CSR (Customer Specific Requirements) in TS 16949 Audits - Always required?

[qusys]

You are right, but I can't write all information about this audit (I hope you understand me...).
I think, details are not so important. I'm looking for general rules - how should I treat CSR in the audit. I think auditor and auditee want to have clear situation: CSR are required or not required. It's difficult to get this information from customers, and I'm often not sure that information got from suppliers is trustworthy.

I have understood, no problem.
In my opinion , based upon what you said, you should have in your hands all the evidences to raise a non conformity vs 7.2.1 Customers processes writing that the process is not effective , listing all the weakness that you have revealed.
Another choice could also be to write a NC vs 4.1 if you have strong evidence that the link and sequence between site mfg processes and Corporate support ones ( in this case , sales) is not robust and not supported by the evidence related the CSR communication.
Not having partecipated to the audit, I only can argue this , also from the details that you have shared with us.
What about? Does it help?
Hope other expert cover can contribute based upon your last posts.

 

[Peters]

Qusys asks an interesting question. If the supplier declared the existence of CSRs, and then when audited gave a different story, there is some cause for concern. Is this what happened?

Yes. When he heard about NC he denied first written declaration about customers and their requirements. Actually stated that if these manuals apply to him is certainly not all clauses.

 

[qusys]

Yes. When he heard about NC he denied first written declaration about customers and their requirements. Actually stated that if these manuals apply to him is certainly not all clauses.

In my opinion, this could be another NC just in case they do not provide any waiver for what they declared concerning manuals clauses application to the audited organization. Could this make sense or not?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Yes. When he heard about NC he denied first written declaration about customers and their requirements. Actually stated that if these manuals apply to him is certainly not all clauses.

Well, there seems to be something fishy going on. My guess is that there's an NC in this mess somewhere, but perhaps not where you think it is.

 

[Peters]

In my opinion, this could be another NC just in case they do not provide any waiver for what they declared concerning manuals clauses application to the audited organization. Could this make sense or not?

Vaiwer? If manual is required they need vaiwer of course. Problem is in situation they haven't got such manual in the contract. And they say "we don't need vaiwer because manual is not required". If I agree with such declaration I'm afraid I can have problem with report approval. Verifier could be amazed reading eg. "Valeo - no specific requirements". He could say: Valeo?! I know Valeo required manual "SQA Manual P2104". How could you write "Valeo - no specific requirements"?!

 

[Peters]

The interesting conclusions from this discussion for me:
1.Customer specific requirements shall be agreed, confirmed and signed off.
2.If you're auditing CSRs, you must start with a relevant purchase order / contract from the customer.
3.If there are problems with establishing what is required it could be the evidence of poor communication between sale dept and production plant.
4.It's a good idea to not allow customers, especially automotive customers, to impose requirements that haven't been subjected to negotiation.

Thank you guys

 

[qusys]

Well, there seems to be something fishy going on. My guess is that there's an NC in this mess somewhere, but perhaps not where you think it is.

Thks,
it was only to share an idea based upon the writing in all these post.
Only Peters can have the pulse of the situation, having collected the evidences and compared them vs the audit criteria.However all together come to have a common vision even though living in 3 three different countries and not be part of the same audit team!!!
:

 

[Jim Wynne]

In my opinion, this could be another NC just in case they do not provide any waiver for what they declared concerning manuals clauses application to the audited organization. Could this make sense or not?

Declaring CSRs might have just been an error, in which case an NC might not be warranted. If the organization in the first instance said that they have some specific CSRs, and then when the auditor arrived they said, "Sorry, those CSRs don't actually exist because..." I'm not sure what the NC would be about, unless it were about failure to properly identify CSRs in the beginning.

Vaiwer? If manual is required they need vaiwer of course. Problem is in situation they haven't got such manual in the contract. And they say "we don't need vaiwer because manual is not required". If I agree with such declaration I'm afraid I can have problem with report approval. Verifier could be amazed reading eg. "Valeo - no specific requirements". He could say: Valeo?! I know Valeo required manual "SQA Manual P2104". How could you write "Valeo - no specific requirements"?!

You could answer it by saying either that CSRs were not specified as "shalls" in the contracts (purchase orders), or that you were unable to verify contractual obligations because the organization couldn't produce the necessary records in a timely fashion.