Management Review and Audit Data Requirements

[tomvehoski]

We just heard from one of the registrars we use that they are requiring 12 months of audit and management review data prior to registration to 16949: 2002. This is an issue for a couple of our start-up clients that will not have been in business long enough (or running a quality system long enough) to meet the 12 month requirement.

Has anyone else heard of this or run into issues with it? I am also waiting on responses back from some of our other registrars.


Tom

 

[db]

From the AIAG

Tom this is from "Quality QuickBytes", an AIAG E-publicaiton"

Q: I need clarification the "Rules." What happens if a company does not have 12 previous months of internal auditing or management reviews, but it has at least one round of each prior to the registration week? Does that comply?

A: In situations that the company is a new operation (start-up) and the required 12 months of data is not available, it would be acceptable to review the available data and to process it accordingly. In such situation, it would be necessary to review at least 12 months of data at the first surveillance audit and if the data reflects acceptable performance the company would continue certification. If the data reflects unacceptable performance, the organization will risk loss if its certificate.

This is from Volume 1, Issue 5; dated October 4, 2002. I hope that helps.

 

[tomvehoski]

Thanks for the info. Any idea who actually wrote this? Is it official? The registrar we talked to apparently lost a potential customer because of their stance on this issue. I worry about trying to use AIAG publications as ammunition against an auditor or registrar.

One of my clients had a fire in August 2001 and is just now up and running again. Hope to have them certified in March. The stance I am thinking of taking is that the company has been in business for many years, but did not make anything from 8/01 to 12/02. Our first audit and management review cover the last 12 months. One nonconformance for no previous audit, one for no previous Management Review and one for poor record protection since most everything was lost in the fire. Hopefully this will cover any issues.

Thanks again,

Tom

 

[db]

Any idea who actually wrote this?

I have no idea. but....

Is it official?

I would hope so...it came directly from the AIAG, not some website paraphrasing something they read or heard. The information was a direct quote from the AIAG publication. IT was under the title: ISO/TS 16949:2002 Frequently Asked Questions.

I'm sure if someone were to contact the AIAG with the information I presented in my first post, the AIAG could verify whether it came from them or from the IATF. I think that would be the real question. Is this just the interpretation of the AIAG, or is this from the IATF? This I don't know.

 

[YKT]

if i interprete that correctly, you were saying that if a company going for TS certification, it will need to have at least 12 months of management review and internal audit data ?

In that case, TS implementation project will has to be more than a year ? Because, the company will need to get everything in places, and then to prove to registrars that they have 12 months management audit / IQA data ?

Please correct me, if I'm wrong ??

 

[Sam]

Tomvehoski,
The requirements for documents to be submitted to the CB is in "Automotive certification scheme for ISO/TS 16949 Rules for achieving IATF recognition". Refer to page 12.
- quality manual for each site to be audited
- Internal audit and management review planning and results from previous 12 months.
- list of qualified internal auditors
- list of customer specific requirements
- customer complaint status
- operational performance trends for the previous 12 months, minimum.

There is also a suggested list in the guidance document.

If you have been ISO/QS certified or if you have a TQM philosiphy this requirement should pose no problem. If not ,IMO you would have to gather data for a year before attempting certification.

 

[db]

Sam I agree, with the exception of the start-up operations that I mentioned in the earlier post. YKT, your interpretation is correct provided the company is not just starting up operations. In Tom's situation with the client with the fire, I'm not sure that it fits. Perhaps they could use data from before the fire I'm not sure. Tom, that is a puzzler. Let us know how it unfolds.

 

[tomvehoski]

Unfortunately most all records were lost. The only quality related document they recovered was an old quality manual that was never implemented and a couple forms here and there. Computers went too, so there was no electronic data saved. Off-site backup storage will definately become a new program for them. We started from scratch with a new 16949 and 14001 system.

I think we are going to be back to another situation where each registrar has a different opinion on this one. I will just have to be careful about who we select to conduct the audit.

Tom

 

[Don Wood - 2011]

According to Harold Hodder, Exec. Director of the IAOB, the 12 months of evidence can be from your existing QMS. It does NOT have to date from the complete implementation of a TS2 compliant system.

In this situation (data loss) you've definitely got a problem. I'd recommend asking your (or your client's) CB to get an interpretation from the IAOB. In some circumstances the IAOB will allow exceptions. There's not a CB on the face of the Earth that will make that call on their own, unless they truly enjoy having a witness auditor rack them up one side and down the other. Expect to get some grief about contingency planning!
Don Wood

 

[dewie]

system on fire

in that fire case
could it be possible to start from requesting the company's QM from th CB, since QM from the last surviellance should be there.