TS 16949 Clause 4.1: COPs (Customer Oriented Processes) and Process Flow

[SilverHawk]

4.1: COPs and Process Flow

Our CB auditor also raised this issue with our process flow. We have adapted the ideal automotive process flow from the AIAG Implementation Guide but the auditor rejected this and insisted that this process flow is too general. She insisted that TS automotive process flow MUST be a process mapping with the details outlining the each activities of the organization in parallel with the department functions and across the board linking all the possible inputs and outputs until the shipment of fionished products to customers.

We do not agreed with her but she insisted that's what she wanted and we have had to re-developed out process flow just to satisfy her.

Yet she does not wanted to issue a NCR and put it as an observation. She insisted and wanted to see the new process mapping.....

Is she "above the law" and only wanted her own way? Can't we simply our process flow just as recommended by AIAG. Sorry, she do not accepted AIAG model, too. She wanted her ideal model to be used as she is auditing!!!!

 

[Wes Bucey]

Without going into the right or wrong of your process flow, I want to point out that this issue seems like an ideal one to raise with the management of the firm your CB auditor is from. Sometimes, the problem is simply one of interpretation of the Standard and communication between the parties. Once you have affirmed that the management of the CB auditor is in agreement with the field auditor and have shown you chapter and verse in the Standard to back their view, THEN and ONLY THEN should you reconfigure your process plans to conform to the Standard.

 

[nancy chen]

SilverHawk, this condition that you discribed was often occured during the audit process. Since She put it as an observation, then you correct it according her idea. Perhaps it will be a good idea.

 

[SilverHawk]

Thanks, Nancy. Just because the CB auditor put it as an observation but she insisted that we should change the process flow chart. Now we have had to do it. Imagine under going the document change control and the top management has to meet and to approve it.

I am just wondering is it the best thing we should do and "listen" to every silly observations and comments raised by the auditors. At time we have spent so much money to buy the AIAG Implementation Guide and consultant to "teach" the right thing.

Now the CD auditor has her own opioion and wanted her way!

Anyway thanks, Nancy.

 

[Al Dyer]

I was not going to reply until I heard the words "process flow chart".

No-where are process flow charts a requirement other than maybe the product realization aspect of some customers.

Processes must be linked where applicable as they do share a common flow. This can be done with many tools other than the "optical" flow chart. Processes are linked by common knowledge, training, procedures, documents, records, posters, meetings etc...

As a test, write a process flow chart that links the lunch of the CEO with getting new business into a company???????

*****, give people the thought that they are human and are able to understand the something other thab the written "god"

Al...

 

[SilverHawk]

Thanks, Al.

If I have followed earlier Lyndon Diong's thread, I may get the answer but it seems that it is easier to develop the process flow chart model for "an" activitiy. Yes! We are a manufacturer of plastic injection parts. We can easily identified a simple process model with input and outputs. But if the auditor inisisted that we should put everything right from the start of receiving an order, produce the parts and delivered to customer to one single piece of paper with all the activities..... we are stuck.

Can someone show us what the expectation of an automotive process flow chart or model for plastic injection company?

The auditor wanted her way yet she half-heartily demanding it. We are still maing our guessing game and try to figure out what does she really wants? What' s her model?

 

[Sam]

The requirement is to define and link the processes, nothing more nothing less. You really need to have a conversation with the audit manager of your CB before the confusion gets oot of hand. The most important for TS2 certification, IMO, is to have a positive relationship beteween the organization and the CB.
Recent directions (more stern than previous) from the IAOB is that auditors are NOT allowed to use an element-by-element checklist during the auditing process. They should be using the planning and review checklist found on page 3 of the AIAG manual "Quality System Assessment Checklist" The organization will be required by the CB to complete this form for the auditor to use during the audit.
The confusion, I believe, with the AIAG process documentation is the statement at the beginning that says " this is not auditable". However, IMO this means not auditable as a requirement.

 

[David Hartman]

I was not going to reply until I heard the words "process flow chart".

No-where are process flow charts a requirement other than maybe the product realization aspect of some customers.

Processes must be linked where applicable as they do share a common flow. This can be done with many tools other than the "optical" flow chart. Processes are linked by common knowledge, training, procedures, documents, records, posters, meetings etc...

Al...

Good words of wisdom. It is NOT a requirement. She has made it an observation probably because she knows that she can't support her stand. There is no harm in disagreeing with an auditor, especially by asking the all important question "Where is the Shall?".

Silverhawk,

You are on the right track when you look at the fact that your company is spending good money (money taken directly off the bottom line) on "waste" when you are implementing changes to your system based on an auditor's preferrence/whim.

Pick your fights, but don't throw money away just to please the auditor.

 

[db]

A Twist

As a twist, CB auditors are prohibited from consulting. Perhaps, the method you use is not very good (in the eyes of the auditor). Because she is not allowed to consult, she uses her interpretation of the requirement (4.1) as a method to get "the point" to you without consulting. I'm not saying this is the case, but it has been known to happen.

The important thing is that you look at what she is saying and see if it makes sense for you. If it does, and even though it is beyond the requirements, you might want to do it anyway. Then explain to her why you did it, and why you though it makes sense. If she is behaving as described above, you might see a change in her. If she thinks you are "getting it", she might adjust her aduiting accordingly.

 

[SilverHawk]

Thnaks Sam, David & Dave. These replies are quite enlighting. I will insisted that I will not create an additional row or column for "error proofing" and disagree with the auditor. But the management is not supporting me....they just ask me to give it a go and satisfy the auditor. I have checked with our consultant and he mentioned that the other organizations are also have the same issues. The CB auditor wanted them to have the "error proofing" item on the Control Plan. She has rejected flat the AIAG Appendix J Control Plan.

Any comments from other having using the Control Plan and having issues with any other CB auditor?

Yes, I agreed that it is just an observation but she wanted us to make the changes to CP.