Who has had a Transition Audit from TS 16949 to IATF 16949
- Thread starter mindytanner
- Start date
I can't share the specifics. I will say the audit focused heavily on risk prioritization and action plans to address such, CP/PFMEA linkages, CSRs, and the usual minutia.
M
mihir.bajekal
We underwent our Transition audit in December. This was a witness and we did fairly badly in that. 24 NCs, 8 major. APQP did fairly bad, but we had failed to capture the differences between IATF and the APQP manual that we normally follow, so it was quite fair. We recently finished our re-audit and that went smoothly. So we are IATF certified.
That information may be confidential.
And, as we may have noticed, very much about the specific "bias" of the auditor, and as such, not a good predictor of any other auditor's focus...
Hey, everyone!
Finished my transition audit yesterday. 7 minors and 0 majors.
Pre-word if You don't mind (my first post ^_^):
My first job after getting diploma. Working bit more then two years and appointed as QM only from beginning of this year. Our organization has over 200 employees and I'm only one in quality department. 5 month of no sleep and 400+ hours of not payed overtime, but I think results are good. I used a lot of information from this forum - good and bad examples and hundreds of comments... What I'm trying to say is, thank You, everyone =]
Comment on auditor:
Our auditor had a lot of experience behind him as QM of different organizations and around 10 IATF audits.
My comment about him is that he was digging for non-conformities and didn't say a single good think about our system or organization...or country.
A lot of time was wasted on repeatedly explaining same stuff and a lot of his points were related to his personal preference that were not escalated to non-conformity. Rude. No feedback on how things could be improved. Some points from agenda were skipped because he already found non-conformity related to that process while auditing other process. He didn't check a lot of documents that I think are must for new IATF, like: scope, exclusions from scope, rating used in risk register. It's not like I'm measuring occurrence of risks in inches of snow in Australia and severity in kittens, but still...
But overall I'm still thankful, as this is good lesson and non-conformities he brought up are actual problems we have. I'm just bit butt-hurt from his overall attitude. (Don't mention writing complain to certification body, I think he is competent as auditor, just would be better if he was looking for compliance, not non-conformities, as it should be)
Finally, findings:
Clause 7.2.3 - I'm internal auditor for everything right now, but I lack core tools training certificate.
Clause 6.1.2.1 - risk analysis is not effective. I didn't include risk regarding competency of internal auditor...
Clause 8.3.2.1 - PFMEA is not fully effective. To be honest our FMEAs are sh*t, made just for PPAPs without actual analysis. It's actually last document made, when it should be first. Didn't had time to educate engineers on it and change them, but I planned that after audit. (but now I can't train them, before I get my own certificate )
Clause 7.1.5.1.1 - no MSA for hardness testing equipment. Never thought this must be done. Even CQI-9 didn't mention it...I think. (If anyone got ideas how it's done, please share it. Will be much kind of You.)
Clause 8.5.1.6 g) - had out of specifications broaching tool in one rack with "good" tools.
Clause - 9.1.1.1 - SPC had no mark/note regarding when new operator started process.
Clause 8.5.1.5 - no process describing how we choose which parts to be kept in stock for possible equipment breakdown.
Sorry for my possible typos and if someone from my organization thinks this information is confidential let me know, I will delete post. I don't see this as such and hope it helps someone.
Now I will have my beauty sleep and hopefully Christmas and New Years vacation that I skipped for sakes of this project.
Will try to give some feedback in other posts.
Good luck everyone!
Kind regards,
RaiZ-
Finished my transition audit yesterday. 7 minors and 0 majors.
Pre-word if You don't mind (my first post ^_^):
My first job after getting diploma. Working bit more then two years and appointed as QM only from beginning of this year. Our organization has over 200 employees and I'm only one in quality department. 5 month of no sleep and 400+ hours of not payed overtime, but I think results are good. I used a lot of information from this forum - good and bad examples and hundreds of comments... What I'm trying to say is, thank You, everyone =]
Comment on auditor:
Our auditor had a lot of experience behind him as QM of different organizations and around 10 IATF audits.
My comment about him is that he was digging for non-conformities and didn't say a single good think about our system or organization...or country.
A lot of time was wasted on repeatedly explaining same stuff and a lot of his points were related to his personal preference that were not escalated to non-conformity. Rude. No feedback on how things could be improved. Some points from agenda were skipped because he already found non-conformity related to that process while auditing other process. He didn't check a lot of documents that I think are must for new IATF, like: scope, exclusions from scope, rating used in risk register. It's not like I'm measuring occurrence of risks in inches of snow in Australia and severity in kittens, but still...
But overall I'm still thankful, as this is good lesson and non-conformities he brought up are actual problems we have. I'm just bit butt-hurt from his overall attitude. (Don't mention writing complain to certification body, I think he is competent as auditor, just would be better if he was looking for compliance, not non-conformities, as it should be)
Finally, findings:
Clause 7.2.3 - I'm internal auditor for everything right now, but I lack core tools training certificate.
Clause 6.1.2.1 - risk analysis is not effective. I didn't include risk regarding competency of internal auditor...
Clause 8.3.2.1 - PFMEA is not fully effective. To be honest our FMEAs are sh*t, made just for PPAPs without actual analysis. It's actually last document made, when it should be first. Didn't had time to educate engineers on it and change them, but I planned that after audit. (but now I can't train them, before I get my own certificate
)Clause 7.1.5.1.1 - no MSA for hardness testing equipment. Never thought this must be done. Even CQI-9 didn't mention it...I think. (If anyone got ideas how it's done, please share it. Will be much kind of You.)
Clause 8.5.1.6 g) - had out of specifications broaching tool in one rack with "good" tools.
Clause - 9.1.1.1 - SPC had no mark/note regarding when new operator started process.
Clause 8.5.1.5 - no process describing how we choose which parts to be kept in stock for possible equipment breakdown.
Sorry for my possible typos and if someone from my organization thinks this information is confidential let me know, I will delete post. I don't see this as such and hope it helps someone.
Now I will have my beauty sleep and hopefully Christmas and New Years vacation that I skipped for sakes of this project.
Will try to give some feedback in other posts.
Good luck everyone!
Kind regards,
RaiZ-
M
mihir.bajekal
Interesting point regarding the lack of importance being given to PFMEA. It happened so in my company as well. Most of our PFMEAs are also made for PPAPs and most likely in the last few weeks leading to an audit.
I am sure that there are many companies which give importance to PFMEA and follow APQP processes, but we just need to find some way in which a company cannot work around these things and get the most out of the system. Like our Director says, QMS should not be seen as a compliance tool. It should be made one of the most important contributors towards company revenue and growth.
A good system in place can definitely help that.
I am sure that there are many companies which give importance to PFMEA and follow APQP processes, but we just need to find some way in which a company cannot work around these things and get the most out of the system. Like our Director says, QMS should not be seen as a compliance tool. It should be made one of the most important contributors towards company revenue and growth.
A good system in place can definitely help that.
For many of us our processes don't change much. Having to do a pfmea becomes very redundant and then difficult to manage all of the paper. The technique is good, but it's use is flawed. Need more flexibility and discretion depending on application.
Similar threads
