TS 16949:2002 - Error Proofing Column Required in Control Plan II

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

I agree that your auditor may be a "newbie". There is NO requirement for an extra column. I lean towards Courrier's response but the addition of a row shouldn't be necessary, unless the "Cause" is something that was not addressed originally. If you have added an "error-proffing" technique in your process, you may/should already have an entry in the Process Characteristic column. The "error-proofing" technique would then be listed in the Evaluation/Measurement Technique column. It still remains there after the next, and any subsequent, revision(s) of the document.

I don't add any special notation calling out "error-proofing" or "poka-yoke" types of controls. When asked by an auditor, I simply show them where they are located.

Please understand, this is just my way of approaching a Control Plan and it works very well for us. IMO, everything is already present in the AIAG template, it's just a matter of understanding what should/could go where in the document columns.

Bill

 

[SilverHawk]

Thanks, Bill. It is more enlighting! How am I going to convince the silly auditor. My management has indicated that we should just go with it to satisfy the auditor.

To be or not to be!

 

[Sam]

Thanks, Bill. It is more enlighting! How am I going to convince the silly auditor. My management has indicated that we should just go with it to satisfy the auditor.

To be or not to be!

Good luck. Error proofing is to be addressed for each line of the CP. If your auditor sees an additional column as the only way to accomplish this process, then you will probably have to agree and make the change.
For those organizations that have auditors that are open to other methods, well, that's just the luck of the draw.

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

Good luck. Error proofing is to be addressed for each line of the CP.

Whoaaaaa! I certainly wouldn't let an auditor get away with that statement. If, in fact, that was a requirement, senior management would need to be "in charge" of all CPs so money would be allocated to error-proof each and every Potential Cause. Big bucks!!! at least in the die casting world. However, I will concede that my definition of "error-proofed" may differ from someone else's.

SilverHawk - just "giving in" may be your best course (especially if the "Ivory Tower" folks say to do so ) but what happens the next time your auditor wants to see your system done his/her way?

Bill

 

[SilverHawk]

Bill,

That's happening a few times. Today one CB auditor wanted us to put in the "error-proofing" and the next surveillance audit, I am sure the another auditor from the same CB may have a different option and may propbably tell us NOT to put it in as the Appendix J is the right template.

Even the auditors from the same CB are not "calibraeted" themselves. Just like any registration, we are fighting out with the auditors.

Yet, IATF has promised that the TS2 auditors are "qualified" and adequately trained by Plexus USA, SMMTIF UK, InQ Germany, Eurosymbioze France and ANFIA Service Italy....now we have new auditors drumming up and demanding to their likings. I thought that should be over!

 

[Al Rosen]

Sometimes, just "note" is enough, especially when you indicate where you put it on the page.
We ordered in pizza last night for a late meeting. There was a phrase on the box that perfectly embodied "error proofing" which took into account the general audience to whom it applied:
"Keep this box level, or you'll be eating pizza with a shovel."

Wouldn't error proofing be more like including in the pizza box an inertial guidance system or at least a set of gyroscopes to prevent the box from being tilted?

 

[Wes Bucey]

Wouldn't error proofing be more like including in the pizza box an inertial guidance system or at least a set of gyroscopes to prevent the box from being tilted?

Good grief, Al, we are, after all, aerospace engineers. We set the open box on a gyroscopic gimbel. Our error-proofing is to set the gimbel at "horizontal" to the pull of gravity and turn on magnetic field shields to prevent the iron-rich pepperoni and sausage from influencing the attitude of the box, thus preventing pitch or yaw from that cause.

Remember: I said the message on the box was "audience appropriate."

 

[Al Rosen]

Good grief, Al, we are, after all, aerospace engineers. We set the open box on a gyroscopic gimbel. Our error-proofing is to set the gimbel at "horizontal" to the pull of gravity and turn on magnetic field shields to prevent the iron-rich pepperoni and sausage from influencing the attitude of the box, thus preventing pitch or yaw from that cause.

Remember: I said the message on the box was "audience appropriate."

Of course Wes, but with Gyros (not to be confused with Greek cuisine) there would be no need for a message on the box and the error proofing would be transparent to the consumer.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Of course Wes, but with Gyros (not to be confused with Greek cuisine) there would be no need for a message on the box and the error proofing would be transparent to the consumer.

I didn't say we put ALL food on the gimbel (if the box is closed, we need to open it to determine temporary storage requirements - this means at the very least a "this end up" notice.)

In the case of Gyros (the Greek cuisine), no matter which way you hold it, the sauce will squirt on your clothes with the first bite.

Ergo, Gyros are banned when we have mixed gender groups, because they are best devoured sans clothing.

Our safety consciousness extends to company autos and trucks: a sign with "rubber side down" is prominently displayed on the dashboard of each vehicle.

 

[Al Rosen]

In the case of Gyros (the Greek cuisine), no matter which way you hold it, the sauce will squirt on your clothes with the first bite.

Ergo, Gyros are banned when we have mixed gender groups, because they are best devoured sans clothing.

Or only at approved and registered nudist camps.