Nonconformance - Not meeting Ford requirements for TS Certification

spastochick

Registered
I just started a new job 4/4/11. It came with a fast and furious ISO/TS 16949 surveillance audit on 5/6/11. At any rate, I received a major N/C for: [FONT=&quot]ISO/TS 16949 section 8.2.2.5 No evidence could be provided that the Internal Auditors are qualified to audit the requirements of the ISO/TS 16949:2009 specifications. This is a repeat from the previous audit completed in May 2010. I have been auditing as a lead auditor in automotive for 9 years now (RAB certified lead auditor to ISO 9001:2008 QMS). I received this because I could not provide logs of auditing. Ford requirements are that I must be certified to TS. Any thoughts on this. I did dispute it, but the registrars did not even look at my evidence :-(

[/FONT]
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
Re: N/C not meeting Ford requirements for TS Cerfication

I just started a new job 4/4/11. It came with a fast and furious ISO/TS 16949 surveillance audit on 5/6/11. At any rate, I received a major N/C for: [FONT=&quot]ISO/TS 16949 section 8.2.2.5 No evidence could be provided that the Internal Auditors are qualified to audit the requirements of the ISO/TS 16949:2009 specifications. This is a repeat from the previous audit completed in May 2010. I have been auditing as a lead auditor in automotive for 9 years now (RAB certified lead auditor to ISO 9001:2008 QMS). I received this because I could not provide logs of auditing. Ford requirements are that I must be certified to TS. Any thoughts on this. I did dispute it, but the registrars did not even look at my evidence :-(

[/FONT]

Please see what the Ford requirement says with my comments in red

Internal Auditor Qualifications
Internal quality management system auditors shall be qualified per 4.39.1 or 4.39.2
below.

4.39.1 Be trained and evaluated in the following areas:
• The Technical Specification ISO/TS 16949 Are you, this is not ISO 9001
• Related core tools (e.g. APQP, SPC, MSA, FMEA, PPAP) Have you this training?
• Applicable customer-specific requirements, and It would appear not in Fords requirement's?
• The automotive process approach to auditing.

Can you demonstrate these trainings? RAB certified lead auditor to ISO 9001:2008 QMS does not fulfill the requirements


And, as part of the training, participates in practice sessions
equivalent to one audit day in:
• Case study audits, and/or
• Auditing role plays/simulations, and/or
• On-site audits.

Core tools and customer specifics can be taught by company or
industry recognized experts/specialists.

4.39.2 Or, have conducted at least 5 internal ISO/TS 16949 internal audits
during the prior 24 months under the supervision of an auditor trained as
specified in 4.39.1 . The audits will need to have covered all
requirements of the technical specification and all processes directly
impacting Ford part quality at least once over the 5 or more audits.

Can you demonstrate this, if it is only audit logs I am sure you can reconstruct these.

Internal Auditor Trainer Qualifications
4.39.3 The training listed in 4.39.1 above shall be conducted by trainer(s) who have themselves successfully met the requirements of 4.39.1 or 4.39.2.

4.39.4 Process and Product audits may be conducted by appropriate process specialists from the affected areas without full quality management
auditor training.


The fact that the auditors did not look at your evidence is completely unacceptable and this is a ground to complain as unprofessional behavior The rules require at 5.8
"The audit team shall regularly communicate with the client during the audit regarding the progress of the audit."
. Did they throw this out at the closing meeting?
 

spastochick

Registered
Thank you so much for your response:) Yes, the auditor gave us the major at the closing meeting. He explained to our President that he would not write us up for it and he indeed did. As I mentioned in my initial posting, I have been performing TS audits as lead auditor in the automotive sector for nine years, which is equivalent to approximately 200 TS audits performed myself. I disputed the major with the registrar and unfortunately, they did not even look at the evidence that I sent them. At any rate, I am going to take a "TS" class that meets all of the Ford requirements.

I have been creating PPAP and PSO's for nine years as well, so there should not be any need, as I could probably train the people in my class on this.

Thank you again for your response!

Spastochick
 

spastochick

Registered
I do have another question, please? The auditor went back to 2009 when writing one of our majors. Is this acceptable? I thought they could only audit dates after their previous audit. Please advise.

