Special Characteristics - ISO/TS 16949 Clause 7.3.2.3 - Required by auditor

[Sidney Vianna]

Correction: The more recent understanding is - Should indicates a requirement with significant flexibility in how it is implemented.

What Dvor transposed is the actual text of TS16949:2002. So, if "should" is supposed to be considered more than a simple recommendation, where is that expectation documented? I looked @ the Rules, FAQ's SI's, etc.... Could not find it. Is this something conveyed by "tribal knowledge"?

 

[mustafa siddiqui]

Does the language matter?
If it's in the standard, you either have to do it, or have a good reason why you don't.

The problem is that the auditor is not willing (may be insane) to make sense of a logical reason not to have a special charecteristic.
That is the reason we had to look for what it shall say, should say or must say....

 

[Helmut Jilling]

What Dvor transposed is the actual text of TS16949:2002. So, if "should" is supposed to be considered more than a simple recommendation, where is that expectation documented? I looked @ the Rules, FAQ's SI's, etc.... Could not find it. Is this something conveyed by "tribal knowledge"?

Well, I will confess to a partial mea culpa...

Officially, the TS standard states:

In this Technical Specification, the word “shall” indicates a requirement. The word “should” indicates a recommendation.... Paragraphs marked “NOTE” are for guidance in understanding or clarifying the associated requirement.

I do know this has been communicated and emphasized frequently in some of the official trainings in Southfield (Detroit) by Plexus. However, that is not binding, even if they say that is the intent.

So, I reviewed the FAQ's, SI's and TS standard. The only thing I found was it was a former Ford CSR:
​

3.16​

Should​

Indicates a mandatory requirement with some flexibility allowed in compliance
methodology. Organizations choosing other approaches to satisfy a “should” must be​

able to show that their approach meets the intent of ISO/TS 16949:2002.

However, the Ford CSR of Feb. 2008 modified that and followed the revised TS definition.

Sooo......my Bad. The definition ahs changed and I have to stay with the official documents, not the Plexus training emphasis...

PS: It would probably be prudent to not go overboard on theis official definition and simply dismiss "shoulds" as only 'recomendations." Proper consideration should still be given.

 

[whtan02]

You basically have two choices at this point:

1. Talk the auditor out of his foolish demand
2. Use the dartboard method to choose and document a special characteristic so as to make the auditor happy.

Which method you choose depends on how obstinate the auditor is and how willing you are to press the issue.

Can you elaborate more on the dartboard method to identify a SC? Thanks.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Can you elaborate more on the dartboard method to identify a SC? Thanks.

It's not an actual method; it was just a way of suggesting that any characteristic chosen at random would suffice to satisfy the auditor.