Auditor Requirement to 'Map' TS 16949 Requirements against our QMS

[Dan M]

The document our Registrar asked us to complete was an excel spreadsheet that listed each clause and subclause line by line and prompts us to enter our document name/number for each line item. Sure it would be great to have, along with many other things (that I can't seem to complete due to lack of time).

I do not think it is a NC because the original poster said that it happened in Phase 1 of the certification.
Dan , the original poster, should give us more details about this .
However, I guess it is a request of the CB auditor to complete the template together with the organization to have an official frame of the QMS process as said in my previous post , written on CB documentation.
Also for this, Dan could be more precise on what it happened.

 

[Wes Bucey]

The document our Registrar asked us to complete was an excel spreadsheet that listed each clause and subclause line by line and prompts us to enter our document name/number for each line item. Sure it would be great to have, along with many other things (that I can't seem to complete due to lack of time).

I think most of us were pretty clear on WHAT the auditor was looking for, but the question on the table is WHY and how was it characterized (OFI or command/demand?) If not OFI, auditor needs to document his justification for such a demand.

We also seem to have a consensus that such a matrix is not a BAD thing, just that it is not required in ANY Standard.

 

[qusys]

I think most of us were pretty clear on WHAT the auditor was looking for, but the question on the table is WHY and how was it characterized (OFI or command/demand?) If not OFI, auditor needs to document his justification for such a demand.

We also seem to have a consensus that such a matrix is not a BAD thing, just that it is not required in ANY Standard.

Agree with you, Wes.
I guess no OFI, no NC. It happened in stage 1 of ISO TS certification. As I wrote in other posts, this spread sheet of the CB auditor is a simple tool to better indentify the cross relation clauses-processes documentation in the audited organization.
In the readiness review on site the CB auditor usually checks the evidence that ISO TS requirements have been taken into consideration in the QMS processes.Such a spreadsheet to be filled it could be a very simple tool ( but not the only one). The advantage to do so is that the organization can perform a real assessment, the auditor can better know the organization, its processes and details optimizing the time.
What about?

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think most of us were pretty clear on WHAT the auditor was looking for, but the question on the table is WHY and how was it characterized (OFI or command/demand?) If not OFI, auditor needs to document his justification for such a demand.

There are no OFIs or NCs prior to a stage 1 audit. If there is a requirement, it's in the contract.

 

[Wes Bucey]

There are no OFIs or NCs prior to a stage 1 audit. If there is a requirement, it's in the contract.

Really!? You are going to cavil about a specific term?

The point is whether the auditor at ANY stage says words which mean either

1. I suggest it would be helpful if you did this
   OR
2. You shall [must] do this or your certification won't happen

regardless of whether he says "OFI" or "N/C" - I get the idea this wasn't written, but oral,

our registrar informed me in the TS 16949 Phase I that we needed [?] to map all of the TS Requirements against our QMS.

which isn't really anything mandatory or a even a written note in a gap analysis.

In fact, this whole thread has hinged on Dan's interpretation of the auditor's comment to mean the matrix was needed, not a helpful suggestion. It wouldn't be the first time an auditee has misinterpreted a comment as a command. It also wouldn't be the first time the Cove contingent has raged against an auditor's action only to find, when the dust cleared, that we jumped to a wrong conclusion because we didn't have a true and correct record of what transpired.

Sometimes, just sometimes, we direct our cynicism at the wrong target, hoping to deflate some officious popinjay when the real target should be the timid soul who misheard an offhand remark or helpful hint.

I, more than most, have railed in the Cove against "Mission Creep." But sometimes I misinterpret who really initiated the Mission Creep.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Really!? You are going to cavil about a specific term?

No, not cavil. These terms have specific meanings in the context of third-party audits, and it appeared to me that there was a misunderstanding.

This is all really very simple. If there is a requirment to provide the matrix in question, it's in the contract between the organization and the CB. If there is no reference in the contract, there is no requirement.

 

[Dan M]

Let me clarify. I read the contract before signing it and the contract does not require mapping all the requirements. This was a verbal request.

 

[Wes Bucey]

<SNIP>

The point is whether the auditor at ANY stage says words which mean either

1. I suggest it would be helpful if you did this
   OR
2. You shall [must] do this or your certification won't happen

regardless of whether he says "OFI" or "N/C" - I get the idea this wasn't written, but oral, which isn't really anything mandatory or a even a written note in a gap analysis.

In fact, this whole thread has hinged on Dan's interpretation of the auditor's comment to mean the matrix was needed, not a helpful suggestion. It wouldn't be the first time an auditee has misinterpreted a comment as a command. It also wouldn't be the first time the Cove contingent has raged against an auditor's action only to find, when the dust cleared, that we jumped to a wrong conclusion because we didn't have a true and correct record of what transpired.<SNIP>

Let me clarify. I read the contract before signing it and the contract does not require mapping all the requirements. This was a verbal request.

So, you got the impression, either from the exact words or the tone of voice, that this "request" was more of a demand than an suggestion? If the various comments in this thread make it all seem more ambiguous to you, pick up the phone, call the guy and ask him straight out. If it is a demand, ask him to show you the shall and to give you the demand in writing. If no "shall" in contract (certainly none in the Standard), then you will have firm ground to ask for a different auditor, because this guy is engaging in mission creep.

If the guy says, "Hey, it was just a helpful suggestion." Then we will have all learned not to jump to conclusions without sufficient facts.

 

[qusys]

Let me clarify. I read the contract before signing it and the contract does not require mapping all the requirements. This was a verbal request.

Thanks for replying.
Probably there is not in the contract, but in the items to be shown in readiness review it is foreseen that the organization shows evidence that ISO TS requirements have been taken into consideration in the QMS processes.
If you show this, for example, with a table in your QM making a sort of cross reference between ISO TS clauses and identified process, you have the thing done and the auditor request is fulfilled.
The request was verbal because he/she did not find this evidence.
Did you pass phase 1?

 

[Golfman25]

"Shall" or not, Demand or not, this was a request by the auditor to make his job easier. I don't think he was requiring it to be part of the QMS. He needs to make sure all the elements are covered. If you provide him with a cross reference showing where the elements are covered he has less work to do. Seems to me to be a simple request. Not sure I would be challenging the auditor on this -- probably not the best way to start out on the relationship. Good luck.