PFMEA - Minor Non-Conformance for field left blank

Funboi

On Holiday
That said, I do support not leaving those cells blank.
As an auditor, isn’t it their job to determine what the users understand as implementation requirements? It worries me when people who, in the auditor role should remain neutral, demonstrate a bias or preference. The task of the auditor is to confirm - or otherwise - effective implementation, isn’t it? Is there a requirement - presumably by the authors - that all blanks have an entry? Isn’t the auditor to “test” firstly the understanding and then the effectiveness of the audit scope? Hasn’t it been confirmed that no requirement exists to “fill in a box”, so the auditor should then check for understanding and implementation effectivity.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
As an auditor, isn’t it their job to determine what the users understand as implementation requirements? It worries me when people who, in the auditor role should remain neutral, demonstrate a bias or preference. The task of the auditor is to confirm - or otherwise - effective implementation, isn’t it? Is there a requirement - presumably by the authors - that all blanks have an entry? Isn’t the auditor to “test” firstly the understanding and then the effectiveness of the audit scope? Hasn’t it been confirmed that no requirement exists to “fill in a box”, so the auditor should then check for understanding and implementation effectivity.
We discuss this frequently. There is always a chance that the auditor incorrectly assigns a Nonconformance. The dispute process option is supposed to be included in the closing meeting: if it is not, that's a separate issue but the fact is a client has the right to file a dispute for nonconformitie(s) they believe are inaccurate. I am wholly in support of this activity. Lead Auditors are not the "last word" in certification process steps.
 

Ac101118

Starting to get Involved
PFMEA - Minor Non-Conformance for field left blank
 

Ac101118

Starting to get Involved
The information blocked out is the customer and end customer information. I believe that the problem is that the Auditor is familiar with the end customers CSRs and that perhaps using the AIAG FMEA criteria is one of such requirements. However, we are not direct suppliers and our customer does not cascade those requirements to us, nor do their CSRs list them as a requirement. Moreover our internal process does not require the use of the AIAG FMEA criteria. The Standard Clause 8.3.5.2 that the non-conformance is written against also does not require the use of the AIAG FMEA criteria. So if it is not a CSR, internal requirement, or IATF requirement then how is it a non-conformance?

That being said, I am currently working to review any older FMEAs in our system to make sure they align with this "requirement" in the future. It just seems if anything, this should have been an OFI.
 

Funboi

On Holiday
May I suggest that you DO NOT accept this finding - whatever grade it has? If you decide that it will stand, without being challenged using your rationale in your post, you will be contributing to something which is undermining the integrity of the Third Part process:
  1. This auditor will feel validated in writing such a bogus finding and continue to write more such ncs at other clients
  2. The CB will not detect such a bogus finding and question its validity
  3. The auditor, if working with others, can give an impression of finding valid ncs and other auditos will be emboldened to author similar ncs.
  4. The auditor may be an instructor of auditor training and this type of bogus finding will become part of their “story” in the class.
In simple terms, there is potential for a huge multiplying effect in the whole market which could be stopped right here, with a simple email rejecting the auditor’s value-less report (especially since they didn’t actually audit the results)
On behalf of the clients I (and others) serve, trying to avoid wasting time chasing our tails on dubious paperwork issues, I encourage you to reject the nc back to the CB - that’s all.
 

UncleFester

Involved In Discussions
Pedantics - as this N/C is raised against a Process FMEA, then the auditor has not accurately defined the N/C. The page that he refers to (61) relates to Design FMEAs. The correct page should have been written as 107.
 

Enghabashy

Quite Involved in Discussions
it's the 1st time I see that; an auditor refer to page number as reference of NCs !! clause no is enough as reference ;
*PFMEA could be one of design output as the DFMEA ; because also many recommended action for reducing severity are vital input for design modification / change / improving issues
 
Top Bottom