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

[mikenita88]

General question: does anyone feel that your registrar takes advantage of audit nonconformances to create more revenue for them by requiring more than necessary follow-up visits to confirm corrective actions?

 

[Stijloor]

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

General question: does anyone feel that your registrar takes advantage of audit nonconformances to create more revenue for them by requiring more than necessary follow-up visits to confirm corrective actions?

Can you provide us with an actual example of what happened?

 

[mikenita88]

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.

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

There's pressure on CBs in aerospace and automotive right now to stop "soft-grading" of NCs. Too many minors being doled out for things that should be classified as major, apparently. You might be seeing things called major that weren't in the past, but whether the classifcation is accurate or not, we can't say from this distance.

 

[mikenita88]

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

Thanks Jim,

Agreed. In a business where audit findings = more revenues, makes me curious on how findings are classified.

But nonetheless, they were valid findings. I inherited a quality system from a previous regime that was DOA, and still much work to do to get system audit ready. Just trying to see if we are being taken advantage of considering where we are at.

 

[Stijloor]

General question: does anyone feel that your registrar takes advantage of audit nonconformances to create more revenue for them by requiring more than necessary follow-up visits to confirm corrective actions?

This concern can be addressed by ensuring that the quality management system is performing in compliance with all applicable requirements, is effective, and continually improving. An effective internal audit process can certainly help you with this.

 

[Howard Atkins]

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:

? Number of nonconformities per audit:
? Number of nonconformities per audit:
? Non Witnessed 2.54
? Witnessed 8.23 (Over 3 times higher)
? Ratio of Major NCs / Total NCs ? Ratio of Major NCs / Total NCs
? Non Witnessed 3.93%
? Witnessed 21.46% (Over 5 times higher)


Further
Next Steps for Certification Bodies Certification Bodies
? To Do Immediately:
? Certification Body Leaders must communicate the message that the IATF is ?Raising the Bar? for ISO/TS 16949 Certification 16949 Certification
? Increase emphasis on performance feedback from Customers (OEM?s & Upper Tier Suppliers)
? Audits must be more reflective of performance feedback
? Process based and focused on Systemic weaknesses
? Certificate decisions must be based on merit, not Certificate decisions must be based on merit, not ?everyone gets one?
? If performance is weak or lacking, the organization can lose their certification their certification

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

 

[tyker]

In a previous job (TS16949 registered) we had a problem with a sub-contract auditor employed by the CB. He wanted to classify even the most trivial finding as major to trigger a follow up visit and hence more revenue for himself. A phone call to the head of TS schemes at the CB got the situation corrected.

 

[Murphys Law]

Mikenita, not sure why they'd need to revisit the site. You should be able to resolve it remotely.

On the similar topic, I do know of one SQE who IMO, overvisits our sites for audits+Quality improvement programs to book up their air miles and their per diem allowancew. Of course, they delight in being taken out for dinner with fine wines on my companies buck.

 

[Taliesyn]

In my experience, TS auditors tend to be pretty rigid from day one but a recent Aerospace audit (AS9100, Rev C transition) was, IMO, a good case of "moving the goalposts" unnecessarily. The Auditor even "apologised" for being overly harsh on us on the 3rd revisit but congratulated us on a solid, well-implemented QMS.
Sadly, the situation is, in many cases, just a case of doing your best and, in the case of TS, make sure that you can justify anything that looks as though it doesn't quite meet the letter of the standard against the intent of the clause. It's worked for me but that may just have been good luck!