S
s-bell
We have recently been through a TS audit and we were pulled over our control plans.
I've checked through forums on the cove and examples of control plans I've seen have been similar to my own.
Our auditor was looking at a generic control plan for a pressed part, this control plan ran from goods in to despatch and covers all jobs ran on the machine. In order to achieve this a list of all part numbers is referenced on the control plan and specifications refer to Inspection Standards, Material requirements refer to works orders etc. This enables us to keep a generic document covering all parts manufactured off the same process.
The auditor declared that this was not acceptable and that specific tolerances should be input, this however in my opinion prevents us from managing a generic system. My thoughts are with a process control plan is that it is for controlling a process, not a part! At present I refer to the Part Inspection sheet which defines the tolerance and what it should be measured with (Gauge ref / vernier etc).
In the control plan there were also references to work that is performed but not recorded. I.e. checking that a coil of material is central on a decoiling reel before feeding into rollers. I was advised to remove anything from the control plan that is not recorded. However we use the plan for the development of Standard Ops and training, this is defined as a key item and is a necessary part of the process, we don't record we are doing it but do check during process audits.
Does it sound as though I'm doing things right and I've had a bad auditor or am I completely missing the point on something. I have been praised by previous auditors on my Control Plans under QS9000, surely the bar has not moved so much with TS?
I've checked through forums on the cove and examples of control plans I've seen have been similar to my own.
Our auditor was looking at a generic control plan for a pressed part, this control plan ran from goods in to despatch and covers all jobs ran on the machine. In order to achieve this a list of all part numbers is referenced on the control plan and specifications refer to Inspection Standards, Material requirements refer to works orders etc. This enables us to keep a generic document covering all parts manufactured off the same process.
The auditor declared that this was not acceptable and that specific tolerances should be input, this however in my opinion prevents us from managing a generic system. My thoughts are with a process control plan is that it is for controlling a process, not a part! At present I refer to the Part Inspection sheet which defines the tolerance and what it should be measured with (Gauge ref / vernier etc).
In the control plan there were also references to work that is performed but not recorded. I.e. checking that a coil of material is central on a decoiling reel before feeding into rollers. I was advised to remove anything from the control plan that is not recorded. However we use the plan for the development of Standard Ops and training, this is defined as a key item and is a necessary part of the process, we don't record we are doing it but do check during process audits.
Does it sound as though I'm doing things right and I've had a bad auditor or am I completely missing the point on something. I have been praised by previous auditors on my Control Plans under QS9000, surely the bar has not moved so much with TS?
)
