IATF 16949 4.3.1 - Determining the scope of the quality management system - supplemental

Anthony Purdie

Registered
Hi everyone. My first post on the forum

My organisations CB raised a NC in our recent surveillance audit against this clause (4.3.1).

As part of the audit the auditors reviewed audit reports from other locations that we support and found the following:

Objective Evidence;

'The remote support function does not show it provides any support for my fabrication site for customer service and sales.'

My initial instinct was to argue that this is not an issue with my site but the site we support but the auditors stated that this is an organisation wide issue that needs t be resolved at a corporate level.

Were the auditors right to raise this NCR or do I have a point?

Thanks
 

Mr.Ruiz

Starting to get Involved
:

Objective Evidence;

'The remote support function does not show it provides any support for my fabrication site for customer service and sales.'

My initial instinct was to argue that this is not an issue with my site but the site we support but the auditors stated that this is an organisation wide issue that needs t be resolved at a corporate level.

Were the auditors right to raise this NCR or do I have a point?

Thanks

Hi Anthony,

Your auditor has a point, as so as you.
All RSL must declare to which sites they are giving support and what type of support, also, the site that gets this support, needs to declare as well, that's how you close the gap between both parts, knowing each other the role and responsibility.

Although it could be resolved at a corporate level, that is part of the corrective action path. an Auditor will write the finding were it was found.

Perhaps there is something missing in your QMS scope like John C. Abnet might suggest it.

It is an easy to fix problem, but it is still a problem.

Best luck.
Regards,
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
'The remote support function does not show it provides any support for my fabrication site for customer service and sales.'
That's a terrible way of phrasing the statement of nonconformity. "My fabrication site:? Does the auditor own the plant?

Amazing how some auditors have terrible written communication skills. Should have said something to the effect of: Audit Reports provided for Remote Site ABC do not provide evidence that such site supports production site DEF (where he was auditing) for Sales and Customer Service processes.
 

Anthony Purdie

Registered
Hi John,

My site supports various sites with various functions. In this case it we provide Sales, customer support and manufacturing. We have included this other site as part of our QMS scope and provided details to our CB. This has not been carried out by our other site however and they did not include us in their scope.

My argument is that the NC should really be raised by the other sites CB against that site and that it is not our responsibility to ensure that they include all support sites in their scope but the auditor seen this differently and asked us to correct the issue. Perhaps from a corporate QA level.

Thanks

Anthony
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
Hi John,

My site supports various sites with various functions. In this case it we provide Sales, customer support and manufacturing. We have included this other site as part of our QMS scope and provided details to our CB. This has not been carried out by our other site however and they did not include us in their scope.

My argument is that the NC should really be raised by the other sites CB against that site and that it is not our responsibility to ensure that they include all support sites in their scope but the auditor seen this differently and asked us to correct the issue. Perhaps from a corporate QA level.

Thanks

Anthony

So, hopefully I understand (it may be easier for us if you refer to the various entities as "location A", "location B", etc... There are a lot of references to "we"..."other site"..."us"...."my site" etc...). Very confusing.

At the risk of getting caught up in semantics, "Site" is by definition an entity that provides the value added work.

If I understand correctly, ...
1- "Your" site does manufacturing (and other activities). We'll refer to that as location "A".
2- Location "A" holds an IATF 16949 certification as part of a corporate scheme that also includes site "B"
3- Within the scope of the QMS at location "A", it states that location "A" receives support from location "B" for Customer Service and Sales.
4- As part of an audit of site "A", your CB auditor wrote site "A" up with a non-conformance, because location "B" does not identify in the site "B" QMS scope, that location "B" provides "Customer Service and Sales" support to site "A".


If my understanding above is accurate AND the auditor's review of site "B" showed that site "B" does indeed provide and control the Customer Service and Sales support as defined on site "A"'s scope, then I see no reason for a nonconformity (i.e. IATF does not have a requirement specific to this scenario).

Is my understanding/are my scenarios accurate to your situation ?

Be well.
 

Sebastian

Trusted Information Resource
Dear Anthony,
your answer seems to be logical, but ... according to certification rules 5.7.1 b) (I don't have 6th edition, so I cite from 5th one), you should provide to your CB
the client's quality management system documentation, including evidence about conformity to IATF 16949 requirements and showing the linkages and interfaces to any remote support functions and/or outsourced processes"
So "client's quality management system documentation" is your quality manual including e.g. "process map", where you've presented supporting functions. Then, even supporting functions won't be covered in your site audit plan, still there should be available "evidence about conformity to IATF 16949 requirements" related to these functions. According to certification rules 5.5 (I don't have 6th edition, so I cite from 5th one) your CB has two options, audit these supporting functions by themselves or accept audit from report performed by other CB. You should submit this report as part of package listed in 5.7.1 and it is your responsibility to check value of this report. It is only valuable when you can find your site name using CTRL+F ;) combined with exact name of supporting function you've mentioned in your quality manual.
So, you have not reviewed report, your auditor found it is not valuable and raised NC.
 

Anthony Purdie

Registered
@ John - Thanks, your interpretation of my statement is correct. Thank you for your input thus far.

@ Sebastian - Thanks for your reply. I will consult the rules of certification with my quality manager.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
I will consult the rules of certification with my quality manager.

It is certainly not "wrong" to procure a copy of the CB Rules. However, remember that the rules are for the CB. They dictate how the CB shall and should conduct audits. The "rules" document does not apply directly to your organization and most organizations do not own or refer to a copy of the "rules".

It's always good to have information, but be careful not to get caught up in that document. What (in this context) applies directly to you (what you are held accountable to/audited to ) is IATF 16949:2016. Nothing more.

Hope this helps.
Be well.
 

Sebastian

Trusted Information Resource
Introduction to "Rules" said:
These requirements and any Annexes are binding on certification bodies recognized by IATF for the IATF 16949 certification scheme and, therefore, shall be understood by any client seeking IATF 16949 certification.
It is unclear who has authority to ensure client has understood it.
Responsibility we see in e.g. section 3.2, where are listed examples of changes which should be reported to CB by organization and
Failure by the client to inform the certification body of a changes ... should result in the issuance of a major nonconformity
NC issued to client.
 
Top Bottom