1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Outsourced process

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by John C. Abnet, Jun 3, 2021.

  1. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Hey QFO family;
    Question: In regards to outsourced process.
    I came across a situation where a non-conformance was issued by a CB for lack of identifying outsourced maintenance.


    IATF definition
    outsourced process
    portion of an organization's function (or processes) that is performed by an external organization.


    IATF clause 8.4.2.1
    "...shall have a documented process to identify outsourced processes..."

    They have a "Purchasing" (supplier) procedure, which identifies the control of (per their scope), product which is "...content in products manufactured for sale..."
    Within that procedure they state...
    5.1.1.1 Outsourcing
    Suppliers providing outsourcing are to be held, at minimum, to the requirements stated within this procedure.

    The nonconformance was written...
    "no identification of outsourced processes for maintenance"

    Thoughts ?

    Thanks in advance for your input.
     
  2. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    I am guessing they didn't specifically call out each outsourced company in their procedure or quality manual? I know we had been written up for this same thing a few years ago. However, how they have the NC written above is confusing when they refer to 'for maintenance'. It's actually about complying with requirement...not maintaining your own procedure.
     
  3. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    How does the maintenance or facilities crew know who to call to perform the maintenance?
    Do they look it up somewhere?

    Should be easy enough to "please the auditor and move on to real life" simply to write in the procedure that "outsourced processes shall be identified by purchasing records, logs, lists or other methods that identify the vendor adequately to use said vendor."

    Seems like someone being picky...pull their teeth as quickly as possible and get back to real work...
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    A bogus, grasping-at-straws NC if ever I saw one. Reject the NC. This auditor, like so many others, is wreaking havoc with clients they visit.

    Let's not lose sight, as this IATF auditor has done, that the QMS is about delivering product which meets the agreed requirements. Outsourced processes which affect those agree requirements certainly should be identified and controlled. In certain cases, such as outsourced calibrations and containment/sorting services, those CAN directly affect compliance to agreed requirements. I fail to see how maintenance being outsourced has any affect on achieving agreed requirements


    Last week I heard, yet again, about an AS9100D auditor who is a contractor and causes all kinds of mayhem - including SCREAMING at a client about some ITAR "violation"! Same auditor, multiple clients! This is what people who advocate "pleasing" the auditor don't see and don't care to know about. Rogue CB auditors have no place in the market - and CBs keeping them on contracts because there are fewer and fewer (good ones) available is NO EXCUSE!
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2021
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Exactly - they (the auditors) don't know what the issue is and their reporting reflects that fact
     
  6. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    Outsourcing of processes in 8.1 for production of product and/or service is not the same as outsourcing of infrastructural processes in 7.1.3. While it makes sense to ensure infrastructure maintenance is correctly done via the controlled selection and management of providers, the intent is really to properly control product-impacting processes such as heat treat, plating, coating, welding etc. that the main site lacks the capability to do on their own.

    I would dispute the NC. Please don't be shy about this. You are doing the CB a service by pointing out an apparent irregularity in how the standard is applied. If the NC is overturned, the auditor will be informed of his/her error, but also the entire group is likely to see it in their annual training.
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I won't be holding my breath that such auditors bother to turn up to "training"...
     
  8. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    Accrediting Bodies require periodic training in order for auditors to continue their work with CBs.
     
  9. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    They require all manner of things, but it doesn't mean it's effective. From what I've seen, a significant number of IATF auditors have little/no idea what they are auditing, especially when it comes to even basic things like 8D problem solving... Hence my "training" comment.
     
  10. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    You didn't say "effective", just questioned whether they show up. We can discuss effectiveness all day long, and I see your repetitive references to auditor incompetence but never who they are, and exactly the nature of your involvement to decide that. I don't know if you were there for all these incidents and the auditors in question (and their CBs) are not here to defend themselves, so I hope you will understand my wish to learn more about where you derived your facts.
     
  11. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I'd be happy to share with you.
     
    Jennifer Kirley likes this.
  12. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    I would love it. Some empirical data and context behind your dozens of references to incompetent auditors would be welcome.
     
  13. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Messaged you.