We Made it to TS 16949 Certification - THANKS!

[SteelWoman]

We made it! Our upgrade audit to TS concluded on Friday and we were recommended for certification pending the resolution of some VERY minor findings (more about that later). HOWEVER.....

I've been doing this for only 7 years and I've been through my share of auditors, but this was by far the worst audit experience I've ever endured. I won't go into who the registrar is, but it's the first time in my years of experience with them that I ran across a "bad apple." We had our usual auditor PLUS, for upgrade purposes, a second auditor on site. He arrived with a clear agenda and pursued it doggedly for 2 days, actually ignoring the schedule/processes he was supposed to be auditing! I talked to the registrar while this was going on and it seems this guy is involved in a similar "argument" with another client in the same business as us that he audited, over the same issue. I don't use this term lightly, but after the audit I felt "violated." No other word for it - abused. In addition to other things, this guy wrote us up for using white out on a form where an operator had written something in the wrong "blank" on the form, he whited it out and wrote on the correct blank - then when that whited-out blank WAS the correct line to use a few days later he wrote on it. The kicker is - it doesn't violate the standard, it doesn't violate our internal procedure, and it doesn't pose the risk for bad material getting out. So it's a finding WHY? aaagggghhh..... Needless to say I'll be appealing all but ONE of the findings to the registrar. It's interesting that the LEAD auditor, who told us she routinely writes 15-20 findings in an upgrade audit wrote NONE herself.

Anyway, Monday morning and my "fuming" is now at "simmering" level, and I'm trying to tell myself to just chock it up to experience. Remembering the GOAL which was to get certified and we will, so that's worth celebrating.

THANKS to all you Covers who put up my sometimes silly questions along the way! We made it! Thanks.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

I won't go into who the registrar is, but it's the first time in my years of experience with them that I ran across a "bad apple."

That must have been infuriating... But still: You made it, and that's the important thing, I guess.

Well done Congratulations.

Oh, and another thing: I have yet to see you post a "silly" question...

/Claes

 

[The Taz!]

I agree with my Swedish Bro Claes all the way!! Congrats and well done!!

We've ALL seen anal auditors. . .

 

[SteelWoman]

Ah, you're too kind, boys! I KNOW I've posted some zingers! But hey, ya live and learn, right? Seriously, I couldn't have done it without you guys! You're the BEST and the Cove is the BEST!

 

[mshell]

Congratulations

 

[Marc]

Congratulations! I do hope you take a few minutes and let us know what the 'failure modes' were (what the writeups were) so others can know where to focus.

 

[Rob Nix]

Bravo, your Ferrousness. By the quality of your posts I would have assumed you would pass - problem auditor notwithstanding.

 

[ralphsulser]

Steelwoman-CONGRATS!
Way to go.

 

[SteelWoman]

By the quality of your posts I would have assumed you would pass - problem auditor notwithstanding.

Awww, you guys are making me BLUSH!

Marc, we were "nailed" for:

1) Using whiteout, which is neither a violation of our procedure, the standard, nor did it's use in this situation risk non-conforming material being shipped.
2) The auditor examined ONE rockwell block of the 50+ in the building and determined several of the indentations were too close, in violation of the appropriate ASTM spec. Actually, the relevant spec says WHEN you get one too close, take another reading, which our procedure clearly stated. We pointed that out to the auditor - he wrote it anyway.
3) The PFMEA for our rolling mill - when interviewing the mill manager he talked about a potential project they were looking at to reduce smut issues, that may be pursued 3rd quarter of next year, but is "iffy" because of financial considerations. The auditor wrote this as a finding because that was not mentioned on the PFMEA.
4) The auditor said our metallurgists HAVE the ability to "design" steel, therefore they ARE doing Product Design, which we claimed an exemption from since we DON'T do product design. We pointed out MANY things about this to the auditor, not the least of which was that this same registrar has already performed 6 audits of our sister divisions, whose practices in this respect are the same, and has allowed the product design exclusion at EACH of those divisions.
5) The auditor took exception, based on number 4 (above) to our exclusion document, and since he believes we DO do product design, he said the exclusion statement claiming exemption from product design was wrong, and wrote that up as a separate finding.

NOW do you feel my pain?!!

 

[db]

First of all Congrats!

4) The auditor said our metallurgists HAVE the ability to "design" steel...

I probably would have countered with you also have the ability to murder an auditor, but you can't be charged until it happens, although it is looking more and more likely! :mg: