Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Informational Re-engineering of the IAF Accreditation and the Management System Certification Processes

#61
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Thank you, Paul. In my viewpoint, this just strengthens my pledge that AB's need to be accountable to the users of accredited certificates, issued under their schemes. Until there is some formal mechanism to enforce accountability of the AB's to Society and Industry at large, the monopolistic approach to accreditation does not guarantee trust and confidence of the end product.
I agree Sidney. Also, at the next level down, CBs / registrars need to be accountable for the certification they provide - unless and until ABs are able to police the industry (and FWIW I don't think it is possible without a sea change in the industry) - a registrar needs to be brought to book by their clients customers (or the customer directly). Hence my earlier proposal for a "name and shame process" shouted down on this forum.

There is too much variability in the output of the assessment and certification process (poor firms certified and good firms forced to jump through hoops on an auditor's whim). On behalf of the CB I represent we welcome any feedback (even if it brings short term pain) in order to improve our "offering" to the market.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#62
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

a registrar needs to be brought to book by their clients customers (or the customer directly). Hence my earlier proposal for a "name and shame process" shouted down on this forum.
Accountability is the key word. The problem with the "name and shame" concept (as I understood) is that there would be much variation as well. As we know very well, sometimes, an ignorant customer will question a supplier and their respective registrar, when, in reality, the customer is at fault.

The supplier 7.2 processes can only work well when the customer 7.4 processes are also operating properly (if you catch my drift).

I still think that well managed feedback loops like the one described in the New OASIS database feature - Contact the CB with concerns about a supplier thread could enhance accountability, at all levels.
 
P

potdar

#63
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I have been away on vacation and much water has flown under the bridge. This might seem like raking up a closed issue - still ...

If you pay attention to the presentations provided via the IATF on this subject, they are very happy with the TS 16949 certification process, vis a vis the significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain. Their assessment, not mine. They seem to be happy with how the process is working in their sector.
I am presently helping a level 1 supplier seeking to supply FORD. They need to qualify for TS. They have completed the initial audit smoothly and dates for final audit are fixed, which they are confident of clearing. One of the main problems identified during the initial audits was with PPAPs submitted by their suppliers. So I have been asked to teach the suppliers the what and how of PPAPs. (My clients themselves dont know much about it:notme:) Three of the five main suppliers to whom I am now teaching are already TS certified.:mg:

TS is effective:confused:

That is not the end of the story. FORD is not happy only to get the party TS certified. They must also clear a Q1 audit. This audit was conducted last week while I was away. Today I return and discover (expectedly) that they are awash in a sea of red.:bonk:

FORD is happy with TS:confused:
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#64
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I have been away on vacation and much water has flown under the bridge. This might seem like raking up a closed issue - still ...



I am presently helping a level 1 supplier seeking to supply FORD. They need to qualify for TS. They have completed the initial audit smoothly and dates for final audit are fixed, which they are confident of clearing. One of the main problems identified during the initial audits was with PPAPs submitted by their suppliers. So I have been asked to teach the suppliers the what and how of PPAPs. (My clients themselves dont know much about it:notme:) Three of the five main suppliers to whom I am now teaching are already TS certified.:mg:

TS is effective:confused:

That is not the end of the story. FORD is not happy only to get the party TS certified. They must also clear a Q1 audit. This audit was conducted last week while I was away. Today I return and discover (expectedly) that they are awash in a sea of red.:bonk:

FORD is happy with TS:confused:
Ford, and GM, may be happy with TS as a whole. TS and QS-9000 have in fact helped to tremendously improve the automotive supply chain. Automotive ratings back that up.

But, that does not mean every supplier is golden. The supplier you mention has some fundamental problems with PPAP. But, thst does not generally come up in a Stage 1 audit. It is not on the list. However, their own internal audit program should have caught it. So there are at least two significant processes that are not effective - PPAP and audits, and perhaps others.

If the CB auditors do their job properly, this should get picked up ay the Stage 2 audit.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#65
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I am presently helping a level 1 supplier seeking to supply FORD. .............SNIP.......Today I return and discover (expectedly) that they are awash in a sea of red.
Is your customer happy?:rolleyes:
 
P

potdar

#66
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Ford, and GM, may be happy with TS as a whole. TS and QS-9000 have in fact helped to tremendously improve the automotive supply chain. Automotive ratings back that up.

But, that does not mean every supplier is golden. The supplier you mention has some fundamental problems with PPAP. But, thst does not generally come up in a Stage 1 audit. It is not on the list. However, their own internal audit program should have caught it. So there are at least two significant processes that are not effective - PPAP and audits, and perhaps others.

If the CB auditors do their job properly, this should get picked up ay the Stage 2 audit.
Suppliers not being certified to TS / ISO or not having any such commitments is a part of stage I. And yes, my customer today is not yet certified. OK if he doesnt know how to do PPAP. What about his suppliers who are certified and still dont know?

Is your customer happy? :rolleyes:
Well, frankly I am not happy. This was a limited scope assignment I took against my better judgement for the sake of old time goodwill. Now there is a full scale pressure on me to take up responsibility as a system consultant and see the company through within an impossible time frame.:bonk: I have said no. But I should learn to say NO in the first place itself.

As far as the customer is concrned, he is perfectly happy so long as he gets on to the FORD approved suppliers list. He doesnt know what a PPAP is, nor is he interested in knowing it.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#67
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Suppliers not being certified to TS / ISO or not having any such commitments is a part of stage I. And yes, my customer today is not yet certified. OK if he doesnt know how to do PPAP. What about his suppliers who are certified and still dont know?
During a TS Stage 1 assessment, I do not generally ask questions about purchasing or supply chain certification, unless we stumble onto something. Those requirements come into play when auditing the Purchasing process during a Stage 2.


As far as the customer is concrned, he is perfectly happy so long as he gets on to the FORD approved suppliers list. He doesnt know what a PPAP is, nor is he interested in knowing it.
Well, he will learn quickly what a PPAP is if he gets on the Ford list. And Ford won't care whether he likes it or not. ;)
 
P

potdar

#68
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Well, he will learn quickly what a PPAP is if he gets on the Ford list. And Ford won't care whether he likes it or not. ;)
Thats the whole issue. FORD still needs to bother about going around and conducting second party audits. Even force the suppliers on their path:whip:.

I thought FORD had reported their happiness that TS certification process was sucessfully doing this job for them and they could now sit back, relax and enjoy supplier performance reliability.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#69
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Thats the whole issue. FORD still needs to bother about going around and conducting second party audits. Even force the suppliers on their path:whip:.

I thought FORD had reported their happiness that TS certification process was sucessfully doing this job for them and they could now sit back, relax and enjoy supplier performance reliability.
Potdar,

You and I may not like this, but Ford is the Customer and they can do whatever the heck they want. Not everyone runs around with a smile on their face in Automotive Land. :D

Stijloor.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#70
Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I thought FORD had reported their happiness that TS certification process was sucessfully doing this job for them and they could now sit back, relax and enjoy supplier performance reliability.
People who understand the concept of quality management system certification know that, when reliable, certification should be used as a COMPONENT of the whole supplier oversight process. It was never intended to replace the customer responsibility for control of it's supply chain.
 
Top Bottom