Using an "obsolete" test method - TS 16949 Audit Non-Conformance

[Ken K]

We were written a non-conformance during our TS audit last week for using an "obsolete" test method.

We have been producing these parts since 1997. The test specification has not been updated since 2002 and the test method was "obsoleted" in 2003 with no replacement specified. Since the test spec still called out this test method, we continued to use it.

The problem I have with this is DCX should have specified a replacement when they obsoleted the test method As usual, no amount of arguement on our part could sway the auditor from not writing us up.

Has anyone else run into a similar situation?

 

[Jim Wynne]

The problem I have with this is DCX should have specified a replacement when they obsoleted the test method

You're right, they should have. But when they didn't, it became your responsibility to either stop using the test method or get something in writing from the customer instructing you to keep using it. Given the available information, it appears to be a good call on the part of the auditor.

 

[SteelWoman]

I've not had a lot of luck in those arguments, so I can't offer any help there, but as far as fixing it....

Write yourself an "in-house" test procedure, since there isn't one anymore for this particular test... and if that in-house test procedure just happens to be word-for-word the old test procedure that was obsoleted... oh well. Should take you 5 minutes tops to fix.

Hoop jumping at it's best... grrrr....

 

[Sidney Vianna]

As usual, no amount of arguement on our part could sway the auditor from not writing us up. Has anyone else run into a similar situation?

Ken, did you have objective evidence to show to your auditor that you have tried to communicate with your customer - DCX (hopefully more than once) about the need for them to provide you with a replacement test method?

I am sure you do realize that you run the (business) risk of seeing shipments rejected by DCX due to obsoleted test methods. It is an obvious idea to protect your employer's interests by having plenty of objective evidence that DCX has not replied to your numerous requests for an updated test spec.

While, for the most part, it is very difficult for suppliers to get certain written responses from customers, you should keep trying.

 

[D.Scott]

My stomach is jumping on this one Ken. If your "contract" with DCX calls for testing to a certain method and the customer has never indicated they want to deviate from the original agreement, then making the test method obsolete doesn't cancel the "contract". DCX still requires you to test - by the method agreed - and if there is no replacement method, the assumption can rightfully be made that DCX wants you to continue testing to the method as agreed. The spec still calls for the latest version of the test method and that is what you are using. If you were to use any other test, or not test at all, you would not be meeting customer requirements.

As far as I know there is nothing in TS that would prohibit a customer from requesting you to test something to an old test method. The fact that the method is obsolete has nothing to do with it. It is a direct customer requirement that the test be done using the obsolete method.

Sorry, but I think something is missing here. Is there a current revision of the TM? What prompts the auditor to think you should be testing to something else?

Dave

 

[Jim Wynne]

The spec still calls for the latest version of the test method and that is what you are using. If you were to use any other test, or not test at all, you would not be meeting customer requirements.

When a document is obsoleted, it ceases to exist, for all practical purposes. There can be no "latest version" of something that doesn't exist. While the argument may be made that the contract specifies use of a standard that refers to the obsolete document and thus the test method should still be used, the problem I see is in the failure to resolve the situation two years ago when the test method document went obsolete. IMO, "We assumed it was OK" is not a good answer. I'm standing by my original answer--they should have either stopped using the standard--because the customer told them it no longer exists--or they should have gotten something in writing telling them to keep using it.

 

[Ken K]

Dave, you must be reading my mind. I agree with what your saying and that is what I tried to explain to the auditor.

We even showed him test data submitted to DCX from late 2004 for a new program using the same test spec and obsolete test method which DCX accepted.

The program manager will be contacting DCX to determine what's going on. I'll keep you posted.

 

[ralphsulser]

Ken,
My advise from a recent experience is...take the non-conformance, and when you answer it make sure you have documented information from your customer. We had a similar type issue and a minor NC. Got our customer involved and included his input to the corrective action response. Got a great reply from the auditor.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I agree Dave, unless directed otherwise the supplier must keep the contract. The print, the PO, etc. are all sources of data for the contract. Unless another method of testing has been specified the old one still must be used. Changing the test method, in some cases, may violate PPAP.

We receive RFQs for 2006 model year parts that call out coating specs that clearly state "not to be used on new designs". Some design engineers copy requirement blocks off of old files and never verify that they are still current.
We received one yesterday where the print called out an old coating that contained Hexchrome (a zinc dichromate), then note 3 said must be Hexchrome free!
This is where a good contract review comes into play.

 

[jawatts - 2009]

Test method

I agree, something should have been done two years ago when this mistake was discovered. If you tried and still didnt receive anything from DCX, well...try try again.
What if your product failed in the field for whatever is directly related to the test that you were/are performing? Do you think DCX would take sole responsibility? HA! DCX---> Maybe you'll be able to swallow the N/C a little easier looking at it from this angle.
At least now the problem should get resolved. Thats the real reason for N/Cs being written. Right?
(dont take this wrong Kevin.....many QA'ers have been in the same boat before and the fishing isnt very good!!)