TS 16949 Registrar Audit Failure Modes

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#1
I just realized I had not addressed TS 16949 specific failure modes.

If you've gone through a TS 16949 audit, please take a minute and let us know what 'failure modes' were identified!

TIA!
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
M

Mustang

#2
Our Failure Modes

Ok, here it goes:
1. Not all records being maintained in the system are being fully completed as required. (the auditor has a problem with forms with blank spaces. Not sure how to answer this, since flogging employees is not allowed.)

2. Lack of adequate objective evidence of a defined process for the measurement to ensure that personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives. (the auditor says almost everyone is struggling with this. Another puzzling one.)

3. Lack of evidence of the documentation of the process sign-off requirement or statement from the customer that it is not a requirement as defined in the Customer Specific Requirements documents (even though the wording indicates they would tell us if they wanted it, the auditor wants us to get clarification)

4a. Lack of adequate objective evidence of a Supplier Performance Report being issued to suppliers as required in the Supplier development Manual (one of those things that became difficult to maintain when the responsible person was "downsized")

4b. Lack of adequate objective evidence of supplier quality management system development or customer approval to utilize a supplier of production and/or service material or components who is not registered (we have a signed warrant from the customer indicating our use of this supplier, but the auditor was not satisfied. He wants a letter.)

5. The Job Books (part specific binders sent to the floor for the run) do not always contain the latest revision of the Control Plan, Customer Specification or Engineering Change Notice. (we got caught with a rev level discrepancy)

6a. Not all monitoring and measuring devices are calibrated by the required due date (pin gages, calibration being changed to 3-year cycle, but we did not document the reasoning to his liking)

6b. Lack of objective evidence of an assessment of the validity of previous measuring results when the equipment is found to be out of tolerance (our CMM was minutely out of tolerance, well within our accuracy level. We just did not formally document that).

Nothing was earth-shattering, and no real surprises. A few disappointments, as some of this was supposed to be addressed by management prior to the audit, but what can you do?
 
E

engjane

#3
Our deficiencies

Well the two big ones were:

- Not adhering to information in the CP / on specs
- Not making everyone aware of measurables, goals and process technique - this may be due to the fact that we only trained in the 3 weeks before the audit and the QMS was only updated in the few weeks before the audit! No time to practise.

Minors were - negative measurable trends, unrealistic goals, better use of software/spreadsheets to standardise techniques, more documented evidence for internal audits and more analysis of dock audits (which is being pushed by DC's layered audits aswell!)

Overall I think we had an easy time in the audit - hopefull this is a reflection on our systems! Im sure the surveillance audits will not be as easy though - more time to go into detail!

:bonk:
 
A

Al Dyer

#4
Sorry, I just posted a message asking Mustang to give us the details in another thread.

Very helpful in getting into the minds of what auditors are looking for these days. Again, congradulations Mustang!!!:applause:

Al...
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
#5
We passed TS today!

We passed TS today with several minors as follows.

Interfaces between sites – Sales/Design/Manufacturing. There were clear weakness with how we all work together on Contract Review, Internal Audit, CARs, Mgmt Review, Customer specification control between our plants and the remote sites. A good finding, this is where the big costly problems are happening.


Other things were:
  • Poor capability without clear reaction plans in place.
  • Control plan too focused on customer specs, missing “process” control information.
  • 5 or 6 snakes and ladders type of things, missing a clear link from the procedure to the WI and/or form.
  • A key supplier not identified (surprised us all)
Overall the audit was THOROUGH, probably the deepest dig I’ve seen in years. This was no light weight thing.

There was a very, very strong focus on metrics, performance, and management responsibility and commitment.
There was also a keen focus on interfaces between processes…and that’s where our problems are.

All in all, I feel it was what TS was supposed to be. Looking for good business results and looking at the interaction of processes.

As always thanks to the Cove for all the education over the years. A big chunk of our system was born here.

It’s Miller time!
 
Last edited:

Raffy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#6
On our end:
1. Effectiveness of an auditor is not evaluated.
2. No basis in planning for frequency of audit.
3. Auditors auditing the same organization, e.g. QA Audits his department, though they are not directly in charged, that is QA Lab Chemist audits Doc Control under QA Department.
4. Unupdated Skills Map.

