TS 16949 vs. QS-9000 Audit Differences

[Teri - 2011]

Really confused now!!


We are currently looking at a preassessment to TS2 in August. Have been benchmarking a company that just obtained their certification the first of this month.

The following is a part of an e-mail to me:

We survived the ISO/TS 16949 audit last week. It was quite a learning experience. I'm glad we waited for your visit as we have a different perspective at this point. We really didn't prepare much different from a QS 9000 audit other than changing our internal audit process to audit processes as opposed to auditing elements. Our registrar, ********, still uses an audit checklist that is more like the element approach of QS 9000. The auditors identified 5 minor nonconformities that all would have also been QS 9000 nonconformities.

I was under the impression that the process approach and auditing style by the regristrar's would be much different. Anybody got comments??

 

[Marc]

Your Expectations

Do you mean you expected them to be much different and they weren't?

 

[howste]

I see two possibilities here:

1) As much as we'd all like to think that the auditors will have a new "enlightened" approach to auditing the new standard, they are still the same people. It will take some time for auditors and companies to get used to a new way of doing things.

2) The differences between the "old way" of auditing and using the "process approach" are subtle, and nobody noticed. They still use checklists, but the information is collected in such a way that they ensure that process interfaces, inputs, activities, support processes, and outputs are in place and effective.

I think it's probably a little of both. I do registration audits, and I'd like to think that I audit differently now than in the past. I really doubt that most people see major differences in the way it looks though. I still use a checklist to record evidence that's built around the standard. In fact, auditors for TS 16949 are required to use all of the the IATF checklist questions at a minimum. Thought processes and methods of selecting samples are pretty tough to see though.

 

[Marc]

I'd love to hear more specifics on actual differences. I think it's more of a mind trip than actual changes.

 

[howste]

Originally posted by Marc
I think it's more of a mind trip than actual changes.

That seems to be what everyone thinks. IMO good auditors have been doing it for a long time. But there must be some difference - I've read in several places that registrars are "letting go" auditors that are unable to make the transition.

I'll just throw out a couple of ideas of what I think is different, then let everyone tear into me and tell me what a brainwashed loser I am

Focus on the process vs. focus on results
I can go anywhere and audit someone to their documents. Did they do what they said? They will either comply or not. If their documents are hosed though, they still won't produce good products (or outputs).

Silo vs. system
Processes can only be effective if they work well with other processes in the system. As I mentioned above - auditing interfaces, inputs, activities, support processes, and outputs is important in order to determine if the process is effective or not. If all processes are working well together, the system should be getting the expected results.

OK, let the flaming begin!

 

[Teri - 2011]

Silo vs. system
Processes can only be effective if they work well with other processes in the system.

I totally agree. However with QS I believe this was still true. The standard just didn't force you to look at it. TS does.
I will be making a trip to this company (The quote from my first post)next week to further benchmark. Hopefully I will come back with more info.

The gentleman I am talking to there, said he was more "enlightened" after their audit. I am curious as to what and why!!! I will post when I find out!!!

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Randy Stewart]

