PFMEA - Minor Non-Conformance for field left blank

Ac101118

Starting to get Involved
Is there anything requiring this PFMEA to meet the AIAG criteria?

Well that's where I am struggling with this NC, our customers require a FMEA but they do not require that the FMEA meet AIAG standards. I believe this was an example of the auditor expecting us to conform to the end customers (GM) CSRs and not our actual customers CSRs. That being said, I think at this point we are likely just going to accept it as is. The fix has already been implemented years ago, as our FMEAs are now completed in software that automatically populates the recommended action column with "None" unless another value is inserted. I think it will prompt us to enter the 3 or 4 old excel FMEAs that we do have into our current software, probably not a bad thing. With only two minors this audit I guess it is not as big an issue.
 
Last edited:

Johnnymo62

Haste Makes Waste
The AIAG FMEA-4 was released in 2008.

If you are / have been using the AIAG format for your FMEAs you need to be using them correctly, I think.

I do think it's inappropriate for the Auditor to give any kind of NC for something that has been fixed already. I've never been required to go back and fix any documents retroactively. I've always corrected any that I have been updating for other issues, though.
 

Funboi

On Holiday
This was not an audit of the implementation of a PFMEA. It was an audit of form filling. The auditor is wasting eveyones’ time, including ours, debating this silliness. Call it what it is - no value, low hanging fruit. Reply to the CB that you reject the finding because it wasn’t an audit of an actual process (which is what IATF auditors are supposed to be doing)
 

Enghabashy

Quite Involved in Discussions
This was not an audit of the implementation of a PFMEA. It was an audit of form filling. The auditor is wasting everyone's’ time, including ours, debating this silliness.
" Yes sure ; technically it's silly ; actually for audited & for other interested parties also ; it's easy ; very easy for estimating the silly root causes also ; it’s very silly to take a silly corrective actions & action plan accordingly ;

* the cost is very silly also ; waste time cost ; I wonder if this silly NCs are the input of management review meeting !!--- waste time cost for all top management to discuss this type of organization deviations & very very silly also to know how they could react against these type of issues !!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tidge

Trusted Information Resource
... very very silly also to know how they could react against these type of issues !!
Not exactly reactive(*), but when the (internal) process changed to require a new documentation practice, the change control process (for the procedure) could have included an explicit assessment with respect to remediating (under what circumstances, or not remediating) records generated under a previous process.

(*) I suspect "reactive" in the quoted text refers to reacting to the observation, and my reply is imagining a proactive approach that might have occurred independent to the observation. I recognize that there are different directions the discussion can go in; I'm not presenting a binomial choice.
 

Enghabashy

Quite Involved in Discussions
let's to remember also : IATF audit reports didn't reflect observation or opportunity for improvements;
 

Funboi

On Holiday
let's to remember also : IATF audit reports didn't reflect observation or opportunity for improvements;
The grade is not what is at stake here. If I recall correctly, the IATF audits are supposed to follow the “automotive process approach” (for which there is no description) which would suggest the auditor look at the output(s) or results (effectiveness) of conducting the pfmea. If it was important that blank spaces on a form were completed, surely, that would make an impact on the output/results? How can an nc be worded that a process isn’t demonstrated as effective if the auditor didn’t check?
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
I once had a 16949 auditor insist he was going to write us a Nonconformance because we were not using the exact Process FMEA format in the Core Manual. I grabbed up the standard, and said "Oh! Oh! Where is that required?" as I flipped through the pages. He frowned and growled and repeated he WOULD write the nonconformity if we did not do that exact (unspoken) requirement. I did not pursue the matter further. On the actual audit report his finding had turned into an Opportunity. End of story.

What clause did this auditor cite? If it is not a shall, you can file a dispute.

That said, I do support not leaving those cells blank.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Management system auditing is not an easy profession, but these people should never abuse their (misperceived) authority.
This is of course true, but when taking the 16949 Lead Auditor course in Detroit the instructor passed along to us something like this - I can't remember exactly what it was - and insisted it was a requirement though I could never find out its origin after asking internally at IATF, and various authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. I eventually decided it was a point the IATF people really wanted to enforce though it was never made into a shall - so this is how such unofficial things get to the auditors. Note this was several years ago.

That said, I completely agree that interpersonal interaction (educators call it delivery) is extremely important. For me, part of a job well done is to avoid leaving my clients with the feeling they have suffered, no matter how many nonconformances I end the audit with.
 
Top Bottom