Raffy
 
J

jmp4429

#7
Just went through our surveillance audit. The two we got written up for were:

1. Lack of tracking of supplier expedited freight. We were tracking expedited freight that we paid for, but not instances of suppliers having to expedite freight to make our delivery requirements.
2. Specs on the control plan did not always match our work instructions. I knew we would get hit on this, we’ve written it up as an internal minor twice now. The trouble is that one group within our quality department creates the control plans, and another group creates the work instructions.
There was one thing that kind of surprised us on this one. We have been allowing the work instructions to call out a *tighter* tolerance than the control plan, which our auditor in the past has told us was OK. Now based on input from a second auditor, they are telling us that this is no good. I have mixed feelings about this. I may get into this in another thread, if I get bored.

Issues they found and generously issued a verbal ‘warning’ about were:

1. We use first-time “Verification” stickers on some test equipment that does not require calibration. Some eejit bought the stickers that have a due date as well as the verification date, and just wrote in a date a year out from the verification. There is no recall system in place for this, so the stickers were ‘expired.’
2. Some parts on one of our assembly lines require an off-line cleaning step. There was no work instruction to tell the operators which parts require cleaning. We do have a Kanban system in place for the cleaning station, which is what we were using to tell the operators those parts needed to be cleaned.
3. The control plans did not list the packaging or lot control requirements.
4. We were doing 100% visual sort on some supplied parts that have had problems recently. The parts are a flexible part, and the sorters use a tool to hold the part still while they inspect it. The tools were not clearly identified, and since they were used during inspection, the auditors wanted to see them treated like a “gage.”
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#8
jmp4429 said:
2. Specs on the control plan did not always match our work instructions. I knew we would get hit on this, we’ve written it up as an internal minor twice now. The trouble is that one group within our quality department creates the control plans, and another group creates the work instructions.
There was one thing that kind of surprised us on this one. We have been allowing the work instructions to call out a *tighter* tolerance than the control plan, which our auditor in the past has told us was OK. Now based on input from a second auditor, they are telling us that this is no good. I have mixed feelings about this. I may get into this in another thread, if I get bored.
Just out of curiosity - what was the second auditor's reasoning? There are many times where "tightened tolerances" are warranted and possibly necessary.
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#9
Bill Ryan said:
Just out of curiosity - what was the second auditor's reasoning? There are many times where "tightened tolerances" are warranted and possibly necessary.
I would think that it is because 7.5.1.2- Work Instructions shall be derived from.. the control plan...
The CP comes before the WI, it depends what is the meaning of derived, but logically why should you be able to tighten and not be able to loosen.
If there is a reason for the tolerances to be tightened then it should have been reflected in the FMEA and the CP! This has nothing to do with using narrowed tolerances but the justification for them.
 
J

jmp4429

#10
Howard Atkins said:
If there is a reason for the tolerances to be tightened then it should have been reflected in the FMEA and the CP! This has nothing to do with using narrowed tolerances but the justification for them.
I don’t disagree with that at all, if we need the tighter tolerances to assure good product, it should be on the CP and FMEA. I’m still not convinced it’s a nonconformance, though.

The reason the WI’s have tighter tolerances is not that the process requires it, but to make sure our actuals really fall within the tolerance of the CP.

Say the CP requires a pressure gage to read between 10 and 30 psi. If the work instructions call this out, and the operator reads 8 psi, they’re probably going to think “good enough.” (I know, I know. What can you do?)

If the work instructions call out 15 to 25 psi, and the operator reads 8, they’ll call quality.

That’s the reason we had the tighter tolerances on the WI’s, and I had no idea it would be considered a nonconformance. The auditor’s reasoning was “The control plan is like your Bible, you have to follow it.”

