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

[Sidney Vianna]

It is easy to blur the dinstinction of who the customer of an audit is...although I think it is on the cover sheet. SNIP The beauty is if they are not of the attitude the customer finds useful...they can be excused.

Thank goodness...

That is the kind of intimidation technique used by many misguided registrants that put the whole concept of 3rd party certification at risk.

If a customer is "unhappy" with an auditor that keeps their management in check, let's find another auditor or CB that is not so "picky" and expects us to really comply with a standard that we are certified to.

The concept of independent certification requires auditors to, while paying attention to the immediate, paying customer's needs, never forget the fact that the integrity and validity of an audit or the certificate must never be compromised. Because, each and every ineffective audit just adds to the problem, not the solution.

 

[Jeff Frost]

Dbzman

Though this discussion has been a little heated. In your case you should review your customers PO/Contracts to determine what requirements has been flow down to your organization as specific requirements and be ready to supply this information to the auditor.

Next let auditor use the SQMR during the audit because he/she is only performing the audit based on the clients specified requirements and though it may seen unfair it reality should not a problem if both you and the auditor knows what is contractually required (show this information to the auditor).

More than likely you will be written up for various items from the SQMR that are not applicable because they are not flow down items you as requirement. As you are aware S--T happens and you can deal with it through your corrective action responses indicating that it is not contractually required.

 

[bobdoering]

Because, each and every ineffective audit just adds to the problem, not the solution.

I agree - and an easy audit or a nit picking audit can both be ineffective. Goes back to the continuum. Being at either end is not a good thing - both will readily waste resources. I have never had to escort an auditor out (but I would not hesitate to), and I have been pleased to work with auditors that willing to identify problems in the context of being a helpful resource and not a burdensome overhead of incidental corrective actions for the sake of "integrity." I know, I know - there is no opportunity for improvement.

 

[dbzman]

That is the kind of intimidation technique used by many misguided registrants that put the whole concept of 3rd party certification at risk.

If a customer is "unhappy" with an auditor that keeps their management in check, let's find another auditor or CB that is not so "picky" and expects us to really comply with a standard that we are certified to.

The concept of independent certification requires auditors to, while paying attention to the immediate, paying customer's needs, never forget the fact that the integrity and validity of an audit or the certificate must never be compromised. Because, each and every ineffective audit just adds to the problem, not the solution.

Just so everyone will know we have the same auditor coming back next year. Even though we had two finding that we will appeal to the registrar office we felt that his audit was very complete.
This auditor looked at more than any auditor that we have had in the past and we felt good for not having anymore findings than we did.

However, we still want to “rein in” the auditor so that he does not write findings that are not value added. I know that what is “Value added” and what is not will be different among the Quality community.

That is why the registrar has an appeals process.

When the auditor left we were very complimentary of his audit and its completeness. He was very complimentary of our system.

No bad feelings, just business.

However, we did start the appeals process soon after he left.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Just so everyone will know we have the same auditor coming back next year. Even though we had two finding that we will appeal to the registrar office we felt that his audit was very complete.
This auditor looked at more than any auditor that we have had in the past and we felt good for not having anymore findings than we did.

However, we still want to “rein in” the auditor so that he does not write findings that are not value added. I know that what is “Value added” and what is not will be different among the Quality community.

That is why the registrar has an appeals process.

When the auditor left we were very complimentary of his audit and its completeness. He was very complimentary of our system.

No bad feelings, just business.

However, we did start the appeals process soon after he left.

Good for you , and I hope you let us know how things turn out.

 

[Jim Wynne]

More than likely you will be written up for various items from the SQMR that are not applicable because they are not flow down items you as requirement. As you are aware S--T happens and you can deal with it through your corrective action responses indicating that it is not contractually required.

You're advocating trying to correct the auditor's mistake by invoking the CA system to tell him he's made a mistake. It doesn't seem like time well-spent to me. This kind of thing can often be corrected before the auditor leaves the building.

 

[dbzman]

Good for you , and I hope you let us know how things turn out.

Yes, absolutely!

I will defiantly post the results.

 

[dbzman]

Yes, absolutely!

I will defiantly post the results.

I meant definitely not defiantly...

Maybe a Freudian slip?

 

[Jeff Frost]

You're advocating trying to correct the auditor's mistake by invoking the CA system to tell him he's made a mistake. It doesn't seem like time well-spent to me. This kind of thing can often be corrected before the auditor leaves the building.

That is always the hope but sometime it cannot be done. My company has (as others have) been written up by 2nd party auditors for non-product or non-contract requirements. No matter how much objective evidence we supplied the auditor about why the finding was not valid they would not remove it form the report and issued CAPA requests.

Yes is time that is not well-spent.

 

[lawriematkin]

Many of the OEM's today, require acceptance of their Global Terms and Conditions to allow nomination for new business. In the past the "duel of the forms" or if in Europe, the Treaty of Vienna has acted as a means to work through these issues.
Looking at a PO is one thing, the signing or continued shipping of product where this can be construed as acceptance of T&C's leaves many of us in difficult situations.

Care has to be excercised if the compant is multi country e.g. US and Europe as each division may act autominiously in achieving share of demand. One signs the Global T&C thus agreeing for the whole company.

To ensure there is clarity over who's T&C is agreed or not agreed needs to be recorded. The final document is the objective evidence required to be presented to the auditor, with relevant wavers, perception over his position ensuring the OEM's complaince requirements apply to every company has to be rebuffed with documents. Not just considering all OE suppliers accept all the OEM's conditions for doing business with them.

Lawrie