G

gregfish

#1
We have been registered to TS-16949 for 4 years and last year upgraded our certification to the 2009 version.

Specific to prototype programmes that standard requires:

7.3.6.2 Prototype program

When required by the customer, you shall have a prototype program & control plan. Wherever possible, use the same suppliers, tooling and manufacturing processes as in production. Monitor all performance testing for timely completion & conformance to requirements. Be responsible for, control and show technical leadership for any outsourced design services

We very generally state in our APQP procedure that our prototype program is tailored to meet customer requirements which may include.....

We are currently in the middle of our recertification audit and our auditor is writing a minor nonconformance as she believes that our prototype programme must include, as a minimum, a feasibility review, a tooling design review and address any other shall included in clause 7.3.

Any thoughts on how to challenge this (if anyone believes our auditor is off-base)? Any feedback in support of the auditor is welcome too.

Thanks!!
 

amit_rd

Inactive Registered Visitor
#3
1st things 1st..........An auditor is like a pig in the mud, You mess with him/her or he/she messes with you, ITS YOU WHO IS GONNA GET HURT (Fellow auditors dont mind I am also one of you)

Now coming to your query, You definitely can challenge the observation if:

1) You are doing the same type of prototype tooling and protyping of parts for a good enough time to enhance your competence in the job.
2) you have no complaints received so far from any of your protype programs
3) No observations of weaknesses in the audited prototype program is observed by the auditor

4) You are able to demonstrate all the above with evidences.

Note: I have written above statements to help you analyse your own situation, If you really have all the above, the observation is a mere need of documentation but if you do not comply to any of the above, it means you need to review your process for gaps and improvements and I DO AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION FROM THE AUDITOR AS IT HELPS!
 
G

gregfish

#4
amit_rd,

Your comments are helpful. I believe we do meet the criteria identified and have supporting evidence.

We outsource all of our prototype work as it is not one of our core competencies and utlilize experts in the prototyping field. Having been involed with Team Feasibility Reviews for many years on production parts, it seems that the included criteria really don't apply to prototype parts (i.e. statistical capability, any unusual processing or handling equipment needed, etc).

Additionally, including in our process a tool design review of a prototype tool make little sense as again - this is not our area of expertise. We may not be able to review a design of a prototype tool and be able to say with certainty that it will do what is needed. Perhaps these are requirements we should pass on to our prototype suppliers?

I appreciate your input and would like to receive additional viewpoints.

Thanks,

Greg
 

Kales Veggie

People: The Vital Few
#5
We have been registered to TS-16949 for 4 years and last year upgraded our certification to the 2009 version.

Specific to prototype programmes that standard requires:

7.3.6.2 Prototype program

When required by the customer, you shall have a prototype program & control plan. Wherever possible, use the same suppliers, tooling and manufacturing processes as in production. Monitor all performance testing for timely completion & conformance to requirements. Be responsible for, control and show technical leadership for any outsourced design services

We very generally state in our APQP procedure that our prototype program is tailored to meet customer requirements which may include.....

We are currently in the middle of our recertification audit and our auditor is writing a minor nonconformance as she believes that our prototype programme must include, as a minimum, a feasibility review, a tooling design review and address any other shall included in clause 7.3.

Any thoughts on how to challenge this (if anyone believes our auditor is off-base)? Any feedback in support of the auditor is welcome too.

Thanks!!
OK, lets get to basics. CB auditors do not believe. They bring objective evidence that shows that the quality system is not compliant to the clause of the standard.

What is the objective evidence and what part of the clause is violated?

Here is the clause with key words in bold:

7.3.6.2 Prototype program

When required by the customer, you shall have a prototype program & control plan. Wherever possible, use the same suppliers, tooling and manufacturing processes as in production. Monitor all performance testing for timely completion & conformance to requirements. Be responsible for, control and show technical leadership for any outsourced design services
 
G

gregfish

#6
Kales Veggie,

Highlighting key words (in your opinion) to the requirements of the standard does not answer my questions or add any value what-so-ever.

Perhaps I haven't asked the right questions.

1) Is it anyone's understanding of the TS standard that every shall in 7.3 also applies to outsourced prototypes?

2) Can anyone provide a clear explanation of what shall be inluded in a "prototype programme"?

3) Does anyone believe that any or some or a few of the questions asked during a team feasibility review relate well to the production of a few to perhaps 100 prototype parts?

4) Does it make sense to require a supplier who outsources prototype work to perform a tooling design review on prototype tooling that they have outsourced as their expertise is in production tooling?

5) Would producers of production tooling be qualified to effectively critique a tool design intended for very limited prototype volume?

I would appreciate any responses from anyone with experience in this area.
 

AndyN

A problem shared...
Staff member
Super Moderator
#7
1st things 1st..........An auditor is like a pig in the mud, You mess with him/her or he/she messes with you, ITS YOU WHO IS GONNA GET HURT (Fellow auditors dont mind I am also one of you)
:topic:

I believe the CORRECT expression is "Arguing with an auditor is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realize they enjoy it...":notme:
 

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#8
Kales Veggie,

Highlighting key words (in your opinion) to the requirements of the standard does not answer my questions or add any value what-so-ever.
With due respect, you asked for assistance, and Kales gave you a thoroughly valid post.;) I would think a nice "thank you" would be in order; as opposed to being chided for being helpful and giving free advice. :cool:

Communicating in written format is extremely difficult, and where tone of voice and non-verbal expressions accomplish stressing points considered important, that's very difficult to do in written format. Thus, the use of bold is there. Too, good communication is not instant; sometimes it takes patience and hard work.

I appreciate everyone who comes to the Cove to assist. Thank you.:yes:
 

amit_rd

Inactive Registered Visitor
#9
Prototype process is outsourced:

1) The liability to Quality remains with you even if the process is outsourced (infact it multiplies is control is not direct in your hands).
2) Its easier to demonstrate evidences of supplier capability by a) getting the feasibility reviews from suppliers as part of the APQP and b) by demonstrating your selection process.
 

Chennaiite

Never-say-die
Trusted
#10
Kales Veggie,

Highlighting key words (in your opinion) to the requirements of the standard does not answer my questions or add any value what-so-ever.

Perhaps I haven't asked the right questions.

1) Is it anyone's understanding of the TS standard that every shall in 7.3 also applies to outsourced prototypes?

2) Can anyone provide a clear explanation of what shall be inluded in a "prototype programme"?

3) Does anyone believe that any or some or a few of the questions asked during a team feasibility review relate well to the production of a few to perhaps 100 prototype parts?

4) Does it make sense to require a supplier who outsources prototype work to perform a tooling design review on prototype tooling that they have outsourced as their expertise is in production tooling?

5) Would producers of production tooling be qualified to effectively critique a tool design intended for very limited prototype volume?

I would appreciate any responses from anyone with experience in this area.
Probably, few more details as to which part of supply chain you belong to, your product, your Customers, etc might help.
Under the circumstance, I thought Kales's & Amit's post are the best possible ones. As a cliche goes, they're trying to teach you fishing rather than giving you a fish upfront.
 

Top