My thought was “The Bible says don’t drink alcohol in excess, but if a family doesn’t believe in drinking alcohol at all, they are going to ****.” I kept my little mouth shut though. ;) :whip:

I really don’t mind that we got the minor, as some of the WI specs just didn’t match. But I was surprised to hear from the auditor that we would have gotten it just for the too-tight specs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Can registrar revocate our TS 16949 certificate? We haven't had a yearly audit IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
P Delay in IATF 16949 Certification from Registrar Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
B TS 16949 Auditor Availability and Registrar Scheduling Delays Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
P Which TS 16949 registrar do you use? Registrars and Notified Bodies 4
M How to find a Good Registrar (Certification Body) for ISO TS 16949 certification Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
L Questions to ask a New Registrar TS 16949 Auditor Registrars and Notified Bodies 7
T TS 16949 Registrar's Ranking & Market Share IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
G GM Controlled Shipping Level 1 - Are you required to contact the TS 16949 Registrar? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
C TS 16949 Document Review By Registar - What will the registrar look for? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
B Perry Johnson Registrars - TS 16949 Registrar Qualification Registrars and Notified Bodies 40
J Notifying Registrar of Management Changes - A TS 16949 requirement? Registrars and Notified Bodies 11
G Wanted information on registrar for ISO/TS 16949 Registrars and Notified Bodies 1
A Registrar For ISO / TS 16949: Seeking Recommendations Registrars and Notified Bodies 36
Q TS-16949 Readiness Review - What did you send to your registrar? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
T TS 16949 Containment Requirements - Must be Reported to Your Registrar? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
S TS 16949 Pre-Assessment by Registrar or Not? Really worthwhile? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
Marc Smithers - TS 16949 Registrar IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
J IATF 16949 Internal Audit question - Auditor's responsibility Internal Auditing 6
S IATF 16949 Internal Audit Example IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
B Remote IATF 16949 audit preparation General Auditing Discussions 10
R IATF 16949 Certification for new site with transferred product--what is the impact with CSR and scorecards? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
B IATF 16949 Cert Expire- New certification body IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
M IATF 16949 - Audit of Remote Location/Support Site and IT IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
O Informational Ford Motor Company Customer Specific Requirements for IATF 16949:2016 - 08 Jan 2021 Customer and Company Specific Requirements 0
B Updated IATF 16949 - Will IATF 16949 get revised when ISO 9001:202X is released? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
O Release of Sanctioned Interpretations (SIs) related to Rules 5th Edition and Sanctioned Interpretations related to IATF 16949:2016 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
S Thoughts on managing ISO 9001, 13485, IATF 16949 and 17025 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 33
P IATF 16949 requirement - error-proofing in control plan IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
R IATF 16949 - Outsourcing of internal audits Internal Auditing 10
eule del ayre Documented Information - Periodic Review of Documents? IATF 16949:2016 / ISO 9001:2015 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 34
Crimpshrine13 Laboratory Scope - Calibration vs. Test Methods - IATF 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
earl62 What is the best way to control special characteristics in Control plan? Is it Mandatory to have SPC for IATF 16949? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
L IATF 16949 certification costs IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
B FCA US Customer Specific IATF 16949- Critical Characteristics 8.6.2 Customer and Company Specific Requirements 0
B IATF 16949 News Six month extension on all valid IATF 16949 certs IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
earl62 IATF 16949 Clause 9.1.1.1 - What is the batch conformance to specification method? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
B FCA US IATF 16949 Customer Requirements updates Customer and Company Specific Requirements 3
S Can assembly manufacturing sub-supplier be certified IATF 16949? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
D IATF 16949 Requirement for CMMI in a Global Company Elsmar Cove Forum Suggestions, Complaints, Problems and Bug Reports 0
M Tips on preparing for IATF 16949 Internal Lead Auditor exam Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
A IATF 16949 4.3.1 - Determining the scope of the quality management system - supplemental IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
S Definition of "worldwide" in view of IATF 16949 and Product conformity IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
R Where does IATF 16949 address Process mapping? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
A Document "Correspondence IATF 16949 vs ISO13485" available? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
H Remote product audits in Coivd-19 - IATF 16949 9.2.2.4 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
S IATF 16949 - Partial traceability of Aftermarket products IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
M IATF 16949 8.5.1.3 Verification of job set-ups - Do we need secondary check? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
C Industrial scales and MSA (IATF 16949 requirement 7.1.5.1.1) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 30
V Generic IATF 16949 Audit Checklist wanted IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
M Scope of Combined ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 QMS - Non-automotive customers ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom