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.

Problem Solving Methodology

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Carlee Gruizinga, May 17, 2022.

  1. Carlee Gruizinga

    Carlee Gruizinga Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2021
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Portage, MI
    Hello!!

    We just had our Stage 1 IATF 16949 audit yesterday! I do have a question with an item raised by the auditor as a potential minor. Our Corrective Action Reports do not include the root cause analysis tool utilized. Where in the standard does it state this as a requirement? Section 10.2.3 Problem solving requires a documented process for root cause analysis tools, which are outlined in our Corrective Action Procedure.

    Thanks!!
     
    Carlee Gruizinga, May 17, 2022
    #1
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  2. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    27
    The IATF standard takes it a step further by stating that your documented process shall (key word here) include root cause analysis, methodology used, analysis and results. (item c of this clause) Also, your customer can require specific problems solving tools (i.e. information entered into a customer prescribed platform/website) Even without the standard or customer requirements though, not having a root cause analysis would make it very difficult to form a proper and effective corrective action.
     
    qmr1976, May 17, 2022
    #2
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Hi Carlee:

    Hmmm, I agree with your thoughts here. I'm wondering why the auditor is even making such comments at this point - the Stage 1 is a readiness review and planning activity. Getting into CA Tools is going too deep at this point.

    Secondly, you're correct on this point, too. If you performed an 8D then you meet the requirements of everything qmr 1976 states from IATF 16949. And evaluation of the specifics of some 8Ds performed would show what tools were used. It's difficult to prescribe, other than by listing all analysis tools - which ones fit a specific 8D. They are just tools in a tool box. Calling them out, except generically in a procedure, is futile. As for citing them in a report, how is that even required? Your auditor is "fishing".
     
    Andy Nichols, May 17, 2022
    #3
  4. Charles Stanley-Grey

    Charles Stanley-Grey Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2022
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Afternoon,

    10.2.3 clearly requires it, I do not know of anyone who does not use a simple Ishikawa and 5Y Occurrence 5Y Detection. If you google around there are loads of sheets and they are super simple to use. I think it would be too easy for an auditor to pick out a finding if you do not use one of the industry standard methodologies.

    Charles
     
    Charles Stanley-Grey, Jun 8, 2022
    #4
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I can't locate where this is required...
     
    Andy Nichols, Jun 8, 2022
    #5