Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual - Recommended actions field on our PFMEAs

[mslet94]

Can you receive a minor nonconformance during a TS audit for the AIAG manual?

We received a nonconformance for not entering 'none' in recommended actions field on our PFMEAs, page 55 of the manual says if there are no recommended actions indicate this by placing none in the columne

 

[EtobiLad - 2009]

Re: Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual

Hello Mslet94, welcome to the cove.

"Can you receive a minor nonconformance during a TS audit for the AIAG manual?"

Yes if the PFMEA manual is part of your CORP requirement you can and you did.

If it were only one occurence wherein the "NONE" was not there for a low RPN (risk priority number) the auditor would let this pass granted you correct the document. But I assume there are no "NONES" on all your documents that required no "recommended action" right?
Take it as a learning experience and accept it or be "intrepid" and appeal

Footnote:
Was this CAR issued today? If so, you can correct this non-conformance on the spot (by updating your PFMEA documents) so that It will not go on record.
Goodluck!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual

Was this CAR issued today? If so, you can correct this non-conformance on the spot (by updating your PFMEA documents) so that It will not go on record.
Goodluck!

Not many auditors would take that route. Correcting the PFMEA document with the word none is not corrective action, since it does nothing to prevent the problem from happening again. That is correction, which is different from corrective action. Without being able to dig deep, the OP seems to be uncertain if the AIAG Manuals are mandatory requirements. Seems to be the root cause of the problem there.

 

[mslet94]

Re: Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual

Thank you Sidney and EtobiLad ...both great comments! When we fix things on the spot it doesn’t matter our auditor still gives us a nonconformance and in some cases I completely understand because the purpose is to improve our processes but for an item like this it is hard to complete a full 8D … but hey I have a good start going! Thanks!

 

[EtobiLad - 2009]

Re: Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual

Not many auditors would take that route. Correcting the PFMEA document with the word none is not corrective action, since it does nothing to prevent the problem from happening again.

I do agree.. this should be coupled with something like procedure or i.e. create or update a work instruction for person preparing the PFMEA documents or other means to prevent this from happening again.

......
Good luck on your preventive action mslet94.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Can you receive a minor nonconformance during a TS audit for the AIAG manual?

We received a nonconformance for not entering 'none' in recommended actions field on our PFMEAs, page 55 of the manual says if there are no recommended actions indicate this by placing none in the columne

There are two things to consider here:

• Were the PFMEA documents in question approved by the customer (as part of a PPAP submission, for example)? If so, the customer has given tacit approval of your methods, whether they realize it or not, and the auditor is off base.

• There is some confusion about when AIAG manuals become "requirements." In the case of the FMEA and SPC manuals, to name two examples, the manuals are self-described as guidelines and not rigid requirements. If a customer simply states that a supplier must do PFMEA in accordance with the AIAG manual, what they're saying, whether they realize it or not, is that the methods shown in the manual are guidelines and not rigid, word-for-word requirements.

I look at it this way: Whether or not "none" is in the Recommended Actions field affects nothing, and has no bearing on anything worth raising a issue over. It is not evidence of any sort of systemic problem, and no one is hurt by it. No harm, no foul.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual

I do agree.. this should be coupled with something like procedure or i.e. create or update a work instruction for person preparing the PFMEA documents or other means to prevent this from happening again.

......
Good luck on your preventive action mslet94.

To prevent what from happening again? Why engage in all of this hand-wringing, training and procedure-writing for a "problem" that doesn't really exist? Companies are going broke at this moment because the auto industry is making their suppliers chase their tails in the name of corrective action that doesn't need to be done.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Re: Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual

I do agree.. this should be coupled with something like procedure or i.e. create or update a work instruction for person preparing the PFMEA documents or other means to prevent this from happening again.

......
Good luck on your preventive action mslet94.

Aren't there instructions with the AIAG documents on how to fill them out? Why reinvent the wheel? Bring your team together and show them what to do, and where to look in the future as they are completing PFMEA to ensure they do it right. It is called training and this is exactly why you should be assessing competency. (is there someone in charge to review the PFMEA (and every other AIAG document) for conformance prior to saying they are complete?)

 

[EtobiLad - 2009]

Re: Minor Nonconformance from AIAG Manual

To prevent what from happening again? .

The CAR has been issued in this case for mslet94. You can argue this with the auditor(s) as no harm no foul but they still give you a CAR.

Why engage in all of this hand-wringing, training and procedure-writing for a "problem" that doesn't really exist?

Again the CAR was still issued..

Companies are going broke at this moment because the auto industry is making their suppliers chase their tails in the name of corrective action that doesn't need to be done.

No argument here. Appeal!

Steelmaiden, I also agree with not recreating the wheel. If you can show them that efforts where undertaking to train the user. The PFMEA blue book (manual) does tell you the how to's. So training can be a route.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

There are two things to consider here:

• Were the PFMEA documents in question approved by the customer (as part of a PPAP submission, for example)? If so, the customer has given tacit approval of your methods, whether they realize it or not, and the auditor is off base.

• There is some confusion about when AIAG manuals become "requirements." In the case of the FMEA and SPC manuals, to name two examples, the manuals are self-described as guidelines and not rigid requirements. If a customer simply states that a supplier must do PFMEA in accordance with the AIAG manual, what they're saying, whether they realize it or not, is that the methods shown in the manual are guidelines and not rigid, word-for-word requirements.

I look at it this way: Whether or not "none" is in the Recommended Actions field affects nothing, and has no bearing on anything worth raising a issue over. It is not evidence of any sort of systemic problem, and no one is hurt by it. No harm, no foul.

I am inclined to agree with Jim's thoughts. I have written NC's when the Detection or Severity scoring is clearly not following the tables, or when there are substantive problems. But to write an NC because they did not write none, is perhaps a bit much. Not adding value. Not many customers are asking for that.