Rule 5.2h - Site Separation - Audit Manday Calculation (IATF 16949)

[Golfman25]

Hello Golfman25, Thank you for your reply.

In my case, the two buildings are in the same address. So it can't be argued they are at two different locations. Also they belong to the same company with a single company legal registration. So it can't be argued either that they are in two different legal entities.

In my understanding, I consider opinion 3 the most risky option to take. Assuming if the building no.1 were pure automotive (no mixing with nonautomotive), then 5.2h approval by the oversight would clearly be required to separate building no. 1 and building no. 2. It would be very funny when building no.1 is a mixed auto/non-auto, then we can completely ignore to get 5.2h approval to separate building no.2.

I think the consequence if a witness auditor finds out we did not have any approved waiver and considers the case as unapproved site separation would be very disastrous.

I think you're over complicating it. They can only audit automotive processes. You have one applicable automotive process -- pressing. That consists of a single production location with 150 employees. Your other process is casting, which isn't applicable to automotive. There is no logical reason to include that head count in an audit as they will not be dealing with it. Somebody at your CB should have enough sense to make the call and move forward.

 

[Golfman25]

Very few automotive companies don't have any nonautomotive products in production (f.e. off-road vehicles).
If you want a guarantee of no problems with the witness auditor don't split the production in this company or get acceptance of your CB office to your description of the subject in the application, or contact your oversight and decribe the problem.
Option 2 is consistent with the intent of the Rules 5.2h, but if someone treats it stiffly/rigorously then may come to strange conclusions.

It is true many of us are only partially automotive. The rule is there to prevent messing around with head counts to reduce audit time. The problem is, for a company like use with less than half production automotive, they do an audit based on head count but there just isn't that much to look at. So it is a lot of wasted time and money.

 

[xfngrs]

My experience is Opinion 3.

 

[QualitySpirit]

I think you're over complicating it. They can only audit automotive processes. You have one applicable automotive process -- pressing. That consists of a single production location with 150 employees. Your other process is casting, which isn't applicable to automotive. There is no logical reason to include that head count in an audit as they will not be dealing with it. Somebody at your CB should have enough sense to make the call and move forward.

Hi friends, thank you for your valuable inputs. It is very helpful to learn experiences from auditors at other CB's.
I also want to apply the rules in the way that makes sense and reasonable. However if you have read my previous thread.
https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/threads/69014/

You will see my CB & its oversight interpret the rules word by word. They require to plan audit everyday at 8hours exactly no more no less. I have to go to stay at a hotel nearby site one day prior to the audit in order to arrive at site in the early morning.

So in this case, where the consequence can be more serious, I am uncertain if the oversight will not be interpreting the rule word by word as you say "over complicating". If there is a clear message from the oversight what opinion is the correct to apply, I would not be so worried.

 

[Peters]

If you perform 16949 certification for both buildings could have a problem with the scope of certification. Because if you audit stamping and casting the scope of the certification should be for example "Manufacturing of pressed parts and cast parts". But parts from metal casting process are not for the automotive industry...

 

[QualitySpirit]

If you perform 16949 certification for both buildings could have a problem with the scope of certification. Because if you audit stamping and casting the scope of the certification should be for example "Manufacturing of pressed parts and cast parts". But parts from metal casting process are not for the automotive industry...

Hi, that was not a problem at my former CB. Even the manday was quoted from the whole number of employees including nonautomotive headcounts, we used the audit time specifically to audit only automotive processes and did not give scope to the nonautomotive. I know it does not make sense though.

By the way, anybody has read rules 5th edition? Is it written about 5.2h with any changes?

 

[Peters]

Hi, that was not a problem at my former CB. Even the manday was quoted from the whole number of employees including nonautomotive headcounts, we used the audit time specifically to audit only automotive processes

And you spend whole audit in stamping process although headcount is from both processes

 

[Golfman25]

Hi, that was not a problem at my former CB. Even the manday was quoted from the whole number of employees including nonautomotive headcounts, we used the audit time specifically to audit only automotive processes and did not give scope to the nonautomotive. I know it does not make sense though.

By the way, anybody has read rules 5th edition? Is it written about 5.2h with any changes?

The problem you have is the number of hours would be vastly inflated by the number of employees in the casting area. The is a large difference between the two areas. What could you possibly do if with all that extra time? If I was the client, I wouldn't accept it.