It would not be as funny if it were not true.Corrective Action accepted and finding closed. Reviewed at next surveillance audit and noted as an innovative and interesting (because of answer 3) approach.
Our original TS auditor during our first three year cycle was a big picture guy:
For the current 3 year cycle, our big picture guy has returned and everything has been smooth. Alas, in 2014, we start our 4th cycle. Hopefully, we can find another auditor who is more interested in an effective QMS than this kind of BS.
Our original TS auditor during our first three year cycle was a big picture guy:
- Scrap cost/Cost of Goods produced = fraction of a percent
- Rework hours/Total direct labor hours = fraction of a percent
- Warranty Cost/Revenue = fraction of a percent
- Active and effective CI/CA/PA system = check
- Knowledgeable and engaged team members = check
- Excellent customer ratings = check
- Nit-pick findings = Why bother?
For the current 3 year cycle, our big picture guy has returned and everything has been smooth. Alas, in 2014, we start our 4th cycle. Hopefully, we can find another auditor who is more interested in an effective QMS than this kind of BS.
Not only that, it destroys the credibility of your system when you start doing things "for the auditor." We have been down that road at it was a miserable experience.
Do I sound motivated and empowered? I always answer 3 on the question above.