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

[potdar]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

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.

Why are we having doubts on the reliability aspect? What I understood from the discussion so far was that IATF members (I read Ford) are satisfied with the reliability and performance of TS certification process.

was I wrong?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

was I wrong?

The TS Certification process is a small subset of the quality management system certification sector. I am sure (even based on previous posts you offered) you are aware of the lingering questioning over the credibility of a percentage of management system certificates issued out there. My previous response was not limited to the automotive supply chain TS certification.

 

[potdar]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

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 definitely not happy about the credibility. As I have already written, I am currently dealing with three TS certified parties who do not know how to prepare a PPAP.

I was talking about Their assessment, not mine. FORD continuing to do second party audits is just an anecdotal reference, which happens to be a fact.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I was talking about Their assessment, not mine. FORD continuing to do second party audits is just an anecdotal reference, which happens to be a fact.

If I were doing 2,000 second party audits 5 years ago and only have to do 100 this year, I would be happy too.

 

[potdar]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

If I were doing 2,000 second party audits 5 years ago and only have to do 100 this year, I would be happy too.

Hmm... thats where I thought I was wrong.

So I go around doing only 100 audits on a sampling basis and as a sample, I choose prospective suppliers who are not yet certified even to TS knowing fully well that I am going to heap a bucketful of reds on their head.

Nice value addition achieved I must say. Or is it some innovative way to utilise the free time generated because of 'significant quality improvement of the automotive supply chain brought about by TS'?

I would possibly do such a thing for hand holding if I were really in a crunch for supplies. Well, Ford is not famous for such practices, and no such thing is happening in this particular case for sure.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

So I go around doing only 100 audits on a sampling basis and as a sample, I choose prospective suppliers who are not yet certified even to TS knowing fully well that I am going to heap a bucketful of reds on their head.

You probably misunderstood me. Theoretically, you are doing fewer audits because your supplier performance improved dramatically, and there is no need to perform as many 2nd party QMS audits as before.

Concerning audits of suppliers that are not TS certified, makes a lot of sense to me. Exactly, due to the fact that they are not certified.

 

[potdar]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

You probably misunderstood me. Theoretically, you are doing fewer audits because your supplier performance improved dramatically, and there is no need to perform as many 2nd party QMS audits as before.

Concerning audits of suppliers that are not TS certified, makes a lot of sense to me. Exactly, due to the fact that they are not certified.

Well, its not a supplier but a prospective supplier. And he is in the process of getting certified to TS.

If I am happy with the credibility of TS, I would rather wait for him to get certified and then take a call on whether I need to audit him. That way I would be avoiding a lot of unnecessary duplication of work.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Well, its not a supplier but a prospective supplier. And he is in the process of getting certified to TS.

If I am happy with the credibility of TS, I would rather wait for him to get certified and then take a call on whether I need to audit him. That way I would be avoiding a lot of unnecessary duplication of work.

The timing when a customer has the biggest leverage with a supplier is exactly before they start doing business. A pre-contract award audit is the one that normally will make the biggest impact.

If the supplier has robust processes deployed, they should not be drowning in a sea of red, during and after the customer audit.

 

[potdar]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

The timing when a customer has the biggest leverage with a supplier is exactly before they start doing business. A pre-contract award audit is the one that normally will make the biggest impact.

If the supplier has robust processes deployed, they should not be drowning in a sea of red, during and after the customer audit.

Fully agreed.

My only point is that this pre contract audit can wait till the TS certification process is over - for the major reason that the customer is supposed to be on record having declared their happiness about the capability of TS to ensure that a robust process is actually deployed - just as they would like to reconfirm by doing a second party audit.

Sequence I: I certify, Third party certifies - I do the donkey work, third party guys put a rubber stamp.

Sequence II: Third party certifies, I audit - Third party guys do the donkey work, I verfy efficacy.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

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.

By the way, Paul, do you know where in the IAF documents, the AB peer review process is described? Earlier today I saw an article from an AB Director of Sales and Marketing, which states in part

The International Accreditation Forum (IAF) oversees, evaluates and formally recognizes bodies that accredit organizations that certify management systems, products or persons.

To my knowledge, the IAF does not formally evaluate anyone, but promotes a peer-review process, whereby the IAF MLA members assess another member. I sent an email to the Secretary of the IAF. Let's see if I get an answer.:
​