Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory
Social Distancing - It's not just YOUR life - It's ALL of OUR lives!
Me <——————— 6 Feet ———————-> You

IASG sanctioned interpretations



During are last assessment audit, we were notified about a new intrepretation from AIAG, dated 3/21/2000.

A supplier's registration will be placed on immediate probation if....
Minor non-conformance corrective action is verified by the Registrar as not being effectively implemented with 60 days of the date identified; minor non-conformance closure may require on-site verification by the Registrar.
Interpretation of this new requirement was all AR's from previous audit, had to be verified as effective and closed within 60 days, if not "Major" would be issued. No time lines would be accepted. If evidence could not be supplied to show closure, a lead auditor from our registrar would be sent to do an onsite verification.

I'm not sure that all AR's can be verified as effective within the time frame given. Just wanted to get some communication going on this new interpretation, so that no one else was caught off guard.

[This message has been edited by VMartin (edited 25 May 2000).]
I'd like to hear some feedback as well. I really hadn't read the interpretations, to be honest. I don't have any current QS clients and don't expect any - so I've backed off on caring.

So - your question prompted me to do so.

This sounds absurd to me. I have never heard of a deadline for implementation and proof of effectiveness in a defined time such as 60 days.

Did this happen to you?


Our auditors were very gracious in closing previous audit findings. Seemed to be, not as quick on issuing new findings.
My opinion, allowing us a fresh start, because of the new requirement.

I believe, that this could possibly effect the answer to findings, just because of trying to be able to show effective implementation within 60 days.

It will be interesting.
Top Bottom