Questionable Audit Findings after Rules 4th Edition Release

[Mikey324]

Hello,

After the release of the 4th edition TS rules, I've seen very questionable 3rd part audit findings. I will attach some below for advice. The biggest change I've noticed is increased, VERY detailed, review of FMEA and Control plans. I understand these are highly important documents, but we are basically being asked to re-write them all because the auditor doesn't like our wording.

example 1
Statement of non- conformity:
[FONT=&quot]The system for the review and verification of effectiveness corrective actions is partially effective
[/FONT]
Objective Evidence(s)
, no evidence of PFMEA, control plan, error - proofing methods have not been addressed. It appears that the PFMEA and control plans were updated, however upon reviewing, it was found that
Control plan, 9/19/14, measurement evaluation technique (gage) and control method stated same FormXYZ.. not clear what is gage versus control method.


In this example, the auditor didn't like the fact that we listed a form used (for the last 16 years) as both the evaluation technique and control method.


My question is, is this one auditors interpretation of the standard? These have been reviewed by countless customers and previous 3rd party auditors. I understood we need to make these documents work for us, as long as the customer approves??


Thank you

 

[Golfman25]

Yep, I see the same BS. IMO, it comes dangerously close to the auditor telling us how to do our business.

I would have an issue with the term "partially effective." Is that like a little bit pregnant. It is either effective or not. Seems like the auditor is reaching for something.

 

[Chennaiite]

Is there something more to that Non-conformance that you would prefer to disclose, especially as to what transpired between the Auditor and the Auditee during Audit? I am finding few more things strange as well.
What has Corrective action effectiveness verification got to do with some reportedly wrong use of columns in Control plan?
Why is FMEA figuring in objective evidence?
To me, the Auditors verbatim, if this is one, is partially effective.

 

[Big Jim]

Sometimes the best way to deal with an auditor that likes to make up his own rules is to have a conversation with the certification body. Particularly a member of the executive committee that is responsible for interpretation and application of the standard.

 

[Mikey324]

Is there something more to that Non-conformance that you would prefer to disclose, especially as to what transpired between the Auditor and the Auditee during Audit? I am finding few more things strange as well.
What has Corrective action effectiveness verification got to do with some reportedly wrong use of columns in Control plan?
Why is FMEA figuring in objective evidence?
To me, the Auditors verbatim, if this is one, is partially effective.

It started with "was the FMEA and CP updated". The answer was yes, when they looked at the cp, it was determined columns were switched from controls unrelated to the original issue.