It's all about the system

I've been working with our current auditor for close to 4 years now and we have a good working relationship. He went over his certification to TS and gave some insite as to what had changed (as for auditors and methods).
During their observed audit they were instructed that if they used a checklist they would be failed on the spot. It was encouraged to use the checklist "back in the motel" to ensure all clauses and sub-clauses were looked at, but to get away from them during the actual audit. I noticed him referencing the list during our breaks and the report prep times but not on the floor. Secondly, they brought with them the "Audit Planning Worksheet" that has the sections for COP, MOP or SOP, process linkages, and the normal write up sections (observations, evidence, etc.).
It was easy to tell that the focus from the "Element to Element" had changed to the hand-offs between operations or interactions.
I think that most of us tried to fit our company operations into the 18 element look. It took a little bit off here, a chop there, bend it like this, etc. and we found it was possible to comply but the fit wasn't right. It's like me thinking I can still fit into a size 28 waist levi! Just not right. We still audited internally by the processes but documented by element (put sweat pants on as soon as we get home!).
IMO it has been refreshing and has made the makeover a lot easier.
I have done away with our checklists and have not used them with any client. What we do internally is that once a process has been audited we sit as a team and review what has been looked at. Between the 4 of us, Industrial Engineer, Design Engineer, Quality Engineer and a Six Sigma Black Belt, I feel we have it covered.
Now let me brag a little bit! To date, we have targeted and are trending towards a $250,000 cost savings in our operations. These savings have been mainly driven by the focus on the process "hand-offs". By utilizing the Turtle Diagrams and giving a "HARD" definition to our Inputs and Outputs we have cut redundant work, well call it Muda! But that's another story.

 

[Denise]

'It was easy to tell that the focus from the "Element to Element" had changed to the hand-offs between operations or interactions.'


Randy,

How exactly did you do that and to which standards was that evidence for?

What is the audit planning worksheet? Is there a specific form created by AIAG?

After attending the AIAG TS16949 Rollout Workshop given by the 'Big 3' reps, I was under the impression that the process flow diagram would be used to audit.

And then starting with the business plan, marketing, sales, etc., you could audit throughout by following a customer order. This could be done by checking that the customer info (specs) about the order is communicated correctly from process to process.
1. Compare business plan to marketing activities.
2. Compare marketing activities to the type of orders that are coming in.
3. Then follow an order from the hard copy, to order entry, to process & product design (control plan, FMEA), to manufacturing, to delivery, to payment, to customer satisfaction/feedback, to management review, and back up to the business plan.
4. During this time, checking that everything matched up and coordinated.
5. Along the way, things like training, MSA, doc ctrl, record retention, etc. would be observed. (support processes)

This pretty much guarantees that the customer's wishes are fulfilled and our system, process, and product audits are performed. AND THAT OUR COMPANY IS RUNNING CLEANLY AND EFFICIENTLY!!!!!

I believed that the point of TS is to help the company become stronger and to correctly produce our customers' orders.

I thought I saw the light!! Until I attended a seminar taught with a registrar's version of process auditing for internal auditors.

But, alas, disappointment once again. We were told that you start with the control plan and basically do the same as before.

Anybody else??


Denise

 

[Sam]

Marc said,
"I'd love to hear more specifics on actual differences. I think it's more of a mind trip than actual changes."

I agree Marc. I think we are still wanting to look at the "shalls" of a standard/specification rather than the process of making the product. For example, if, during our process audit we are looking for the "shalls" of customer requirements, control plans, FMEAS, work instructions then we are looking for the wrong things. The process should never have been allowed to start without the required inputs. (Set-up Verification) We will always have a checklist, but it should be based on the process requirements,i.e., machine types/layout/settings, trained operators, process/product measurements.
The purpose of an audit is,as we all know, to determine if systems are functioning in accordance with planned arrangements. Just as you cannot "inspect quality" into the product you cannot audit "planned arrangements" into the process.
At the end of each new process there should be a design engineer, Mfg. engineer and a purchasing rep. to verify and validate the process and product. (Crosby)

 

[lday38]

book availble for process planning checklsit

Silo vs. system
Processes can only be effective if they work well with other processes in the system.

I totally agree. However with QS I believe this was still true. The standard just didn't force you to look at it. TS does.
I will be making a trip to this company (The quote from my first post)next week to further benchmark. Hopefully I will come back with more info.

The gentleman I am talking to there, said he was more "enlightened" after their audit. I am curious as to what and why!!! I will post when I find out!!!

Thanks for the responses.

Does anyone know where I could get templates based on the TS16949 for the audit plannign checklist and such? I am under a deadline of October and I am afraid my ISO 9000:2000 intenral audit training didnot
prepare me for the process approach.