ISO/TS 16949 CBs & Auditors not following up on the schedules

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
The bad thing about this is that we have only 11 (last year was 13) here, and the remote location has 79 (this is also the last year's count), but this 79 people is including the people in the factory who have nothing to do with the tool design. The people who are being audited is really less than 10% of the remote location (R&D department, QA department, management); however, Rules for achieving and maintaining IATF recognition does not calculate the remote location head count that way and they go by the percentage of manufacturing location vs. remote location head count. So, yes, you are right about the audit man-days.

In our case, it is only one manufacturing location that is being audited for ISO/TS 16949 (100% of manufacturing location) plus the remote location of 79 people, so technically, according to that book, it is 13+79=92 = 5.5 stage 2 audit days (divided by 2 surveillance audits in 3-year cycle with 15% reduction will be 2.33 surveillance audit days, rounded to closest 0.5 is 2.5 surveillance audit days) - which I don't necessarily agree with this calculation method in a case like ours (I hate when they do "one size fits all" method), but we have no choice because the rule is the rule.

I needed to confirm to make sure that this is done right, so thank you for your input.

You don't need to count all of the people at the remote location. The Rules says in 5.2e that you include "the number of relevant employees in supporting activities..." Also see the note on page 52 of showing an example calculation. It says: "Note: For remote supporting functions, only employees that support the manufacturing "Site" should be counted for the minimum audit day calculation."

So how many employees at the remote location actually provide support for the tool design?
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
You don't need to count all of the people at the remote location. The Rules says in 5.2e that you include "the number of relevant employees in supporting activities..." Also see the note on page 52 of showing an example calculation. It says: "Note: For remote supporting functions, only employees that support the manufacturing "Site" should be counted for the minimum audit day calculation."

So how many employees at the remote location actually provide support for the tool design?
Ok, so if 5.2-e) is applicable, it's only the person who is doing doing the actual tooling design, maybe his manager, QA, and the management? The QA and the management is because the audit needs to be done because anything related to tooling design must also be audited such as internal audit and management review. But, the rest of the factory people are unrelated and never audited. Does it determined by their org chart?
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
Ok, so if 5.2-e) is applicable, it's only the person who is doing doing the actual tooling design, maybe his manager, QA, and the management? The QA and the management is because the audit needs to be done because anything related to tooling design must also be audited such as internal audit and management review. But, the rest of the factory people are unrelated and never audited. Does it determined by their org chart?

In some organizations, only certain individuals will do the tool design for automotive and others for non-automotive product. You only have to count the ones that do automotive work. If you just count by org chart you may overstate the number of employees involved. If anyone may do the work for automotive tools at your site, then count by org chart would probably be OK.

This really should have been explained/clarified before the first audit and the numbers confirmed by the CB at the first visit of the remote location. I get the impression that your CB has not been asking the right questions... :notme:
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
In some organizations, only certain individuals will do the tool design for automotive and others for non-automotive product. You only have to count the ones that do automotive work. If you just count by org chart you may overstate the number of employees involved. If anyone may do the work for automotive tools at your site, then count by org chart would probably be OK.

This really should have been explained/clarified before the first audit and the numbers confirmed by the CB at the first visit of the remote location. I get the impression that your CB has not been asking the right questions... :notme:
Question - we're 100% automotive and so is our parent company (remote location), but the people who are involved in the tool design (and related activities such as internal audit and management review) are obviously not the entire 79 people in the remote location. In this case, do the CB still has to count 79 people as head count at the remote location or only the people (or department) who are being audited should be counted as the head count of the remote location?

I am looking at page 58 of The Rule book, and it says in the Example 4, it says

For remote supporting functions, only employees that support the manufacturing "Site" should be counted for the minimum audit day calculation (see Rules 5.2).

The diagram seems to me that we don't have to count 79 people in our case.
 
Last edited:

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
Question - we're 100% automotive and so is our parent company (remote location), but the people who are involved in the tool design (and related activities such as internal audit and management review) are obviously not the entire 79 people in the remote location. In this case, do the CB still has to count 79 people as head count at the remote location or only the people (or department) who are being audited should be counted as the head count of the remote location?

I am looking at page 58 of The Rule book, and it says in the Example 4, it says

For remote supporting functions, only employees that support the manufacturing "Site" should be counted for the minimum audit day calculation (see Rules 5.2).

The diagram seems to me that we don't have to count 79 people in our case.

