The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line

The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove ForumsThe Elsmar Cove Forums
  QS-9000 Final Product Audit

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Final Product Audit
Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 93
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 12 July 2001 03:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This has probably been covered before but here is my issue anyway.
We have a debate regarding the intent of the "dock audit" according to QS9K. Our QM insists that it is merely to verify that the correct part#, revision, quantity, packaging, and labeling are correct, and that product verification extending to any dimensional or other physical property inspection is pure redundancy and therefore not the intent of the standard.
I maintain that it does include a dimensional verification and should be based on sampling as indicated in the "note" at the end of

I would appreciate any feedback on this one.
Thanks in advance.
Steve Truchon
Precision Resource-Florida

IP: Logged

posted 12 July 2001 04:48 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would tend to agree that the product also requires verification of conformance. The para does mention the word
"product" as part of the verification process. It does not require a specific method of sampling (i.e., mil-std) so I am assuming that your decided level of sampling should be based on what best suits your needs. It is the frequency that is of concern and the manipulation of that frequency. I have dealt with auditors that were very interested in how the frequency of the audits could change more so than the sample size. But I do agree that the product must be reviewed for conformance.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 814
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 12 July 2001 05:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Have had the discusion many times.

In a past experience and auditor asked me if dimensions were specified requirements, of course. He noted that the examples given are just that, examples, not a limited list. Read into this that the word "product" applies to product requirements/specifications.

Also, as I'm sure you know, the notes are for reference only, it does not even include the words "shall" or "should".

What has worked in the past is a dock audit report that includes packaging, labeling, identification.

On the form is an area that requires the inspector to take the traveler number that goes with the product back to the lab where final inspection records are stored. They verify that the parts are indeed within dimensional requirements, not by measurement, but by ensuring that all of the readings taken during final are indeed within spec limits and that the inspection form has been signed by appropriate personnel.


IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 360
From:Greenville, SC

posted 13 July 2001 08:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Do a search on this one. We have had this discussion ever since the requirement came out. You will find a treasure chest full of interesting interpretations on final dock audits!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4367
From:West Chester, OH, USA

posted 13 July 2001 08:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah - a couple are and for starters.

IP: Logged

Forum Contributor

Posts: 275
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 13 July 2001 09:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steve, I agree with your issue on sampling.
As for dimensional verification I refer back to the records that were completed during in process and final inspection.
Packaging and labeling is verified and recorded at random.
Our products go from the shop floor to shipping to the truck to be shipped that day. I just cannot imagine holding up shipment while someone wants to do a dimensional verification.

IP: Logged

ml retcher
Forum Contributor

Posts: 24
Registered: Jun 99

posted 13 July 2001 10:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ml retcher   Click Here to Email ml retcher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We use dock audits to verify product that has had previous problems. If we authorize a return for product then through our corrective action system a dock audit is issued to be done for the next shipment. We preform a dimensional inspection. If we have stock and purged to verify a dock audit is not necessary. In most cases we do not carry stock due to our JIT.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Marc Smith | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Please Visit the new Elsmar Cove Forums! All these threads are there and much more!

Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!