TS 16949 Audit - Stage 1 passed!

[Icy Mountain]

However I'm a bit surprised to hear that you got through the Stage 1 with a "critical finding" for "A full program of audits have not been carried out to audit all the requirements of TS 16949". This seems to be totally at odds with the guidance we were given by BSI regarding our Stage 1 review.

We asked BSI how much of our audit programme would have to be complete prior to Stage 1. We were initially told that the requirement was to have completed a whole cycle of audits using the new process approach (i.e. all of our processes on all shifts), and that good progress on closing the CARs would also have to be demonstrated.

However, a few days later our auditor called back to apologise, saying that the guidance had changed, and that it was now necessary to have completed all audits and closed out all CARs before the Stage 1 audit. We were told quite clearly that if we failed to demonstrate this we would automatically refused the right to go on to Stage 2, and would have to go through another Stage 1 visit.

Peter is VERY lucky. I, too, am interested to know his registrar. Our auditor from DNV was very clear that 12 months of Internal Audits, Management Reviews and Performance Data (i.e. Process Metrics), were REQUIRED for a DNV recommendation to proceed to a Stage II audit. The only exception was that a COMPLETE cycle of Internal Audit could be interpreted as "one year".

I strongly suspect that Peter will be required to show some pretty strong proof that he has covered these critical findings before his Stage 2 audit.

Annex I under Stage 1 Audit -Readiness review
The organization shall provide the following documentation to the audit team for review, and for using in planning the audit (see format…):

• Description of process showing the sequence and interactions, including key indicators and performance trends for the previous 12 months, minimum
• Evidence that all the requirements of ISO/TS 16949:2002 are addressed by the organization’s processes
• Quality manual (for each site to be audited)
• Internal audit and management review planning and results from the previous twelve months
• List of qualified internal auditors
• List of customer specific requirements
• Customer satisfaction and complaints status, including customer reports and scorecards.

The audit team shall determine:

• The appropriate scope of the certification
• Readiness for stage 2 site audit.

As you can see "Readiness" is in the eyes of the beholder. Is anyone surprised that some registrar's are a blue b*****d to get a cert from and others can be served a good lunch and sign the check? It will always depend on what kind of QA system YOU want to run.
-ICY

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Peter is VERY lucky. I, too, am interested to know his registrar. Our auditor from DNV was very clear that 12 months of Internal Audits, Management Reviews and Performance Data (i.e. Process Metrics), were REQUIRED for a DNV recommendation to proceed to a Stage II audit. The only exception was that a COMPLETE cycle of Internal Audit could be interpreted as "one year".

I strongly suspect that Peter will be required to show some pretty strong proof that he has covered these critical findings before his Stage 2 audit.


As you can see "Readiness" is in the eyes of the beholder. Is anyone surprised that some registrar's are a blue b*****d to get a cert from and others can be served a good lunch and sign the check? It will always depend on what kind of QA system YOU want to run.
-ICY

I'm rushing at an airport, but I would suggest Peter is not "lucky" at all. His registrar is NOT following the TS Rules and the IAOB has NO leniency in that regard.

That is a Major Nonconfomrity against the registrar with potential ramifications to the certified companies under that registrar. When that happens, Peter will not be nearly as pleased that his registrar "passed" him. Better to address the issue with his registrar now, when the IAOB is not in the picture.

The Rules clearly require a full round of audits, closed corrective actions. There is no interpretation involved. Further, without 12 months of process performance data, only a letter of conformance can be granted (if that is even still available). No certificate!

Without the audits and a managmeent review meeting, even that letter is not an option.

I would not advise any companies to shop that trail...

 

[peteroldfield1971]

Lucky?

The company I work for are very small (family run) and employ about 85 people. About 60% of our business is automotive and declining all the time. The company are really paying lip service to TS. My remit on taking the job was just to get the certificate for the least amount of hassle. When I arrived at the company the guy doing the auditing was old school and the audit reports were very basic, not even to ISO 9000 standards.

When we we had the stage 1, I told the auditor that we would audit to TS in the time before our stage 2 audit. He was quite happy with this. It took me by surprise too but i think I gave him enough confidence that we would have all the audits completed on time.

Lucky? I guess so but I aint complaining.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Icy Mountain]

Yikes

His registrar is NOT following the TS Rules and the IAOB has NO leniency in that regard.

That is a Major Nonconfomrity against the registrar with potential ramifications to the certified companies under that registrar. When that happens, Peter will not be nearly as pleased that his registrar "passed" him. Better to address the issue with his registrar now, when the IAOB is not in the picture.

The Rules clearly require a full round of audits, closed corrective actions. There is no interpretation involved. Further, without 12 months of process performance data, only a letter of conformance can be granted (if that is even still available)

Peter,
Your auditor must really trust you. I'd be careful with them though as I agree with hjilling. Even if you are just chasing paper, TS is a lot of work. Don't get caught with a faulty registrar.

 

[Randy Stewart]

To me that makes sense. If you have a good auditing process in place it will show up to most external auditors. You seen evidence in CA's and Improvement programs.

I do have a few questions for those of you who are TS registered. Did you create a Supplier Quality Manual for all you suppliers? What clause can this requirement be found? How do you police the requirements?
I just received my 30th SQM that I'm suppose to read, implement and follow. This is 75 pages, our company QM is 12 and that includes org chart, etc.
If this is an actual spelled out requirement, it is boardering on blantant stupidity.

 

[Cari Spears]

I just received my 30th SQM that I'm suppose to read, implement and follow. This is 75 pages, our company QM is 12 and that includes org chart, etc.
If this is an actual spelled out requirement, it is boardering on blantant stupidity.

Dude - tell me about it. Because about 75% of our business is repair/replace (MRO) we have literally hundreds of customers. I had to move all of our customers' supplier manuals to the front office for lack of space in my office.

 

[tarheels4 - 2007]

Passed stage 1 audit yesterday with 2 critical findings and 9 OFI's.

OFI's:

Product design exclusion not included in scope.
Competencies were not defined for personnel involved with APQP.
Calibration process requires expansion.
Production processes on the audit schedule should be split to include moulding, plating and assembly.
No certificate available for an internal auditor.
Targets for quality objectives not clearly defined.
KPI data to be developed to show trends and targets.
APQP, PFMEA's and control plans should be developed using cross functional teams.
Record retention document does not clearly define retention periods of documents.

The next two weeks will be spent addressing the above concerns as the stage 2 audit is on 10/24/05.

I think many of the OFIs written were really nonconformances. Anytime you need, or are required to do something it is a non-conformance IMO.

I agree with the comment about a major against the CB.

 

[Kevin H]

SQM's - my guess is that the companies pushing them out justify them under the supplier development heading/requirement of ISO/TS. I'm not certain how giving a supplier who is registered to ISO/TS an SQM develops their quality system, but that is my guess. We've got about 16 or so SQM's, each with slightly different requirements that only complicate trying to run an efficient company and quality system. We're jointly registered to ISO 9001:2000 and ISO/TS, with total customer complaints running less than 1 per month and most of those being documentation issues, yet it is apparently very important that we dedicate precious resources to reviewing and implementing the SQM's.

We're tier 2, and no we do not have an SQM we push onto our suppliers.

 

[peteroldfield1971]

Recommended for certification to ISO TS 16949!

I would like to say a big thank you to all covers in assisting me in gaining accreditation to TS!

Thank you.

 

[Baldrick]

Congratulations!

Well done Peter! (sorry, I'll whisper in case you've got a sore head this morning )

I'd be interested to know how the audit went given some of the comments we made after your stage 1?