Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Who has had a Transition Audit from TS 16949 to IATF 16949

batteryguy

Starting to get Involved
We completed our stage 1 audit yesterday. We currently have ISO 9001:2015, and are going for IATF16949:2016. We didn't have any concerns raised during our stage 1 audit other than what I would deem "auditor preferences" which will only take a few minutes to change prior to our stage 2 audit. One of the OFI's he did identify was to replace all references in our QMS documentation such as "we conform to the requirements of IATF 16949:2016" to "we conform to the requirements of the latest IATF 16949 standard". We raised the concern that this could get us in trouble when a new version of the standard comes out, but he was adamant that we should change this.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher,Sensei,Kennari
Good day @batteryguy .

Congratulations with your stage 1. It sounds as if your organization is well prepared.
Specific to your question:
I have consulted/assisted numerous companies with successful transitions. Please feel free to reach out if you have any specific questions.

Regarding the auditor's "adamant" OFI that you remove the version (year) designation from your IATF reference:
While I agree with the auditor's concern (i.e. this can cause problems when the standard updates in the future), there is absolutely NO requirement for you to change your current verbiage. Be sure (as you appear to be doing) to always ensure that any auditor "requests" are reflective of the standard and NOT the "auditor preference".

Hope this helps.
Be well.
 
We completed our stage 1 audit yesterday. We currently have ISO 9001:2015, and are going for IATF16949:2016. We didn't have any concerns raised during our stage 1 audit other than what I would deem "auditor preferences" which will only take a few minutes to change prior to our stage 2 audit. One of the OFI's he did identify was to replace all references in our QMS documentation such as "we conform to the requirements of IATF 16949:2016" to "we conform to the requirements of the latest IATF 16949 standard". We raised the concern that this could get us in trouble when a new version of the standard comes out, but he was adamant that we should change this.
Tell him to pack sand! It's a power play. If you acquiesce to these types of statements, he'll run over you. I'd lodge a complaint with his CB management to let them know he's making such comments - which are NOT his domain - and let him know to stay in his "lane". Trust me, he's not the only one stepping outside their remit to provide solid, objective audits... Time to push back.
 

batteryguy

Starting to get Involved
Thanks John,
The wealth of information and help available on this site has been the best resource for helping us prepare for IATF. Thanks to everyone that has contributed here and answered my questions along the way.

Andy, where is the balance between keeping an auditor happy by spending 15-20 minutes making this change, and potentially destroying that relationship? If they wrote an actual nonconformance for something like that in our stage 2 audit I wouldn't hesitate to dispute it.
 
Andy, where is the balance between keeping an auditor happy by spending 15-20 minutes making this change, and potentially destroying that relationship? If they wrote an actual nonconformance for something like that in our stage 2 audit I wouldn't hesitate to dispute it
I see this from a much broader perspective. As a support to many, many clients, this type of thing is a common event. You see it as simply affecting you and your organization. Multiply this by all his clients and you start to see a bigger issue. CBs often tout "value added audits", when the reality is that clients such as you see zero value and, as much as it's simple to "keep an auditor happy", you won't actually be doing that (long term) you'll be feeding a monster. It's the same with pets. The puppy learns it can get up on the couch/bed and the next thing is it's biting the owner when they want to sit on the coach/lie on the bed...

All I'm suggesting is that it's NOT the nature of the actual work, it's the behaviours of the auditor which need to change. It is NOT their job to even be thinking of such a comment as
One of the OFI's he did identify was to replace all references in our QMS documentation such as "we conform to the requirements of IATF 16949:2016" to "we conform to the requirements of the latest IATF 16949 standard
 
Thanks John,
The wealth of information and help available on this site has been the best resource for helping us prepare for IATF. Thanks to everyone that has contributed here and answered my questions along the way.

Andy, where is the balance between keeping an auditor happy by spending 15-20 minutes making this change, and potentially destroying that relationship? If they wrote an actual nonconformance for something like that in our stage 2 audit I wouldn't hesitate to dispute it.
Actually it just a suggestion that any reasonable wordsmith would make. Not something to battle an auditor with. By using :2016 you'll need to go in and change every such reference the next time they update the standard -- a complete waste of time. But I also wouldn't use the word "latest" either, as there will be a time which the two versions overlap. I would say "we conform to the requirements of the applicable IATF 16949 standard." If you're working under 2016, that's applicable. If your working under 20XX, that will be applicable. Good luck.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher,Sensei,Kennari
@Golfman25 is spot on. However, if we’re going to discuss wordsmithing options, let’s take this one step further. Considering the organization may have in the future (or currently has) full or partial integration of one or more standards (e.g. 16949 and 14001), then ANY direct reference to a given standard is not scaleable. For this reason I council organizations to consider more generic verbiage, such as “governing international standards”. This verbiage is applicable regardless of current or future registrations.
 

batteryguy

Starting to get Involved
Thanks guys. Like Golfman mentioned, my biggest problem was that his wording would be inaccurate in the time period prior to our transition after a new version of the standard is released. The ironic thing about the whole situation is that 2 years ago our ISO 9001 auditor suggested that we specify the version of the standard in our documentation, which gets back to Andy's original point.
 
Top Bottom