Is "0 Nonconformities" standard in a TS 16949 audit?

[Sebastian]

Every time I read, someone drived company during audit without nonconformities I feel uncomfortable.
I have "5 TS1 and 1 TS2" audits experience in two companies and 4 NCs was a minimum.
In first company I was taking care for QMS and in second one I was a guest during audit.

Maybe reason was, I (company) was not well prepared, maybe auditor was "strange", I don't know.
What I see in case of other companies - I ask them about things I was asked by auditor and they found it as "something new". The same standard, but different investigations I think.

I heard a lot about "witness danger" for auditors with 0 NC audits and that's why I don't find ">0" result as reason for shame, but after some sentences I've read here (Cove) ... I have doubts.

 

[Manoj Mathur]

No, ZERO NC is not considered as very Staranged event. In all my ISO & ISO/TS audits (3 9K:2K, 1, 14K) and two ISO/TS 16949:2002, it was Zero NC.

 

[Craig H.]

Hi, Sebastian

Good question, and as someone who just had their second "no NC" audit, maybe I can give you some insight as to some of the reasons. All of this is just my opinion, however.

First, I think a zero nonconformance audit can result from an audit of a system that is changing. It would seem that the opposite would be true, but in our case we were making a jump of a couple generations of computer software, not only for the QMS, but the whole system. There were holes that were being addressed, but holes nonetheless. Of course the old system was still working, but it was not very comfortable from where I was sitting during the audit. We likely got extra points for making such vast improvements in our system.

Could the auditor have written up a lot of findings? Sure, but why? We were in the process of pretty much gutting the software side of our system, and we were working to fix it. He looked at what we had already done, and where we were going with it, almost like an audit of the new system's checks and balances as the new system was designed and implemented. Actually, as far as value added audits go, we got very good value from that audit.

I realize that there might be some who have a problem with this, but our old system was working well when we started with the change, and the problems we had were the result of being mid stream on the transition.

Also, if a system has been mature for a while, as ours was for our first "0 NC" audit, it might be hard to find a technical violation, especially for a small company with relatively simple processes.

A lot depends on the auditor, I think. Are they there to help maintain and improve the system, or are they there to see how many times they can say "gotcha"? Early in the development of a QMS, I actually think that some of the "gotcha" approach is necessary and reasonable for some systems. Later, well....

Anyhow, just my opinion.

 

[Sebastian]

A lot depends on the auditor, I think. Are they there to help maintain and improve the system, or are they there to see how many times they can say "gotcha"?

To be honest I like "gotcha" style, ;-) but only when it is properly argumented.

 

[Karen R]

Having experienced more than 30 third-party audits, I have to say that 0 N/Cs is a very real possibility, and is most likely to occur when you have a well implemented, process based system that's actually adding value.

Under our initial QS cert, the primary focus of the "system" was on the elements, and we always had N/Cs. Several years ago we initiated a major overhaul and went to a entirely process-based approach (before we could even spell TS!). Once we set up the system to add value to our processes, it became a living entity that we used all the time and our number of N/Cs dropped off significantly. When we integrated our quality with enviro and safety, it further reinforced our program and now zero is the norm.

Much like the Six Sigma methodology, you really can achieve 0 defects - if you focus on the process and eliminate the root causes of your problems. If you never get to the real root causes, if you're not asking why do we need to do this and what value does it add - then I think you'll be writing corrective actions forever.

As an aside - it's true that some auditors are push-overs and others will nit-pick, neither of those will add value to your system. Eliminate the root cause, and select another auditor who will really help you improve your system!

 

[Sam]

I had this "0 nc" discussion with our auditor. He informed me that any registrar showing a client with 0 NC's would likely be accompanied by a member of the IATF (Witness Audit) on that clients next scheduled audit.

 

[Karen R]

In talking with our CB, I know that IAOB is monitoring numbers of N/Cs written, but do we really believe they'll follow up on EVERY audit with zero N/Cs? I can't imagine they have resources to do that. It would make more sense to look at trends and patterns than isolated instances... of course that may explain it right there - no one said it had to make sense!

My gut feel is that it will take awhile to back to a 0 N/C level under TS, as there are a lot of nuances to the new standard and all the customer specifics. But for anyone to say that the day will never come - well, it's just anti-quality, isn't it? Six Sigma says that it's a real possibility. Many of us have experienced it. If we're getting N/Cs just because someone (whoever that may be) decided 0 is the wrong answer... THAT's not TQM!

 

[SilverHawk]

15 NCRs

Overheard the other day that Ford Malaysia was recommeded for ISO/TS 16949 certificate after addressing 15 NCRs that were issued. So to have a zero NCRS, the certified otrganizations MUST be better that Ford!

 

[Howard Atkins]

Overheard the other day that Ford Malaysia was recommeded for ISO/TS 16949 certificate after addressing 15 NCRs that were issued. So to have a zero NCRS, the certified otrganizations MUST be better that Ford!

A lot of people would say "that is not saying much"

 

[Sam]

Much like the Six Sigma methodology, you really can achieve 0 defects - if you focus on the process and eliminate the root causes of your problems. If you never get to the real root causes, if you're not asking why do we need to do this and what value does it add - then I think you'll be writing corrective actions forever.

Just a thought, Why is it that six sigma methology says you can acheive "0 defects", But, Phil Crosbys' approach to "0 defects was not possible?