Control Plan content and fields - Format and Reaction Plan - 4.9.1 & 4.9.2

[Marc]

> Marc, thank you for the response to my audit experience question. I
> have a question for you, which I tried to post on the https://Elsmar.com
> site but had no luck. Recently, my company went through an assessment
> and the assessor cited us because the format we use for control plans
> on processes for our Japanese customers doesn't require documented
> Reaction Plan information as required by our Big 3 Customers. If we
> are required to use our customer specified format how can we be cited
> because the format doesn't meet the format used when doing business
> with the Big 3? I don't believe that we should have been cited, what I
> feel the assessor is requiring us to do is develop and control two
> control plans, one in our Japanese customer's format and one using the
> QS9000 required control plan? If you could simplify my situation and
> post it for me, I would love to see how others have been audited when
> confronted with this situation.

Remember that the AIAG format (layout) is really not the issue. The real issue is the fields in the AIAG form and the corresponding QS9000 requirements.

The Root of the Citation

> on processes for our Japanese customers doesn't require documented
> Reaction Plan information as required by our Big 3 Customers.

QS9 Glossary says:
Reaction Plan - A Reaction Plan is the action specified by a control plan, or other quality system documentation, to be initiated when nonconforming product or process instability is identified.

The auditor cited you for lack of a reaction plan and you say your customer does not require a reaction plan. Reaction plan is required in 4.9.1 (see the bulleted laundry list page 36), however there is a delimiting as appropriate. It is again required in 4.9.2 (bulleted list page 37). There is no opt out that I see such as an 'as appropriate'. It is 'assumed' the reaction plan will be within the control plan but that is not a specific requirement. Your reaction plan can technically be in another document.

Would I cite you? I have to admit - a good question. I probably would try by going to 4.13 and ask how an operator or other employee knows what to do with nonconforming product. We also would have a long discussion as to how you meet 4.9.2 as well. But - you probably really do have reaction plans - they're just not in your control plan...

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Marc, since the Japanese customer does not require QS-9000, can the auditor really cite that as a finding? If I have to use their format, isn't that a "waiver" to the requirement by default?

 

[Marc]

since the Japanese customer does not require QS-9000, can the auditor really cite that as a finding?

The company is QS9000. If the product line is in the registration scope, the requirement stands, as far as I understand it. I have seen companies register only certain lines. On those lines they had to have control plans and such. Their control plans and such were station (process) specific, not product specific, so a reaction plan had to exist for each control plan entry. However, the reaction plans were not in the control plans but rather were in the process documents. They had the Reaction Plan field in their control plan, but it referenced the appropriate process document.

It is only a waiver if you have documented evidence from the customer. I wouldn't accept an assumption of a 'default' for anything requirimg a waiver. I would want some type of proof.

But - If the auditor is arguing that the Reaction Plan field has to be on the control plan, the auditor is wrong. QS9000 doesn't say that - 4.9.2 says you have to have one - but not where.

In part your question leads me to believe you are saying that nothing in QS9000 is required in contracts where your customer does not require QS9000. Is that correct?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

In part that is what I am saying. Even though the plant is QS-9000, the registrar did not audit the product lines for Japanese customers to the QS-9000 requirements (in our contract review procedure we listed customers who require QS, ISO, or none). However, we did have a blanket statement in the individual work instructions to refer to the Control of Nonconforming Product procedure.

 

[Sam]

Para 4.2.3.7 Requires the use of the control plan in appendix J which has a field for addressing the reaction plan.
We too were given a minor for having a blank field in the control plan during our registration audit.
The auditors comment "show me a control plan that complies with QS9000, not one that was accepted by your customer."

 

[Marc]

It doesn't say you have to use the form in appendix J - it says your form has to contain the information that is contained in the AIAG format form. I have often seen the reaction plan field with only a reference to another document. I have also seen where all the information on the 1 page AIAG form was distributed on more than one page / more than 1 document.

 

[cosminadorina]

Hello,
I have some question regarding the way a control plan has to be filled and reviwed/updated.
1. By point 3: Part number, I understand that our part number has to be listed is it realy necessary to put also the customer part number?
Also by this point there are some cases in wich the drawing is changed but the changes do not affect the product it self (maybe some pictures added). In this case shold I up date the control plan in order to have the latest change level of the drawing inside? I would say that it should not be...but sometimes the customers are asking haw should they no that the control plan fits with the drawing.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

Marc how can you tell the auditor he is wrong without making him angry and create a repercussion during a TS audit?