I am wondering if is there a valid answer for a couple of doubts I have, regarding the IATF Code of practice
Paragraph 3.2 says that in order to be consistent, AT LEAST one auditor from original audit team have or shall to participate in ALL VISITS DURING A 3 YEAR CYCLE.
But... what happens if he resigns from registrar, or dies, or anything ? Who will replace him? , The one with more time visiting the auditee?
Paragraph 4.6, last part says that the registrar body to conduct audit ISO/TS 16949 shall be (or should be ? I dont have the english version)the same as the registrar conducting the previous automotive registration, OK...., but lets think of a case where you were QS or VDA registered by registrar XYZ, but (what a bad luck ¡¡) he is not accredited to register anybody to 16949....Am I forbbiden to go for a ISO/TS registration?
-> Paragraph 3.2 says that in order to be consistent, AT
-> LEAST one auditor from original audit team have or shall
-> to participate in ALL VISITS DURING A 3 YEAR CYCLE.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Ho ho ho! Tee hee hee! Hell - I have clients who have not had the same auditor in the last 4 years... This is nothing less than typical wishful thinking. And it has been a constant source of "...well, your last auditor may have accepted that but s/he was wrong..."
If this was a real requirement, most smaller registrars, of which there are now hundreds, will have to close up shop, as well as many larger registrars.
The second question I can't address, but it, too, sounds like a "Things we'd like to see..." comic.
This seems like another case of the Auto industry regulators over specifying the requirements. I guess assessing bodies will try to adhere to the rules. I know because I work for one. One of the biggest world wide. I usually audit the same clients over their 3 year period. The problems for the assessment industry generally are: over 3000 assessors failed to requalify their QS9000 recert exams. The initial failure rate is about 90%. The examiners offer no remedail training. The exam is over 2 days. There is no feedback on why people fail. Only which module is failed. All re-sits of all exams are charged. TS16949 has similar first time failure rates. There is a world-wide shortage of qualified QS/TS assessors. I have been offered jobs by 10 QS assessing bodies in last 2 years. The assessing job is not well paid and involves lots of travel. Many only stay in the job 3 to 5 years before going back into employment as a QM for more money. There is also a requirement for a lead assessor to have relative industry experience and also must have OEM or first tier automotive experience as an employee. It rather limits the field of those qualified to do the assessments in the first place. So if you get the same assessor right through, youre bloody lucky.!!!!!!! Also be aware that there are only 10 assessing bodies world-wide who will be granted accreditation to do TS16949. There are lots more QS. The AITF is probably gonna have to fight a court case over this rule as the assessing bodies who havent qualified think its uncompetitive. In order to keep good assessors you're ultimately going to have to pay more. Watch this space.