ISO/TS 16949:2009 Follow-up Audit Visits to create more Revenue

[jasonb067]

Just to back up Jims point.

The definitions of major and minor are publicly available in the rules and should be available from your CB, many CBs put them on the report.

There is great pressure on the auditors backed up by the analysis of the NCs in regular and results of witness audits

This is from an official IATF source:


In this case I think that the CBs can even be accused of not maximizing their income!
The CBs have been receiving NCs for soft grading, yes we get NCs as well

Maybe we just know how to avoid major issues. Sometimes implementing a system in the real world which fully and clearly meet all requirements is not so easy. So, when it is in the area of minor non-conformance we sometimes take liberty with our own "understanding" of the requirement. The CB may or may not see that we are indeed meeting the requirement with our understanding so there are more minors.

Major is very clearly understood by both and in order to avoid getting close to major we are less liberal with our "understanding" of the standard.

In general if you have CB giving Major just to be able to come back and charge more it is time to start shopping.

 

[Mikishots]

Re: ISO/TS 16949:2009 Follow-up audit visits

Sorry, just my conspiracy theory. We had a recent audit where the auditor classified all audit findings as minors, but when the report was submitted to their boss, some of the findings were esculated to majors even though the auditor is a welled seasoned auditor. The reasoning for why some went to majors versus minors didn't seem to consistent. Kinda like the 8-ball thing.

Granted they were valid findings, but the classification determines if the auditor has to make return visit to the plant.

As Howard mentioned, the definitions are clearly defined (AS9101D, ISO19011 as well among others). I would be concerned that the minors are being changed to majors after the closing meeting with the company - did the auditor or registrar give a specific reason why they were upgraded? If they weren't sure at the time, it means they didn't have the evidence to make a determination (or simply didn't know what they were doing). It has to be clear.

This type of practice shows that for this registrar, there is no official close to a particular audit - if they make changes after the audit has ended at the site, they can conceivably make changes at any point in time as they see fit.

Personally, I would contact the registrar directly and ask them to explain what constitutes a closing meeting and where it states that findings can be elevated after an audit has ended without involving the organization that was audited. If evidence was available to justify a major, why wasn't this presented during the closing meeting? If it was because of the "well-seasoned" auditor making errors, then the nonconformance lays with the competency of that auditor - it's their problem to solve.

People make mistakes - but when the fix results in another visit that you have to pay for, you have a right to ask what the registrar will be discussing with that auditor to ensure that the error doesn't happen again.

 

[Cari Spears]

My thoughts exactly, Miki!