Extra registrar audit days due to Nonconformances?

[Stijloor]

Thanks to tyker for correcting me! I forgot this thread was in the TS area. He is right the automotive industry writes its own rules!

I still think it is garbage though!

Paul,

With all due respect:

The IATF has worked hard to create a "world-wide" constant approach in ISO/TS 16949:2002 certification audits and auditor training. They have the whole certification process documented in what we know as "The Rules." Something that was greatly missing during the QS-9000 era where gross inconsistencies were rampant. As a result, the automotive customers did not get what they were looking for. The IATF decided to take the certification process into their own hands.

Yes, it may be tough..but so far it has worked.

Stijloor.

 

[Paul Simpson]

With all due respect:

Whenever I hear / read that at the start I know the boot is coming.

The IATF has worked hard to create a "world-wide" constant approach in ISO/TS 16949:2002 certification audits and auditor training. They have the whole certification process documented in what we know as "The Rules."

We agree so far - there are a lot of rules.

Something that was greatly missing during the QS-9000 era where gross inconsistencies were rampant.

Again, with respect, there were a lot of rules in the "bad old" days of QS. I used to quote / audit / train auditors in accordance with the rules. Like all things there are people who work to the rules and people who do not. As an individual (and the CB I worked for at the time) I / we believed in working to the rules - even the stupid ones.

As a result, the automotive customers did not get what they were looking for. The IATF decided to take the certification process into their own hands.

Yes, it may be tough..but so far it has worked.

Stijloor.

In this letter to Quality World magazine I question whether it has worked (to read the article you have to register but some points are reproduced below).

The automotive industry is not practising what it preaches to its supply base of establishing and eliminating root cause. I believe that third party certification is used to paper over cracks where original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are not communicating effectively with suppliers on product requirements and production control systems.

The move to TS 16949 represents an opportunity lost for the automotive industry. Unless it understands what it expects from the certification process and what it needs to do (jointly with industry, accreditation, certification bodies and suppliers) then TS 16949 certification will continue to underperform in its eyes.

I have plenty of examples of where CBs are seen to obey the letter of the rules without meeting the spirit of requirements and the oversight by the "industry body" would never know because the nice neat reports showed it is OK.

I'll just leave you with one little teaser. One largish organization passed their TS surveillance audit in the time it took a friend of mine to get a coffee from the machine! :mg:

 

[tyker]

I'll just leave you with one little teaser. One largish organization passed their TS surveillance audit in the time it took a friend of mine to get a coffee from the machine! :mg:

At the risk of straying widely this is clearly unbelievable news.
You have a friend?


Back, however, to Domoreto's concern.
Everybody should remember that CBs, despite their protestations to the contrary, have no divine right to bully their customers. Any organization which believes it is being treated unfairly by a CB should challenge, protest, scream and do whatever it takes to bring them to their senses.

A 40% increase in surveillance time to clear 4 minors is outrageous and, if Domoreto succeeds in getting this overturned, and the CB applies proper corrective action to the root cause of their failing, other organizations may be spared this iniquity.

 

[Stijloor]

Whenever I hear / read that at the start I know the boot is coming.

We agree so far - there are a lot of rules.
Again, with respect, there were a lot of rules in the "bad old" days of QS. I used to quote / audit / train auditors in accordance with the rules. Like all things there are people who work to the rules and people who do not. As an individual (and the CB I worked for at the time) I / we believed in working to the rules - even the stupid ones.
In this letter to Quality World magazine I question whether it has worked (to read the article you have to register but some points are reproduced below).

I have plenty of examples of where CBs are seen to obey the letter of the rules without meeting the spirit of requirements and the oversight by the "industry body" would never know because the nice neat reports showed it is OK.

I'll just leave you with one little teaser. One largish organization passed their TS surveillance audit in the time it took a friend of mine to get a coffee from the machine! :mg:

Paul,

Thank you for your response and excellent points.

You and I have different ISO/TS experiences and viewpoints. That's great.

I admit that ISO/TS (its requirements, implementation and audits) is not perfect. No QMS standard is. Each of us can come up with examples why it works and why it does not work. I can only go by what I have personally experienced.

Compared to QS-9000, I believe strongly that ISO/TS and "The Rules" have created a (greatly improved) level playing field.

I work hard with my Clients to make it work for them. That's all I can do, and will continue to do so.

Stijloor.

 

[howste]

I have never added more than an hour to a TS audit to close prior (minor) nonconformities. Adding a half day or more would be excessive in my opinion.

 

[tyker]

Talk about coincidences!

At the end of last week, the external auditor for one of our associate plants overseas gave us the audit plan which included an arbitrary increase in the surveillance visit duration of 50% (2 days to 3 days) to review corrective action from the previous visit. The plan arrived only 2 working days before the planned start of the audit and he expected our management to change their schedules to accommodate it.

In my opinion, none of the nonconformities raised previously require any special action on the part of the auditor. Everything can be covered as part of his normal audit activity.

So, a quick telephone call to the guy who heads up TS operations at the CB and, suddenly, we're back to 2 days.

 

[Domoreto]

Hi again.
It seems interesting discussion took place here....
Thanks for all the advise and support . I'm on the phone with the registrar and despite them being surprised from my disobedience, I think we are talking...
Concerning " The Rules" of TS16949 - yes, they did bring some structure but at the same time if you supply more than one OEM - you still need to obey and follow all the "specific customer requirements" ...which is ..... a back to the chaos move anyway ...
Personal opinion.

 

[try2makeit]

Hi again.
It seems interesting discussion took place here....
Thanks for all the advise and support . I'm on the phone with the registrar and despite them being surprised from my disobedience, I think we are talking...
Concerning " The Rules" of TS16949 - yes, they did bring some structure but at the same time if you supply more than one OEM - you still need to obey and follow all the "specific customer requirements" ...which is ..... a back to the chaos move anyway ...
Personal opinion.

My last auditor did both, Customer specific and TS16949. And most of our NC's are Customer specific driven.

 

[tlonkey]

I have been audited to ISO - QS - TS - AS at various times and the only instance where our CB had to add additional time to our audit schedule was because of a major non-conformance finding. The CB auditor came back to our facility to do an on-site audit to verify the corrective actions taken to resolve the major nc. Not knowing your situation I can't say for certain but if there were no major issues involved it would be hard to believe that another day would be required to review any non-conformance from your last audit schedule.

tlonkey

 

[Howard Atkins]

You as the customer are entitled to request to see the actual reference to the rule and the proper wording.

But new rules are to be published next month.

Let's see what they say.