being missed here, I think, is that there are documentation requirements for automotive processes that might not be used for non-automotive products; many companies that do both types of business will produce flow diagrams, PFMEAs, control plans, etc. only for automotive products. Evaluation of an automotive manufacturing process should include comparing the control plan, for example, to what's actually done in production, which you can't do if the job addressed by the PCP isn't running. As another example, automotive customer-specific requirements (such as GP12 for GM) should be verified, which also can't be done if the job isn't running.
 
R

Rob Nix

Just because there are no automotive products physically running that day does not mean that the automotive processes cannot be audited. There is still likely automotive product lying around somewhere, and the records related to automotive processes are available, and people that normally run automotive parts can still be interviewed. I say, no need to reschedule.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Rob Nix said:
Just because there are no automotive products physically running that day does not mean that the automotive processes cannot be audited.
There is still likely automotive product lying around somewhere, and the records related to automotive processes are available, and people that normally run automotive parts can still be interviewed. I say, no need to reschedule.
So it's not important to see evidence that process documentation reflects what actually happens when a process is running? Sorry, but I've seen too many occassions when after reviewing documentation and finding it satisfactory, and then later seeing the actual process running, I had to wonder if I might be looking at the wrong process. Making assumptions about a process based on documentation, parts of undetermined origin and the biased statements of auditees is not how objective evidence is collected.
 
Top Bottom