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.

Safety Documents under 16949 document control

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Mike Warner, Oct 10, 2021.

  1. Mike Warner

    Mike Warner New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2021
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    We had a 16949 audit and the auditor wrote us a minor for having a safety document that was not controlled. We have safety documents controlled under 45001. While this was an accurate observation, and we will address the issue under the 45001 system, we consider this finding to be outside of the scope of quality audit conducted. I have told management to answer the finding as such.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Did they site which clause the nonconformance was written up under?
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  3. 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
    @qmr1976 asks the correct question @Mike Warner . It will certainly help us respond if you can give us the specific rule that the CB was in indicating a failure against, and the specific verbiage from the nonconformance report.

    Also, on a separate note, may I inquire to if your organization's ISO 45001 and IATF16949 systems are maintained totally separate, parallel, "redundant" ? In other words, are your organization's various management systems not partially integrated?

    Hope this all helps.
    Be well.
     
  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"
    You are correct. The auditor was out of scope...
     
  5. RonR Quality Pro

    RonR Quality Pro Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2021
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    SW Ontario Canada
    I would also question which clause of the standard the nonconformance was written against. I will assume for the moment that it is 7.5.3.2

    This clause (in part) that documented information .........shall be identified as appropriate, and be controlled.

    I would tend to agree that this document NOT being controlled demonstrates a failure of your document control system. If it is an isolated instance, then I would be unlikely to write it as a nonconformance, but rather as an observation.

    I disagree with everyone who said that this finding is outside the scope of the audit - documentation which is used in your daily processes (whether written expressly for the purposes of IATF compliance, or for another reason) is an auditable entity.
     
  6. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Well, that's where the IATF standard gets vague....as appropriate is a great 'wiggle' word. What do they consider appropriate? In my mind, anything that pertains to the planning and operation of the quality management system. I think that's where everyone is thinking it's outside of the scope. How can you write up a nonconformance regarding control of a safety document when you're referring to a quality standard? It should be an OFI at best.
     
  7. RonR Quality Pro

    RonR Quality Pro Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2021
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    SW Ontario Canada
    qmr, I would also write it as an observation/OFI, if it was a single lapse. But if you are auditing the document control system as a whole, then you need to consider ALL documentation that is present.
     
  8. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    I guess I would have to see the value in considering it a controlled document in the first place. What was the safety document used for? There is such a thing as going WAY overboard with controlling documents. I've always been of the mindset to control anything that is value added to the QMS. I might be completely off base here, but it's worked for me so far these 20+ years in the industry. :)
     
    RonR Quality Pro likes this.
  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"
    It's NOT an IATF requirement. Simple. Fix it, and do it under your Safety Management System. The auditor was out of scope.