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

[Hermann - 2011]

Did anyone check if the auditor's copy of the manual was up to date or in an updating service? Auditors often have problems getting hold of CSR's from the customers because they are not suppliers. Auditors do not generally have access to customer websites like Ford and GM. The normal trick is to get an uncontrolled copy from one supplier's plant and test another site using it!

 

[bobdoering]

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.

Nobody should want a rollover audit. But, quizzing customers - or OSHA and the EPA for that matter - during the audit for clarification may be like a warrantless search in the pursuit of truth (using that analogy).

That is not to say it should never happen. For example, if you have clearly required CSRs, but no evidence they are controlled, it may be necessary to call to ensure they are the correct rev.

It is so typical that the responsibility of communicating customer requirements falls upon the supplier. What does that tell you? I think we can all agree that there is nothing easier to read than a customer's mind.

Now, calling up suppliers to get a missing cert during an audit, I can get my mind around that....

 

[AndyN]

Wow, this is a great thread! It seems to me that there's some 'cause and effect' going on here!

My perspective is this, FWIW:- The IATF have 'hammered home' the need to focus on CSRs. The auditor (in this case) was under duress since it was a witnessed audit, so their behaviour was probably forced into digging around this aspect of the audit. Of course, since the IATF (witnessers) represent the customers (in large part) they might have turned a 'blind eye' (if they even know) to the fact that customer requirements are often not communicated well (in the small print or not) or consistently (anyone notice the conflicting requirements in Chryslers PSO and the LPA documents?).

End result? Auditee gets a 'gotcha finding' which, had the auditor done the correct job of preparing and planning the audit, would have researched, communicated and confirmed with the auditee the nature of the audit criteria (CSR), before arriving to do the audit!

I would bet the IATF witness auditor never raised the lack of effective planning and preparation for the audit, with the auditor or their CB! I have a hat, I'm prepared to eat it, if proven wrong!

 

[dbzman]

Did anyone check if the auditor's copy of the manual was up to date or in an updating service? Auditors often have problems getting hold of CSR's from the customers because they are not suppliers. Auditors do not generally have access to customer websites like Ford and GM. The normal trick is to get an uncontrolled copy from one supplier's plant and test another site using it!

The auditor requested that we go online and get the most current revision. When we asked one of our customer’s about their manual they had completely forgotten that they had one. No wonder it was never mentioned to us.
We do not supply them with a part or materials. We supply them with a service (Heat Treating). Reading the manual it is sometimes hard (but not impossible) to apply it to a service. The manual is written for a supplier of parts.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

But, quizzing customers - or OSHA and the EPA for that matter - during the audit for clarification may be like a warrantless search in the pursuit of truth (using that analogy).

What is the purpose of a QMS and what is the purpose of an audit? If engaging with a customer during a supplier's audit is inappropriate in your opinion, then we have very different views on what an auditor is trying to accomplish.

During my years as an auditor, I communicated, many times, during an audit and with the express consent of the auditees, with the customers of the organizations I was auditing.

I reckon this is not the way most auditors operate, but, hey, I have never been accused of being a "vanilla" auditor.

 

[dbzman]

I would bet the IATF witness auditor never raised the lack of effective planning and preparation for the audit, with the auditor or their CB! I have a hat, I'm prepared to eat it, if proven wrong![/QUOTE]

After the audit was completed the Witness auditor conducted his closing conference with our auditor. It took an hour or more. I would have loved to have heard that communication!

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

Very true, but beside the point. Here's the deal:

• Customers are obliged to insure that their requirements are (A) properly communicated to suppliers and (B) understood by them. The third-party audit scheme is intended in part to verify (B), but not necessarily (A). There is often an unwarranted assumption that the requirements have been properly communicated and codified.
• Suppliers are obliged, through the process of contract review, to insure that they (A) have reviewed the requirements communicated by the customer and (B) are prepared and capable of fulfilling them. It's the supplier's obligation--before accepting the work--to identify and reconcile ambiguities and unacceptable terms. Suppliers can be reasonably expected to deal only with what the customer has given them in the form of requirements, and to understand the nature of the so-called "implied" requirements.

In the case at hand, the customer failed to properly communicate the existence of codified CSRs, and failed to capture the CSRs in the contract, neither of which may be logically blamed on the supplier. Furthermore, the CB auditor made the unwarranted assumption that the supplier manual in question formed a part of the contractual requirements, or worse, didn't understand the legalities of the situation.

We can talk about what the supplier should have known and should have done, but the simple undeniable fact is (assuming the veracity of the OP's statements here) the "requirements" in question were not requirements and the auditor failed.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

In the case at hand, the customer failed to properly communicate the existence of codified CSRs, and failed to capture the CSRs in the contract, neither of which may be logically blamed on the supplier. Furthermore, the CB auditor made the unwarranted assumption that the supplier manual in question formed a part of the contractual requirements, or worse, didn't understand the legalities of the situation.


We can talk about what the supplier should have known and should have done, but the simple undeniable fact is (assuming the veracity of the OP's statements here) the "requirements" in question were not requirements and the auditor failed.

One thing I learned in life is: there are at least two sides to any story. James Warner provided his perspective. Unfortunately, we will never be able to hear the other side of the story.
I have no reason to doubt James Warner's account of the situation, but just because he believes the customer never explicitly invoked the manual as a contractual requirement, it does not mean that they might have done it and James was simply not informed. It might be buried in a very obscure clause in the fine print. The fact is we are all speculating, with only one side of the case at hand.

It would be very interesting to hear the auditor's side of the story and learn what triggered him/her to unilaterally bring the supplier manual into the picture.

 

[Jim Wynne]

One thing I learned in life is: there are at least two sides to any story. James Warner provided his perspective. Unfortunately, we will never be able to hear the other side of the story.
I have no reason to doubt James Warner's account of the situation, but just because he believes the customer never explicitly invoked the manual as a contractual requirement, it does not mean that they might have done it and James was simply not informed. It might be buried in a very obscure clause in the fine print. The fact is we are all speculating, with only one side of the case at hand.

It would be very interesting to hear the auditor's side of the story and learn what triggered him/her to unilaterally bring the supplier manual into the picture.

While it's true that we haven't heard both sides, this situation works well as hypothetical anyway. As with so many other threads here, there's something to be learned from it, even if none of it actually happened.

 

[bobdoering]

During my years as an auditor, I communicated, many times, during an audit and with the express consent of the auditees, with the customers of the organizations I was auditing.

Can't complain about that...

I reckon this is not the way most auditors operate, but, hey, I have never been accused of being a "vanilla" auditor.

Nothing like an honest appraisal of oneself. Auditing is a continuum - not just rollover or inqusition. It is easy to blur the dinstinction of who the customer of an audit is...although I think it is on the cover sheet. It is easy to tell if the auditor is there to assist their customer in finding the issues, or making a game of nitpicking. The beauty is if they are not of the attitude the customer finds useful...they can be excused.

Thank goodness...