TS 16949 Certification Audit and Results Discussion

[pdboilermaker]

16949 Certification Audit

Started ISO TS 16949 certification audit today, so far it has been brutal, if your thinking of taking this route, BEWARE - DANGER-DANGER

 

[Marc]

Who's the registrar?

Danger? Brutal? Details, Please!

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 27 March 2000).]

 

[Roger Eastin]

This just doesn't make sense to me. TS is not that far away from QS. Why should a TS audit be more brutal than a QS audit? Sounds like the registrar to me...

 

[Marc]

I hope we hear some details. But if the audit is this week, all week, it'll be next week before we'll hear.

 

[Christian Lupo]

I havent taken the IATF sanctioned auditor training, but from what I hear it very difficult. Auditors are under the watchful eye of the automotive industry now more than ever, and will be trying to prove themselves more than ever. When PPM's are high the OEM's are asking "Who was the lead assessor?"

Although the TS standard isnt much different that the QS standard I knoe the accreditation scheme is more "conservative", for example:

1. companies that wish to be certified must submit a list of internal auditors, performance trends for the past 12 months, and records from Internal audits (among other items)
2. these items will be reviewed by the lead assessor who will determine if the company is ready for an on-site assessment
3. 2 step certifications are not allowed. If the lead assessor finds a major, the audit is stopped. the next time the audits is on-site they have to begin the audit all over again
4. there must be a quality rep on all shifts
5. there must be a plan for employee motivation at all levels in the organization
   [/list=a]
   
   I could go on and on. the days of "easy" audits are coming to an end, I just hope the pendulum dosen't shift too far to the ..... right!

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, right! I would love to see the B3 follow this set of requirements on their OWN plants! Sounds like more of do as we say not as we do!

 

[Roger Eastin]

From what Christian says, I think I'll stay in the ISO9000 world. At least there you can have some flexibility in building your quality system. It seems that the automotive world (ie, the B3 and their European counterparts) are having a "heyday" with their suppliers. It's also making auditors look like they work for the B3 SQA function!!

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by Christian Lupo:

...2 step certifications are not allowed. If the lead assessor finds a major, the audit is stopped. the next time the audits is on-site they have to begin the audit all over again...

This will be a real money saver. Stop now. Come back another time. More travel fees and such.

Where did you get these specifics from?

 

[pdboilermaker]

Biggest issues for me so far.
1. Joint venture US/Japan
A} Contract is agreed upon in Japan between our Japaneese parent company and my customers Japaneese parent company.
B} Process feasibility is done more on a "we have the business coming how will we tackle this project?" We cant do a feasibility review and turn down the business based on it.
C} Product testing is done in Japan by our parent company then the data is provided to our customers parent company and to us. The lab that they use is not ISO 17025 accrediteted but we do not have the option to choose another test facility. {Just a side note.. this due to lack of accrediteted companies (maybe 29) world wide, QS has postponed this requirement until 2001...NO such postponement for 16949
D} Over 1/2 way through the audit, have received 6 minors and am allowed 15.
E} I do not wish to share my registrars name at this time

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by pdboilermaker:

D} Over 1/2 way through the audit, have received 6 minors and am allowed 15.

Based upon what? Number of employees? I would think a company of 100 employees would be allowed fewer 'minors' than a company of 1000 or 5000.

E} I do not wish to share my registrars name at this time...

I guess I'm surprised at this - I can't think of a good reason for a company to want to hide who their registrar is. In fact, it being 16949 I would think the advertising would be welcome since not many registrars are 'qualified' to audit to 16949. Oh well.