That's exactly what I said in a previous post. The CB should NOT count all 79 as support for your manufacturing site.

By the way, is your parent company also certified to TS 16949? If so, there shouldn't be a need for a separate audit at that location at all, as long as the interfaces between the locations are audited.
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
That's exactly what I said in a previous post. The CB should NOT count all 79 as support for your manufacturing site.

By the way, is your parent company also certified to TS 16949? If so, there shouldn't be a need for a separate audit at that location at all, as long as the interfaces between the locations are audited.
No, our parent company is not certified to ISO/TS 16949, which is why we must do this remote location audit (certified only to ISO 9001).

I reviewed my initial questionnaire listing how many people were involved in design activity and how many people were in administration, which should have given them clear indication that not all employees at the remote location were involved in support function. I think they quoted 1.5 days initially from my response, but then because the auditor at the remote location last year reported the head count as 79 in the audit report, I think the CB's technical team is confused by themselves (they should still contacted us for a clarification instead of just telling us that they need to audit 2.5 days all of sudden).

I had contacted and asked the CB to carefully review the required audit man-days again considering 5.2-e) since the people involved in support activities are no more than 10 people.

Thank you for your quick responses!
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
That's exactly what I said in a previous post. The CB should NOT count all 79 as support for your manufacturing site.

By the way, is your parent company also certified to TS 16949? If so, there shouldn't be a need for a separate audit at that location at all, as long as the interfaces between the locations are audited.


I don't know how much further I have to deal with this CB with the same discussion over and over. They are telling me that they can't reduce the time because

Rules require that we use the people at RL and proportion them to all sites and calculate from that for time. As we only have one site and RL we add the people together and calculate from that total. If they have other sites then the other CB would only calculate from the people at the site that they are going to and not include the RL.

I don't understand. They seem to be completely ignoring the diagram on page 58 of The Rule book. I had spoken to another CB for a transfer quote (for next year), and they told me the same thing you told me.

I guess at this point, I will need to go to IAOB to get this settled. Even if IAOB agrees with our current CB, I want to know the convincing words. At this point I am not 100% convinced by what our current CB says, not to mention they've been changing their positions on this matter each time I talk to them.
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
I don't know how much further I have to deal with this CB with the same discussion over and over. They are telling me that they can't reduce the time because

Rules require that we use the people at RL and proportion them to all sites and calculate from that for time. As we only have one site and RL we add the people together and calculate from that total. If they have other sites then the other CB would only calculate from the people at the site that they are going to and not include the RL.

I don't understand. They seem to be completely ignoring the diagram on page 58 of The Rule book. I had spoken to another CB for a transfer quote (for next year), and they told me the same thing you told me.
They don't like being told that they're wrong. I've been a TS auditor for years and have never done it the way they're doing it. Are you talking to someone in sales or someone in technical review?
I guess at this point, I will need to go to IAOB to get this settled. Even if IAOB agrees with our current CB, I want to know the convincing words. At this point I am not 100% convinced by what our current CB says, not to mention they've been changing their positions on this matter each time I talk to them.
If your CB won't do it right, I would definitely file a complaint with the IAOB. They're there to provide oversight, and they will know the correct interpretation. Good luck! :agree1:
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
They don't like being told that they're wrong. I've been a TS auditor for years and have never done it the way they're doing it. Are you talking to someone in sales or someone in technical review?

If your CB won't do it right, I would definitely file a complaint with the IAOB. They're there to provide oversight, and they will know the correct interpretation. Good luck! :agree1:
I am talking to the person in customer relations (because their technical team is incapable of responding in a timely manner), but the quote I posted is coming from the head of technical team. :(

I have already contacted IAOB and they forwarded me to VDA which is the oversight office of the CB (we're audited by their U.S. office, but because their main office is in Europe, the oversight office is VDA). In a general question, I spoke with a person at IAOB regarding this matter before being referred the contact information at VDA, the person had agreed with what you had told me. I have you, the other CB sales person (which we're thinking of transferring), and the person from IAOB - 3 people agreeing on the same interpretation. I am waiting for a response from VDA currently, but if they disagree with what the CB is saying, I am sure that they go furious, but what can I do. We shouldn't have to over-do what we don't have to do.
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
...but if they disagree with what the CB is saying, I am sure that they go furious...

They can be furious if they want, but they've been doing it wrong and overcharging customers like you for years. You have a right to be angry too. I'm glad you're on the way to getting this resolved.
 
Top Bottom