Re: Identification of Product off the Manufacturing Floor - How strict do we need to
I’m hoping you all can help me settle an issue that has been a point of contention among our engineering departments (Quality and Production Engineering) and me (the TS "enforcer") for some time.
From a TS stance, I (as our Corporate TS 16949 Coordinator) have always promoted that all product needs to be identified at all times, unless otherwise inherently obvious (per the TS 7.5.3 Identification and Traceability and the related Note).
This includes all random parts and trays or totes of parts that may be sitting on an engineer’s desk in the office area, removed from the manufacturing floor. These parts may be trial parts, customer line claims, random parts for investigation, etc.
Engineering has consistently argued that they do not to be identified; that since they are in the office area, there is no danger of shipping wrong parts. Recently they have stated that they post a sign that states “All parts within this area are under investigation and are considered suspect DO NOT SHIP! “ instead of labeling the parts described above.
Is it unreasonable to expect that these parts should be labeled?
My interpretation of the standard is yes they should. What does everyone else think? Are we still meeting the intent of the standard if these parts in the office area are NOT labeled?
Thank you!!
I wasn't going to get involved in this debate but it's too hard to resist. I am a former TS auditor with a major registrar and went through all the training and accreditation, including sanctioned interpretations, etc. I like to think that I'm in a fairly credible position to state the following:
To Izoyd: you are absolutely correct regarding the product identification, with one small exception: the TS requirements do not apply to non-automotive product unless the organization's procedures say so. In other words, it is OK for the engineers to have USP (unidentified samples & products) if the procedure does not require it AND if the product is non-automotive. However, keep in mind that something like this usually causes a red flag to go up in an auditor's mind.
To Sebastian's post: I know it is hard to hold back creative minds and change old habits, but you have to identify the 'engineeering samples' if they fall under the TS umbrella (see my comment above). How you do it is up to you but you have to do it. A sign on a shelf where you store product might be sufficient in your case but be prepared to strongly argue your point with the auditor, and your argument is out the door with the first incident when a 'sample' gets mixed with regular product or, in worst case, reaches the customer. However, I would seriously consider the comments posted by the other participants. Their arguments are very solid and most auditors will have the same position. Arguing with an auditor is like wrestling with a pig in the mud: the more you wrestle the more you realize that the pig likes it. I also suggest getting more clarification on the intent and scope of a control plan; you seem to mix the control plan with a procedure or work instruction.
I was wondering myself...
