Final Product Audits - What happened to QS-9000 Clause 4.10.4.2?

[Norman V]

What happned to QS 4.10.4.2 (Final Product Audits)?

Ok, I've been comparing QS9000 with TS16949, and it looks like at least one thing got lost in the shuffle.

What happened to QS element 4.10.4.2, Final Product Audit? It's not listed on Rad Smith's "road map" (see http://www.qualitydigest.com/pdfs/ISOTS16949.pdf).

Am I wrong, or did this requirement fade away quietly?

Does anyone know where I can find a "reverse" QS9000 to TS16949 comparison, that lists things out by the QS element number instead of the 16949 reference?

Thanks,

Norman V.

 

[Al Dyer]

Check TS-16949, 4.17.2.4 Product Audit.

It does not say the words Dock Audut but infers that product audit includes 'delivery".

 

[Norman V]

Al,

In TS16949:2002, this is now element #8.2.2.3. I am aware of this.

However, to me, this requirement now makes tons more sense, since "all specified requirements" can be audited at the "appropriate stages" instead of tearing down a unit that is already assembled and packaged. Thsi is especially problematic if your final product is a finished assembly instead of a sub-component.

This seems to confirm my suspicion that the TS16949 standard improves upon the QS9000 "dock audit" concept of checking the product after it is all the way through the process.

Thanks for the reply,

Norman V.

 

[Al Dyer]

Norman,

Thanks for the input! I don't have a "legal" copy of the new version, just the draft version and I didn't want to totally jump the gun.

In my opinion, "dock audits" should be based on some measurement whether internal or customer generated. None of us can dock audit all product.
---------------------------------------------------

I wonder if a robust final inspection/audit will suffice as opposed to going to the final packaged product and tearing it apart to check the product.

By doing that aren't we opening up a can of worms? Could I.D., Bar Code, Destination, Count, Traceability possibly be compramised?

Just thinking out loud to nobody in particular.
----------------------------------------------------

 

[Randy Stewart]

I reported this "dock audit" as rework (repackaging, etc.) and applied the company initiatives of 30% reduction in rework to the "appropriate frequency".

 

[dewie]

IMHO, the final product audit is to verify that the final product including packaging, meets customer requirement. That is to verify whether all inspections and tests are done as per customer's requirement....like an assessment of system or paper audit.
This verify includes how the product is packed and how the packaging is....comparing to customer's approved standard of packaging.
But i have no idea of the delivery to TS 16949 standard...

i'm not sure if i get wrong...

 

[Manoj Mathur]

Once again I want to revive this thread. I need more Information on this Product Audit (Dock Audit). In my Product (Aluminum Alloy Wheel Rims), Does this audit means the check for Heat Treatment Goodness, Check for Elongation Property, Check for Alloy Composition and some other Long Term Checks????

If it is true How can I Delay my Consignment to Dispatch for the want of Product Audit (Dock Audit),

If this intent is only upto Packaging, Lebelling and certain other short term auditing requirements Pl. share it.

Thanks,

 

[D.Scott]

Manoj - I recently went through this with our auditor. IMHO you are required to confirm packaging, labeling, paperwork, product characteristics (not tests), apperance items, and as you say - other short term. I also feel you should confirm that all tests and inspection were done and that they passed (or a waiver is on file to release the parts prior to test results).
Additional testing would be out of the question. The requirement is that the inspected product be on the dock ready to ship. If additional testing were required you would have to move the product to a hold area awaiting results. The product would no longer meet the requirements of a dock audit and you would have to start over. If the test were destructive, it would change the ship count and all the prepared documentation. If the intent was to do all testing EXCEPT destructive testing, it would say so.
We argued a lot, but I didn't get written up on it.

Dave

 

[qsmso]

Process and product audit method

Dear Cove's friends,
I am thinking about how to make my IQA procedure for TS2. Here is my idea:
1. System audit using check list, schedule by department basis.
2. Process audit and Product audit for Manufacturing, using control plan with check list to ask deeper for product spec or process spec applied.
3. Dock aucit, at the finished goods warehouse.

What is your recommendation about this approach?
One more question, normally I assign my QC technician to perform dock audit. However, when we move dock audit into IQA, DO I HAVE to qualify my QC technician to be an TS internal auditor too? (If we consider about Ford's requirement also)

Dear Manoj,
Could you kindly please share your TS procedure regarding IQA to me?

Best regards to all,
QSMSO

 

[Sam]

qsmso asks,
I" am thinking about how to make my IQA procedure for TS2. Here is my idea:
1. System audit using check list, schedule by department basis.
2. Process audit and Product audit for Manufacturing, using control plan with check list to ask deeper for product spec or process spec applied.
3. Dock aucit, at the finished goods warehouse."

1- That would be acceptable. Even though TS2 is "process oriented" we still have to evaluate the "shalls" of the Specification.

2- This too would be acceptable. Just depends on whether or not your auditors are trained and capable of doing both.

3- There is not a requirement in TS2 to do a separate "dock" audit. This should be a part of the product audit.

And,
"One more question, normally I assign my QC technician to perform dock audit. However, when we move dock audit into IQA, DO I HAVE to qualify my QC technician to be an TS internal auditor too? (If we consider about Ford's requirement also)"

Yes, all people doing audits must meet customer specific requirements.