Does TS 16949 Clause 7.5.3 require our product to have traceability?

[vanputten]

I can monitor and measure a process point all day long without knowing who the the raw material supplier is.

I can measure and monitor step 4 of a process without knowing who performed steps 1, 2 and 3. I can monitor and measure step 4 without knowing when steps 1, 2 and 3 were performed, by whom, with what tools or material.

As a community of quality professionals, we really have to try to get out of the "only one, traditional approach" to business and requirements.

I think traceability is incredibly important espeically within the automotive industry supplier chain. But no where does TS 16949 require it, which I believe was the orignal question. If the question is "Is traceability a good idea?", then we have different question to discuss.

 

[bobdoering]

I can monitor and measure a process point all day long without knowing who the the raw material supplier is.

I can measure and monitor step 4 of a process without knowing who performed steps 1, 2 and 3. I can monitor and measure step 4 without knowing when steps 1, 2 and 3 were performed, by whom, with what tools or material.

As a community of quality professionals, we really have to try to get out of the "only one, traditional approach" to business and requirements.

For that matter, you can make parts all day without monitoring or measuring any of them. There are some production managers that will support that approach. This could be a new "non-traditional" quality system. Might be worth a shot. Saves lots of trees - so it is ISO 14001 compliant.

Might make corrective actions a little tougher to work through, but if you make all of the parts right you won't have any corrective actions! Problem solved!

Anyone ready to sign up?

I will forward this suggestion to my SQA.

 

[Sorin]

1.I can monitor and measure a process point all day long without knowing who the the raw material supplier is.

2.I can measure and monitor step 4 of a process without knowing who performed steps 1, 2 and 3. I can monitor and measure step 4 without knowing when steps 1, 2 and 3 were performed, by whom, with what tools or material.

3.As a community of quality professionals, we really have to try to get out of the "only one, traditional approach" to business and requirements.

4.I think traceability is incredibly important espeically within the automotive industry supplier chain. But no where does TS 16949 require it, which I believe was the orignal question. If the question is "Is traceability a good idea?", then we have different question to discuss.

With disregard of any standard:

1.Raw material characteristics/properties are what matters not necessarily who the supplier is.

2.O/c you can measure but how do you record the monitoring?

A simple example...
Assembly 01 is made of parts A and B through 2 steps process for each A and B (a1/a2 and b1/b2) and a final assembly process c.
How will you know, in the event of a need (anything: CPA, NC, CC, time-study, etc), the data needed if there is no traceability involved?
How will you trace data needed if the need arise after X days/weeks/months/years?

3.I am a lil flabbergasted here....traceability is not something that is inter-changeable....you do it or not....how you will do it that's another fish...

4.Traceability have nothing to do with the industry type. If you want to be able to control and improve your business (IMHO) you need to implement a traceability related system. I have, in mind, an endless list of businesses that have nothing to do with automotive and they cannot operate without a traceability system.


BUT...as someone said, it's a choice. And as with any choice there are consequences. Traceability is (again IMHO) a great tool in improving a product/process/business. One can do without, probably, but I would not want to work there (question of choice).

 

[Stijloor]

Helmut -

Are there requirements as to the retention times that these recorded lot numbers are supposed to be held? CSRs - Ford for example - talk about "Production inspection and test records (e.g. control charts, inspection and test results)" but don't specify lot number retention.

We are trying to better utilize our system and are looking for an answer to the "how long to keep lot numbers" question.

Thanks.

Hi Kelly,

I would suggest looking at the PPAP manual. The record retention "default" specified there makes sense: "...the life of the part plus one calendar year.."

That, of course, assuming that there are no CSR's associated with lot number records. But you already looked into this.

Hope this helps.

Jan R. (AKA "Stijloor")

 

[prototyper]

I have been involved with 3 situations which could have resulted in a warranty recall. Good traceability records, combined with good root cause analysis, were able to narrow down the potentially defective parts so far that the recalls were avoided.
Don't waste time arguing which clause says what, keep good records for at least the life of the product and avoid expensive recalls, law suits, etc., unless your product is totally risk free!

 

[vanputten]

Bobdoering:

You totally misread my posting. Also, re-read the posting to which I am responding. Please try to read a little more critically.

Who said not to montior or measure? I was responding to a posting that implied traceability is required to perform measuring and/or montioring.

I stated "I can monitor and measure a process..." I did not say "I should." or that "I would." I said that one can perform measuring and montioring without traceability.