Thanks Again,

Spastochick:)
 

AndyN

Moved On
I do have another question, please? The auditor went back to 2009 when writing one of our majors. Is this acceptable? I thought they could only audit dates after their previous audit. Please advise.

Thanks Again,

Spastochick:)

Let me understand - the CB auditor wrote you a major for something which happened in 2009?

If so, make a strong and well worded complaint to your CB! There is NO value in reporting such things. The auditors beahviours are also highly suspect, bringing out significant findings at the Closing Meeting is just plain wrong. Based on the response from your CB, you might be well placed to consider a move to another...
 

spastochick

Registered
AndyN:

Yes the major that was written contained evidence from 2009. The auditor did spring the major on us in our closing meeting.....but wait! It gets better, I did not receive my final audit report with the nonconformances until a week after the closing meeting, after I called the registrar to complain :-( Unfortunately, I have to use them for one more year.

Stuck & hatin it :-(

Spastochick
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Is this acceptable?
The answer is (as always) IT DEPENDS!. Is the problem (that happened in 2009) still representative of the process? Could the same problem happen tomorrow? Is the requirement that was violated in 2009 still in existence? There is no "statute of limitation" in an audit, but auditors should be aware of effectivity dates for requirements and focus on representative samples of the processes/systems at hand.

Certainly auditors should focus on the current issues as much as possible, but there are some QMS activities and processes that don't happen very often. For example, a design validation environmental testing. If the last time the external auditor audited that part of the system was in 2008, and the last evidence you have to show them occurred in 2009, there is NOTHING wrong for the auditor to scrutinize that aspect of your QMS.

The surveillance audit cycle is designed to assess the whole QMS during the typical 3-year cycle. So, in principle, it is possible that the auditor had a valid reason to assess something which might have happened 2 years ago. Without more details, we can only speculate and conjecture.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
AndyN:

Yes the major that was written contained evidence from 2009. The auditor did spring the major on us in our closing meeting.....but wait! It gets better, I did not receive my final audit report with the nonconformances until a week after the closing meeting, after I called the registrar to complain :-( Unfortunately, I have to use them for one more year.

Stuck & hatin it :-(

Spastochick

Let's make sure we understand what's happening here. If the nonconformity from 2009 is still a nonconformity, the evidence from 2009 should be referenced. If there's never been an auditor who qualifies under the Ford requirements, or there hasn't been one since 2009 and the problem was brought up in 2009, the 2009 evidence is fair game.
 

AndyN

Moved On
Let's make sure we understand what's happening here. If the nonconformity from 2009 is still a nonconformity, the evidence from 2009 should be referenced. If there's never been an auditor who qualifies under the Ford requirements, or there hasn't been one since 2009 and the problem was brought up in 2009, the 2009 evidence is fair game.

I don't disagree, Jim, in principle. I would however, point out that if it's an NC today, then that's what should reported and if it dates back to 2009, then that's simply giving some quantitative 'weight' to the situation - which may, perversely be shooting the CB in the foot, since that would be at least one and possibly two surveillance visits ago!
I've never seen the 'value' in reporting something back dated so far! Plus, there's likely to be a contemporary issue which is associated...
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I don't disagree, Jim, in principle. I would however, point out that if it's an NC today, then that's what should reported and if it dates back to 2009, then that's simply giving some quantitative 'weight' to the situation - which may, perversely be shooting the CB in the foot, since that would be at least one and possibly two surveillance visits ago!
I've never seen the 'value' in reporting something back dated so far! Plus, there's likely to be a contemporary issue which is associated...
Andy, as I mentioned already, the protocol for the certification surveillance cycle does not require every aspect of a QMS to be audited each and every audit. So, it is TOTALLY possible that a few processes of a QMS only get audited every 2 or 3 years. This is what ISO 17021 states:
Surveillance audits are on-site audits, but are not necessarily full system audits, and shall be planned together with the other surveillance activities so that the certification body can maintain confidence that the certified management system continues to fulfil requirements between recertification audits.
To assume the auditor is wrong in reporting an NC 2 years old is rushing to judgement, in my opinion.

PS Covegratulations on your 15,000 karma points. Well deserved. :applause:
 
Top Bottom