IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002 - Not auditable?

[Stijloor]

I think you're referring to the Implementation Guide which is different from the original IATF ISO/TS Guide. The one shown on the AIAG website is the AIAG's implementation guide. The IATF one was withdrawn..........Confusing, I know, but that's the situation.

Hello Andy,

I checked the AIAG website. I found this:

TS-GS: IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002
The IATF Guidance is limited to providing assistance in the application of ISO/TS 16949:2002. This document is for reference only and is not intended as a requirement for certification. Version 1 - 2002
Member: $ 13.00
List Price: $ 39.00

CQI- 7: ISO/TS 16949:2002 Implementation Guide
This guide provides organizations help in transitioning from their current quality management system to ISO/TS 16949:2002 Version 1 06/2003
Member: $ 19.00
List Price: $ 38.00

Hope this clarifies.

Stijloor.

 

[AndyN]

Yup - its' there. You're correct.

 

[AndyN]

83.7% of statistics (including this one) are fabricated willy-nilly...If document control is still a source of a high percentage of findings in TS audits, it has much less to do with the requirements of the standard, and much more with auditor behavior that tends to focus on "tangible", auditable, "black&white" issues. Documentation control, quality records and other few issues still account for a large percentage of findings simply because auditors (in most cases) are afraid of tackling the real thorny issues such as management responsibility, competence assurance, monitoring of customer satisfaction, supplier performance, etc...

What you're saying is at the heart of much of the rhetoric about external auditor effectiveness and the 'quality' of their findings.

However, the point of my post was that since document control seems to be a recurring issue (even at the Cove there are many posts regarding the subject), there's no guidance from the AIAG/IATF on the subject.........

I, too, remember, (as Dirk does), that the guidance was withdrawn. Maybe the need for revenue helped it 'slip back' into availability.......

 

[madannc]

I think I agree... that is to say that black and whit issues with hard factual evidence are easy to defend. This year we are trying a different approach to what has happened before and although this may be old news for some what we are endeavouring to do is process audit, prior to the audit we produce simple process maps with the inputs and outputs left to right (listed) and controls & resources listed top and bottom. then look for objective evidence of these maps and walk through the process, so far it has highlighted that we do not always do what our documentation states but more importantly for areas such as marketing where there are less "controlled" documents it has helped us identify weak areas by getting the maketing manager to help us with inputs and then ask him for some evidence of these.

'it takes a long time to perfect one's skill and you only have a limited time in which to do it'.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

However, the point of my post was that since document control seems to be a recurring issue (even at the Cove there are many posts regarding the subject), there's no guidance from the AIAG/IATF on the subject

Andy, I understood your point. My counter argument is that document control does not need any additional guidance, in terms of implementation. It is one of the most basic and straight forward clauses in the standard. Failure to comply with it has to do with discipline, the large number of opportunities for failure and the unbalanced focus by auditors on that subject. Just my opinion.

 

[Stijloor]

What you're saying is at the heart of much of the rhetoric about external auditor effectiveness and the 'quality' of their findings.

However, the point of my post was that since document control seems to be a recurring issue (even at the Cove there are many posts regarding the subject), there's no guidance from the AIAG/IATF on the subject.........

I, too, remember, (as Dirk does), that the guidance was withdrawn. Maybe the need for revenue helped it 'slip back' into availability.......

Hello,

I must disagree with AndyN,

The following documents:
TS-GS: IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002
CQI- 7: ISO/TS 16949:2002 Implementation Guide

were NEVER withdrawn by IATF and AIAG.

I already knew this, but just to make sure, I spoke with Lisa at AIAG this morning to verify. Lisa stated that neither document was ever withdrawn or made unavailable for purchase.
The comment: "Maybe the need for revenue helped it 'slip back' into availability...." is without merit and inappropriate. Quality professionals (and auditors), must pass judgement based on objective evidence and not on hearsay.

Stijloor.

 

[chaosweary]

I ended up writing a white paper on why I don't do fluid analysis (I don't have any hydraulic pumps, etc.) to answer the finding.

And you wonder why more and more companies are going to self declaration of compliance...