Unable to obtain CSRs from Customer

[Jim Wynne]

There is no crystal-clear requirement in TS16949, so this question gets a lot of discussion. Auditors point to 7.1.1 in TS16949, as did my instructors a couple of weeks ago. Maybe to help clear up confusion, AIAG put out a leaflet describing the core tools that we are assured are required for suppliers to AITF members, including (among other groups) AIAG and its registered members. They have a stated interest in reducing variation of methods among suppliers, so the Big Three produced the "core" manuals that AIAG sells. AITF members can, and do cite their own specific requirements, which (as with the example Renault) may specifically mention the AIAG core manuals.

7.1.1 says only that customer requirements must be taken into account in the quality plan. Once again, the ONLY customer-specific requirements are those that are accounted for in the contract. It doesn't matter if the customer is a member of AIAG, IATF or the YMCA--if it ain't in the contract, it ain't a requirement.

 

[Jen Kirley]

7.1.1 says only that customer requirements must be taken into account in the quality plan. Once again, the ONLY customer-specific requirements are those that are accounted for in the contract. It doesn't matter if the customer is a member of AIAG, IATF or the YMCA--if it ain't in the contract, it ain't a requirement.

I can only describe what was presented to me while qualifying for TS 16949 auditor at AIAG a couple of weeks ago. That difference was: members of AIAG (as a member of the global AITF) join that group as a means to standardize QMS practices among suppliers; and that part of the standardization was to adopt the core tool methods that AIAG publishes as "guidelines."

I agree that it is different from what I believed while doing internal auditing just six months ago, and the TS auditors who came to us from BSI insisted we must use the core tools manuals though we didn't sell directly to any of the listed tier 1 or tier 2 companies.

 

[ianbayne]

Thank you for all the comments, everyone! I am slowly going through them, but I find I already have a question: Am I correct in understanding CB to mean Certification Body?

 

[ianbayne]

Thanks for the reply and the link, Sidney Vianna. I have just checked and it appears our customer is not listed there.

 

[ssz102]

haha, exactly speaking, the auditor had not understanding the CSRs requirements yet
some customers had included the specification requirements in them orders, like our customer, have some documents sent to us sometimes, such as visual inspection method, enviroment requirements etc.
so you should show some evidences to your customer in the orders

 

[Howard Atkins]

There is no crystal-clear requirement in TS16949, so this question gets a lot of discussion. Auditors point to 7.1.1 in TS16949, as did my instructors a couple of weeks ago. Maybe to help clear up confusion, AIAG put out a leaflet describing the core tools that we are assured are required for suppliers to AITF members, including (among other groups) AIAG and its registered members. They have a stated interest in reducing variation of methods among suppliers, so the Big Three produced the "core" manuals that AIAG sells. AITF members can, and do cite their own specific requirements, which (as with the example Renault) may specifically mention the AIAG core manuals.

I am sorry but I cannot accept that the core tools are mandated by any one apart from the customer that actually spells them out. Your leaflet from AIAG does not say this and is not entitled to say this as AIAG has no standing in the ISO/TS certification process. It is an advertisment for AIAG and its courses no more than that.
If it was from IAOB,VDA, SMMT, ANFIA or IATF France--IATF Oversight Offices then it would have weight

Further Ford CSR calls out
Suppliers shall comply with the Ford FMEA Handbook requirements not the AIAG book.

In your quoted Renault CSR it states

FMEA The use of FMEA (according to AIAG Manual, latest version) is widely accepted.
The use of Renault AMDEC is recommended in accordance with standard 01-33-200. (accessible through Renault supplier portal – GD norms);
The Supplier’s own standard is accepted.

MSA The use of MSA is accepted. However the use of the CNOMO standard or Renault specific methods are recommended.

APQP
As part of purchasing contracts, Renault requests the use of ANPQP .
“. The supplier is required to rigorously apply ANPQP to identify all reasonably foreseeable potential safety issues and to take preventative actions to ensure that such safety issues do not occur during the use of the product”.
The structure of ANPQP is similar to the structure of the AIAG APQP document. This has been done to facilitate understanding of ANPQP

PPAP
The equivalent for Renault of the “Production Part Approval Process” is the ANPQP (“Alliance New Product Quality Procedure”).
The equivalent for Renault of the “PPAP submission” or “PPAP package” is the PSW (Part Submission Warrant).
This link between PPAP and ANPQP / PSW is for explanation purpose only.

SPC
Capabilities: Renault accepts the use of capabilities according to AIAG manual, but recommends the use of Renault internal methods and targets.
Control charts : Renault accepts the use of control charts and rules for reaction as defined in the AIAG manual.
The basic principles of control charts should be considered, including
- control limits are not tolerance ranges, and should be calculated according to usual SPC rules
- In case a need for reaction is identified, according to chosen SPC common sense rule, the reaction should be conducted, recorded, and its result confirmed with documented evidence.

This shows that it is an accepted alternative but far from mandatory.

The only body that can mandate the documents that must be applied is the customer.
If he does not then I cannot require him to do so.

For example- if there is no customer requirement to use the latest version of a handbook then I cannot give a NC for not using it- unless he states in his own procedure that he does.
Conversely if he supplies to Ford I can give a NC for using the latest AIAG handbook as Ford specifies another method.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Thank you for all the comments, everyone! I am slowly going through them, but I find I already have a question: Am I correct in understanding CB to mean Certification Body?

Yes, that's correct.

 

[ianbayne]

Thanks, Jim!

 

[Jen Kirley]

I am sorry but I cannot accept that the core tools are mandated by any one apart from the customer that actually spells them out. Your leaflet from AIAG does not say this and is not entitled to say this as AIAG has no standing in the ISO/TS certification process. It is an advertisment for AIAG and its courses no more than that.
If it was from IAOB,VDA, SMMT, ANFIA or IATF France--IATF Oversight Offices then it would have weight

Further Ford CSR calls out
Suppliers shall comply with the Ford FMEA Handbook requirements not the AIAG book.

In your quoted Renault CSR it states

This shows that it is an accepted alternative but far from mandatory.

The only body that can mandate the documents that must be applied is the customer.
If he does not then I cannot require him to do so.

For example- if there is no customer requirement to use the latest version of a handbook then I cannot give a NC for not using it- unless he states in his own procedure that he does.
Conversely if he supplies to Ford I can give a NC for using the latest AIAG handbook as Ford specifies another method.

Of course I appreciate your position, also Jim's, and I felt that way myself for years. But two weeks ago I attended the school at AIAG for auditors qualifying and testing to do CB auditing, and asked this exact same question. The response was, if the customer is an AIAG member then these core tools are among the CSRs and the expectation is to follow them unless obtaining permission to deviate.

That's all I have, my personal experience while at AIAG between 10/30/12 and 11/2/12 to qualify to audit TS 16949 for a CB.

I think further questions on this subject should be issued directly to that group. I would love to learn I had misunderstood my instructor. Truly.

 

[Boingo-boingo]

I would love to learn I had misunderstood my instructor. Truly.

It could be a case of "Instructor gone Wild". Similar to the IAQG AATT courses which were supposed to "calibrate" all aerospace auditors in the techniques and protocols supposedly used during the AS9100 Rev. C audits.

We know now that many instructors were dead wrong in the training delivery, creating confusion and inconsistency amongst the pool of aerospace auditors.

Words spoken by an instructor during a course would have very little substance if a registrant were to challenge the auditor.