Traceability is not required to perform measuring or monitoring. Traceability is not required by TS 16949 unless it is required by the customer.

AGAIN, TRACEABILITY, MEASURING AND MONITORING ARE ALL GOOD THINGS TO DO IN MOST SITUATIONS.

The "traditions" that I am resisting is the assumption that X, Y or Z is a requirement becasue that is the way "it has always been done." The use of the acronym "SQA" is another example of traditional approaches and assumptions.

 

[Sorin]

I stated "I can monitor and measure a process..." I did not say "I should." or that "I would." I said that one can perform measuring and montioring without traceability.

Traceability is not required to perform measuring or monitoring.

Given that english is my only 3rd language I tend to do mistake , sometimes, in interpreting the correct meaning of a word.

In this case the word is "(to )monitor".

I looked in dictionary. It means: to watch, keep track of, or check.

I just assume that for the purpose of our debate the meaning that we look at is "keep track" (I really hope is not "watch" ).

Without any irony implied I would like to know how a product could be monitored without a tracing system (see pragraph below)

8.2.4 Monitoring and measurement of product
The organization shall monitor and measure the characteristics of the product to verify that product requirements have been met. This shall be carried out at appropriate stages of the product realization process in accordance with the planned arrangements.

NB: emphasis is mine.

I just want to understand (specific example will help, if possible) how I can monitor (and measure) the characteristics of a given product through a process (or the whole manufacturing cycle) if that product is not identified.

Just so that we don't get tangled:it's about the product and not about the process.

 

[Caster]

I sense from the initial post that if there is not a specific requirement, there is no point to implement the idea. Look, there are reasons why these ideas are put in the standards. It is not to be punitive - it is because issues have occurred over and over again, and the best practice to deal with the issues included having these ideas built into the quality system. Traceability is one such idea..

Wow - I pity you, you think just like I do!

I tell people these standards were built up from typical things gone wrong at companies just like ours. If we put some simple things in place to guard against these common problems, we will be better off.

But some people just gotta fight, if it doesn't say it in black and white they ain't gonna do it, and they actually seem to take pride in their (hollow) victory over the standard or the customer.

My brother as a great expression for these people "fill your boots"

 

[vanputten]

Quality Digest just published an article on Measuring and Monitoring that offers defintions of "Measuring" and "Monitoring." This artilce may help you understand these terms.

I like the concetps that "Measuring" results in discrete values. Monitoring does not necesarily result in a discrete value. Monitoring can be attribute in nature. i will offer, in my opinion, htat most organizations will be effective with both measuring and montioring. I would think that measuring everything would be overkill and waste resources.

http://www.qualitydigest.com/magazine/2008/oct/column/measuring-measurement-equipment.html

I just did a breif review of TS 16949, ISO 9000:2005 and ISO 10012. I did not find any definitions for the terms "Measure" and "Montior."

For a process: Let's pretend that my job is to check a pressure gauge every hour. The gauge is an analog gauge with a needle. The needle must be in the green colored section of the dial. Every hour I look to see if the needle is in the green area on the dial. Do I need to know anything about the previous process steps to "monitor" the needle's location on the dial? No. Is this the most effective way of running a business? Depends. Do I need to know more if I have to solve a problem? Probably. If there is a problem, will I need to know more than the attribute data gained by monitoring? Probably.

For a product: let's opretend that I have a gauge that confirms a product characterisitc is whin a certian range. The gauge does not provide variable data. I tonly tells me if the characterisitic is within a range (attribtue data) My job is to check the characterisitc every 30 minutes. Can I monitor that product characterisitc without knowing the previous steps? All day long. Is this the most effective way of running a business? Depends. Do I need to know more if I have to solve a problem? Probably. If there is a problem, will I need to know more than the attribute data gained by monitoring? Probably.

And finally, the original question was, "does TS has a traceability requirement?" I am trying to answer that question. I am trying to avoid the question, "What is the best way to perform measuring, monmitoring and traceability?" since the answer is specific to the organization and industry. Am I a fan of a compliance approach to requriements? I hate the compliance approach. But the original question appeared to be compliance in nature.

I assume Caster's last posting is not directed at me since I did not ever suggest to only meet the minumim requirements. I tried to describe what the minimum requirements are. That wa the original question.

 

[ralphsulser]

I started in quality control 40 years ago and it was always part of the practice to use some type of traceability. That was long before any quality systems standards, except MIL-4858. "It is good to do it to protect your butt"