ChuckHughes said:
As a Strict Constructionist, I take the view that everyone, auditors, AB's and CB's have to define the standards in terms beneficial to the customer (the assembly plant, not the car buyer). If we are going to be consistent as auditors we have to work from the same standards. I don't think we are doing a good job of calibrating auditors so that the majority of auditors can review a process and draw the same conclusions of effectiveness and efficiency. Instead the few memos we get from the CB's refer to the "new policy" constructed in response to an AB auditor finding of a CB. Such things as 4-hour breaks between 8 hour audits of day and off shift work. No one explained that requirement. Now we don't include Sales in scopes anymore. Do we still audit contract review if Sales does it???
I agree that the car companies use the standards (more often the threat decertification) as a hammer to control suppliers. This doesn't help. In fact it brings us back to the Pre QS days when a supplier had to maintain three systems to appease Ford, GM and Chrysler. Remember the frustrated QC manager trying to build a secure QC Hold area? Ford wants rope/chain cordons, GM wants locked cages. QS and now TS is expecting some uniformity of complaince.
Imagine how hard it is for a client to know what is correct, when the CB's and auditors can't even be clear.
It sounds like you speak from the experience of the trenches. I agree with your concerns and comments. There is risk that they unstandardize the standards. And better communication is always a good idea.
