Customer's Supplier Quality Manuals used by Auditor in a TS 16949 Audit

[Audit Monkey]

I have been involved with TS since it was written and have seen very, very few instances where the CSR was waived.

In case you want to look it up, the auditor is relying on the IATF guidance document for ISO/TS16949. Page 5 specifically requires that customer specific requirements are part of the 4.2 documentation requirements for TS.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Sorry, but the auditor is required to audit you to these requirements. If your previous auditors did not do so, they are not doing their job well. If you examine the fine print of your PO, you will probably find the supplier manual requirements.

I am sorry but I believe you are wrong. It if is not required by the Purchase Order or Contract, it doesn't exist as a requirement. If the Customer wanted this required they should have placed in the Purchase Order/Contract. The binding document is the "face of the Purchase Order/Contract" which supersedes any other requirements from a Legal point of view (I am not an Attorney, but have dealt with Contracts in my career).

I do agree that the Supplier should have a copy of a Supplier Manual, just in case it is flowed down in the Contract/Purchase Order.

The Auditor, in my opinion went outside the "Scope" of the Audit, by auditing the system to a Customer's Supplier Manual when it is not required by the Contract or Purchase Order.

This is my opinion.

 

[vizsla]

The auditor should also have sent an agenda to you in advance and noted this on it. Hopefully you can rate your auditor, this is what customers do for 17025 auditors. They are specifically asked it and audit agenda was produced before the auditor arrived on site. Thanks

 

[bobdoering]

I have been involved with TS since it was written and have seen very, very few instances where the CSR was waived.

In case you want to look it up, the auditor is relying on the IATF guidance document for ISO/TS16949. Page 5 specifically requires that customer specific requirements are part of the 4.2 documentation requirements for TS.

The key term is "requirements". It is the customer's responsibility to tell you if the tree fell - except the big three, who claim you already know their CSR from birth. If it is not in the contract or print, it is not a requirement - it is not that it was "waived" (that means it was there, but they said forget about it), it is not there - period. True, if it is in the fine print, then they got you right in the contract reviews.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I have been involved with TS since it was written and have seen very, very few instances where the CSR was waived.

In case you want to look it up, the auditor is relying on the IATF guidance document for ISO/TS16949. Page 5 specifically requires that customer specific requirements are part of the 4.2 documentation requirements for TS.

As Bob Doering has pointed out, the CSRs don't become requirements by fiat (pun intended) or magic--they have to form a part of the contractual agreement. If they ain't in the contract, they ain't requirements (nor is TS16949 itself, for that matter).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Let me throw a little gasoline in this dying fire:

Don't forget the requirements from ISO 9001 and TS 16949:

The organization shall determine:

a) requirements specified by the customer, including the requirements for delivery and post-delivery activities,
b) requirements not stated by the customer but necessary for specified or intended use, where known,
c) statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the product, and
d) any additional requirements considered necessary by the organization.​

The standard does require an organization to go beyond the minimum, contractually specified customer requirements. I do agree, however, that if a customer does not inform a supplier that a "Supplier Quality Manual" exists nor invokes it anywhere in the T&C's, the supplier might plea blissful ignorance.

What should a good auditor do, in a situation like this? Besides planning and communicating with the auditee beforehand, the moment an organization resists to the idea of being audited and expected to comply with the supplier manual, the auditor should have called someone at the customer SQA function and, in the presence of the auditee, enquire:

Hi, I am So&so, auditing supplier ABC, on behalf of CB XYZ. The supplier tells me that they have never been informed nor required to comply with this manual. Can you clarify where and how was compliance with this manual flown down to this supplier?

If the customer SQA can not provide a clear location where such expectation was conveyed, then the auditor should not use that manual as a source of auditable requirements.

 

[bobdoering]

... the auditor should have called someone at the customer SQA function and, in the presence of the auditee, enquire:

Hi, I am So&so, auditing supplier ABC, on behalf of CB XYZ. The supplier tells me that they have never been informed nor required to comply with this manual. Can you clarify where and how was compliance with this manual flown down to this supplier?

If the customer SQA can not provide a clear location where such expectation was conveyed, then the auditor should not use that manual as a source of auditable requirements.

Ah, nothing more entertaining than having the auditor rile up the customer during an audit. That's worth an extra donut.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Ah, nothing more entertaining than having the auditor rile up the customer during an audit. That's worth an extra donut.

I would call it effective auditing. Because an audit, just like justice, involves the pursuit of truth and fairness. If a "client" wants a moronic, rollover auditor, sooner or later they will pay for it.

 

[Howard Atkins]

As Bob Doering has pointed out, the CSRs don't become requirements by fiat (pun intended) or magic--they have to form a part of the contractual agreement. If they ain't in the contract, they ain't requirements (nor is TS16949 itself, for that matter).

But Jim,
This is in fact irrelevant as the audit is based on a contract between the auditor and the auditee to perform an audit according to the scope agreed between them.
The auditor must insure that the standard is applicable to the company audited, after that the audit is then between the CB and the auditee.

 

[howste]

Ah, nothing more entertaining than having the auditor rile up the customer during an audit. That's worth an extra donut.

I have, during several TS 16949 audits, asked the client to contact their customer either about CSRs or scorecards. I've been asked to audit with their automotive customers needs in mind, and if I don't know what they require my audit can't be very effective. Of course, often I find that they don't know what they want.


In one case I was required to write a major nonconformity because a customer had put them on a special containment status. At the time of the audit, the client had evidence that the original problem had been resolved. However, the customer had hired a sorting company to check all incoming product from the company. The sorting company (who were not motivated to end the inspections) kept finding a few pieces with some other problem to reject. Because of this, they kept the special containment status in place.

I asked them to get the customer on the phone. We had a lovely discussion, during which I explained to the customer that if the containment remained in place for another month or two their supplier would lose their TS 16949 certification. They would no longer be allowed to ship their (sole-sourced) parts which would cause them (the client's customer) to stop shipping to their OEM customers. I believe the issues were resolved rather quickly after that...