New Auditor wants Mould tool repair bill included in Cost of Poor Quality!

S

Shamus

Hi All,

I have just finished a TS16949 surveillance visit.
It was the first time this auditor had visited us, having got used to the same auditor for a number years I did not know what to expect.
We are an injection moulding business that supplies 1st tier customers.

I was pulled up on a couple of things and wondered what other people thought.

We use the Cost of Poor Quality as a KPI; I was pulled up for not including
the mould tool repair bill in the Cost of Poor Quality reports.
A. I am not sure I can make the connection.
B. Is it not up to us to decide how we measure our COPQ?


We have just changed our calibration service provider so all equipment is
UKAS certificated. Unfortunately one gauge was unable to be done at the time. Although it was still under its original calibration date and having a mail from the customer giving us permission to carry on using it until it could be UKAS certificated the auditor still put it down as an NC.

What do you think?
 
T

Ted Schmitt

Re: Change of Auditor

We have just changed our calibration service provider so all equipment is
UKAS certificated. Unfortunately one gauge was unable to be done at the time. Although it was still under its original calibration date and having a mail from the customer giving us permission to carry on using it until it could be UKAS certificated the auditor still put it down as an NC.

What do you think?

IMO, pretty ridiculus... If I am understanding correctly, it was still under original calibration, customer (major interested party) gave you written authorization to use it, and it was the ONLY one not calibrated under UKAS ??? I would have argued that one until I turned BLUE :mad:
 

BradM

Leader
Admin
Re: Change of Auditor

We have just changed our calibration service provider so all equipment is
UKAS certificated. Unfortunately one gauge was unable to be done at the time. Although it was still under its original calibration date and having a mail from the customer giving us permission to carry on using it until it could be UKAS certificated the auditor still put it down as an NC.

What do you think?

Hello Shamus! I will applaud you that you took the time you check with your customer regarding the instrument's use. However.....

The point is relevant to your quality system. If you were not supposed to use the instrument, you should not have been using it.

If you had provisions in your quality system to extend the calibration date as part of some 'at risk' assessment, limited use, etc., that would be another matter.

Did you violate what you said you were supposed to do? If yes, then it's an NC.
 

BradM

Leader
Admin
Re: Change of Auditor

We use the Cost of Poor Quality as a KPI; I was pulled up for not including
the mould tool repair bill in the Cost of Poor Quality reports.
A. I am not sure I can make the connection.
B. Is it not up to us to decide how we measure our COPQ?

I will agree, it is yours to decide. Do you have any plan in place to show how you calculate COPQ? Do you state anywhere what you consider/deem COPQ in your facility?

If COPQ has not been identified, then it can become a non-useful activity. Too, it can become a tool for scapegoating/political activities.
 
P

Pudge 72

Re: Change of Auditor

Disagree.

Customer authorization / instruction is the end all be all to both internal procedures and external standards.
If I run my system according to TS16949, but, customer states that they do not want submission package, I do not need to do it regardless of what my system states. This philosophy is directly addressed within this Standard and others - and gives you full authority to do this.
If a written deviation from the customer under contract is available and current, that is the end of the story as it relates to the issue that you describe - I have had this situation reviewed by the Home Office of my Auditor during a previous certifcation surveillance audit, and they found in my favor according to the standard.
 

AndyN

Moved On
Re: Change of Auditor

Hi All,

I have just finished a TS16949 surveillance visit.
It was the first time this auditor had visited us, having got used to the same auditor for a number years I did not know what to expect.
We are an injection moulding business that supplies 1st tier customers.

I was pulled up on a couple of things and wondered what other people thought.

We use the Cost of Poor Quality as a KPI; I was pulled up for not including
the mould tool repair bill in the Cost of Poor Quality reports.
A. I am not sure I can make the connection.
B. Is it not up to us to decide how we measure our COPQ?


We have just changed our calibration service provider so all equipment is
UKAS certificated. Unfortunately one gauge was unable to be done at the time. Although it was still under its original calibration date and having a mail from the customer giving us permission to carry on using it until it could be UKAS certificated the auditor still put it down as an NC.

What do you think?

A couple of pathetic findings. They sound more like consulting to me...."Well, you could include your mould repair as a COPQ.........."
And finding one gauge with (apparently) everything still O.K is plainly and simply poor audit technique.

Write to the auditors management, tell them you don't appreciate this type of 'service' and request they assign someone who will do a better job. BTW - their audit management should be looking at this type of finding, when the auditor turns in the report, so ask them to review it too. See what they say about the report. If they don't rescind it, find another CB...........
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Re: Change of Auditor

Disagree.

Customer authorization / instruction is the end all be all to both internal procedures and external standards.
If I run my system according to TS16949, but, customer states that they do not want submission package, I do not need to do it regardless of what my system states.

You need to account for exceptions in your documentation. There is a difference between submitting a PPAP package when your customer says they don't want one and what goes on in your own building. If your documentation states, for example, that measurement devices may not be used under any circumstances if they're beyond their dates for required calibration, it doesn't matter what the customer says. The QMS belongs to the company that uses it--not to the customer. The key is to anticipate possible exceptions and account for them in the documentation.
 
P

Pudge 72

Re: Change of Auditor - Mould tool repair bill in the Cost of Poor Quality reports?

True - however, if I have a customer owned gage In-house and my Calibration procedure for gages states that I am to calibrate every 6 months and I have a letter of disposition from the customer stating that taking the risk and cost into account, they want it on a yearly schedule, it is going to yearly regardless of what my QMS states.
The auditor in turn cannot have a finding that I have a Non-Conformance in my Calibration system.
These are the types of situations that I am reffering to - the auditor should understand that the Standard dictates the system, the system dictates the procedures and the customer acutally dictates all of it - they pay the bills, you just have to make sure that they are not ruining your business in the process.
 
R

richard b. thomas

Re: Change of Auditor - Mould tool repair bill in the Cost of Poor Quality reports?

From what you posted, the two findings issued by your auditor are not audit findings but seem to be more of the auditors own interpretations. It's up to the organization to define COPQ, probably no two indepedent organizations have the same definition of COPQ. Tool repair cost can be amortized in cost of the parts over the expected project life so is it actually COPQ? Did the auditor inquire why your organization didn't include tool repair in COPQ or it seems like he/she stated you must include it in, so I feel that its a nonconformance.
Secondly, if you notified your customer that a particular piece of equipment wouldn't be updated using the new calibration service/standard and they provided you with a waiver or acceptance then that should be enough for the auditor. The standard drives organizations to establish effective processes for customer communication and satisfaction; you showed evidence of communicating with your customer on this issue and that they were satisfied with what you were doing. Auditor had no justification for writing a nonconformance. You should contact your registrar and request another auditor, no reason putting non-value added requirements on yourself.
 

AndyN

Moved On
Re: Change of Auditor - Mould tool repair bill in the Cost of Poor Quality reports?

What you guys are saying is fine and dandy, but where's the system issue here? 1 gauge? An nc-worthy finding? I don't think so, I know it isn't so!
 
Top Bottom