TS16949:2002 checklist - MS Word .doc Document attached

[Helmut Jilling]

TS16949:2009 or TS16949E specifically states under 8.2.2.4 the following note:
NOTE Specific checklists should be used for each audit.
Please explain how everyone is saying checklists are banned or not to be used.

My problem with what was here for internal audits upon my arrival with a new company was that the checklists were not controlled, never changed, they were however specific to each department and the directives or procedures that applied to the particular department, however it was stale and did not help improve anything. It was merely used to remind everyone how horrible the document control process was, nothing more.
I am trying to further develop a process based plan, guide and notes document that I originally found as a checklist sort of thing on this very forum posted by Antonio Santos.
I want the document to serve as the template for each internal audit that will satisfy ISO9001:2008, AS9100C and TS16949E requirements all in one. Antonio's design was not really a checklist it was more of a diagram, matrix and notes multi-tabbed document that required the auditor to interact with all of the necessary inputs, outputs and support processes.
I really liked his approach and will continue to modify the document and the process it will control until I can get it to meet the requirements for all 3 QMS standards independently, I do not want 3 different audit programs. I will also ensure it requires the use of the latest Quality Manual as that will also provide up to date requirements, process and procedure linkage, etc.

I have attached a copy of what i have at this very moment, of what was origjnally Antonio's design, however it is nowhere near complete in my opnion, not for my needs, not yet.

That is one of the contradictions in this program. The new standard still mentions the checksheet. Checksheets are not banned, by the way. I teach an auditor program that uses a checksheet as the foundation. But, it is an open ended checksheet designed to help auditors audit in a true process approach. It is not a series of specific questions auditors ask. That kind of element approach is what is frowned on. The TS rules require audits to be done to a process approach, but does not ban checksheets.

 

[DaddyDow]

That is one of the contradictions in this program. The new standard still mentions the checksheet. Checksheets are not banned, by the way. I teach an auditor program that uses a checksheet as the foundation. But, it is an open ended checksheet designed to help auditors audit in a true process approach. It is not a series of specific questions auditors ask. That kind of element approach is what is frowned on. The TS rules require audits to be done to a process approach, but does not ban checksheets.

Well what do you think of the 3 tabbed approach I attached? It is definitely open ended in my opinion, is this a sound approach?

 

[AndyN]

Well what do you think of the 3 tabbed approach I attached? It is definitely open ended in my opinion, is this a sound approach?

I am somewhat familiar with the diagram - I could probably tell you where it came from (not me!)

I don't like the schedule. It's not based on 'status and importance' it seems just a convenient way to divvy up the audits to be done so the whole thing is done once per year and has no more than that about it. Some aspects aren't processes and some are exclusive of the applicable process - control plan for example.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Well what do you think of the 3 tabbed approach I attached? It is definitely open ended in my opinion, is this a sound approach?

It certainly would not cause a problem as far as checksheets are concerned. The checksheets we are trying to stop are the old
question #1, #2, #3, etc. for each clause.

Yours would pass as a process oriented approach. However, there are a few things I would look at as improvements to overall usefulness.

The main thing I notice, is you have many "processes" which could probably be combined. For example, you have 3 different inspection processes, with 3 process owners. Unless you are a very large company, maybe those should be classed as sub-processes and combined into one process called Inspection, with the Q Manager as the process owner. If each stands alone, you have to develop all the requirements in cl 4.1 for each line. There are other examples too, like the various engineering ones, or the management ones. (Your current approach would be compliant, by the way, but may result in more work.)

I applaud the fact you added IT and 5S as processes.

Andy N is very focused on the audit schedule, and he has clearly argued his viewpoint on the topic in various threads. You can review his past posts for a more complete understanding of his view. I agree, but a notch less focused on that. You should develop the schedule a little more toward the more important processes, so it is not mapped out so symetrically or uniform. Perhaps cluster similar related processes into one audit.

The other thing is the turtle diagram has a lot of detail for auditors to fill out. That is fine, but it will be the same info each time. Maybe it would be better to populate those diagrams for each process once, and control those, then use them to advance the process by auditing the effectiveness of their performance each time you audit. Otherwise, you cover and write the same things each time.

You're on a good track, though.

 

[DaddyDow]

It certainly would not cause a problem as far as checksheets are concerned. The checksheets we are trying to stop are the old
question #1, #2, #3, etc. for each clause.

Yours would pass as a process oriented approach. However, there are a few things I would look at as improvements to overall usefulness.

The main thing I notice, is you have many "processes" which could probably be combined. For example, you have 3 different inspection processes, with 3 process owners. Unless you are a very large company, maybe those should be classed as sub-processes and combined into one process called Inspection, with the Q Manager as the process owner. If each stands alone, you have to develop all the requirements in cl 4.1 for each line. There are other examples too, like the various engineering ones, or the management ones. (Your current approach would be compliant, by the way, but may result in more work.)

I applaud the fact you added IT and 5S as processes.

Andy N is very focused on the audit schedule, and he has clearly argued his viewpoint on the topic in various threads. You can review his past posts for a more complete understanding of his view. I agree, but a notch less focused on that. You should develop the schedule a little more toward the more important processes, so it is not mapped out so symetrically or uniform. Perhaps cluster similar related processes into one audit.

The other thing is the turtle diagram has a lot of detail for auditors to fill out. That is fine, but it will be the same info each time. Maybe it would be better to populate those diagrams for each process once, and control those, then use them to advance the process by auditing the effectiveness of their performance each time you audit. Otherwise, you cover and write the same things each time.

You're on a good track, though.

Don't give me too much credit, once again I took what Antonio posted and have tried to improve it, and yes the number of processes did not mesh with my sensibilities as well. I had already decided and began working on eliminating or combining many of them, based upon our documented processes here at my company.
I will be modifying the entire process and schedule to focus on specific areas and was already grouping them so that a single audit would cover more ground, we are a small company, it just makes sense.
I love your idea on the turtle diagrams; I have already done that on multiple other documents in my system, these will be next.
I have yet to use any of this however when I do I will be sure to come back and share my discoveries as well as post my final document.
Thanks for your input and keep it coming if you think of anything else please be sure to post it.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

.... I had already decided and began working on eliminating or combining many of them, based upon our documented processes here at my company.
I will be modifying the entire process and schedule ...

Remember, the processes you audit should be the same as the processes you define in your system. I would expect to see the same processes, titles, and metrics. In Management reiew as well.

 

[amaga]

Is there a similar checklist as above for the 2009 version or i can still adopt the 2002 version. Appreciate if someone can share. Thanks.

 

[AndyN]

Is there a similar checklist as above for the 2009 version or i can still adopt the 2002 version. Appreciate if someone can share. Thanks.

Hello and welcome to the Cove. This topic has received much discussion. You may wish to go through the thread to see if your answer is here. The TS requirements haven't changed, however you might find the discussions about TS based checklists helpful to you.

Please come back and let us know what you found and how it helped you.

 

[wiwi6910]

Is there update checklist for TS16949-2009

 

[harry]

Is there update checklist for TS16949-2009

Welcome to the Cove.

1. If you read the post immediately before yours, Andy made it very clear that there are only very minor changes to the standard.

2. There's a so-called checklist floating around which is good for use as a gap analysis tool and also to see if you've covered all grounds during the initial stages. There are no changes to this.

3. It would be dangerous to use this point/element based checklist for audit purpose. It can be used only for reference purpose.

4. Read the other posts in this thread where discussions were made on more relevant checklist suitable for audit purpose. Are you trained on the turtle diagram? ( 乌龟图)