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.

4.3.1 Determining the scope of the quality management system - supplemental

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Anthony Purdie, Jul 20, 2020.

  1. Anthony Purdie

    Anthony Purdie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2020
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi everyone. My first post on the forum

    My organisations CB raised a NC in our recent surveillance audit against this clause (4.3.1).

    As part of the audit the auditors reviewed audit reports from other locations that we support and found the following:

    Objective Evidence;

    'The remote support function does not show it provides any support for my fabrication site for customer service and sales.'

    My initial instinct was to argue that this is not an issue with my site but the site we support but the auditors stated that this is an organisation wide issue that needs t be resolved at a corporate level.

    Were the auditors right to raise this NCR or do I have apoint?

    Thanks
     
  2. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    7
    First of all, welcome to the site! :) I don't know a lot about what your company does but it sounds like it's possible that an exclusion could be listed in your QMS? For example, we are not responsible for product design and we listed that in our Quality Manual. If it's not a process that can be excluded, you will have to find a way to document it in your Quality Manual.
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,606
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Welcome, Anthony:

    Can I begin by asking how long your organization has been Certified? This seems to me to be so basic that there's culpability on the Certification Body's part in not sorting this out at the Stage 1 or stage 2. Has anything structurally changed in the organization since Certification?

    Whatever, it's harsh and unnecessary for the auditor to be issuing non-conformity reports, when it could have been pointed out and you could have reviewed/dealt with the (perceived) issue. The proverbial hammer to crush a nut. I'd contact your CB management and ask them for clarification on why this is an issue now, they previous auditors have overlooked (don't accept the "sampling" excuse).
     
  4. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Good day @Anthony Purdie ;
    Is it possible for you to state the actual scope of your QMS here for us? That information would help us help you.

    Be well.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  5. Anthony Purdie

    Anthony Purdie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2020
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi John,

    My site supports various sites with various functions. In this case it we provide Sales, customer support and manufacturing. We have included this other site as part of our QMS scope and provided details to our CB. This has not been carried out by our other site however and they did not include us in their scope.

    My argument is that the NC should really be raised by the other sites CB against that site and that it is not our responsibility to ensure that they include all support sites in their scope but the auditor seen this differently and asked us to correct the issue. Perhaps from a corporate QA level.

    Thanks

    Anthony
     
  6. Anthony Purdie

    Anthony Purdie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2020
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi Andy,

    We have been IATF certified since 2018 and TS before that dating back to 2009.

    I have tried to give some more information in my reply to John above. This issue does date back to our first IATF audit where the issue was present even then (I checked).It was not noticed by the auditor at the time however. The support site has now updated their scope to include my site so in terms of immediate correction, this action is complete. I am still unsure whether we should been issued an NC however.
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,606
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Auditors only see things through those eyes. Therefore, they see something which needs to be "fixed" and all they understand is reporting non-conformities. From a CB management and client relationship POV, this is something which can be more easily fixed by liaison with the CSR or key account manager, not through the auditor. I believe it reflects badly on the relationship with their auditors that the auditors approach such an issue this way, unthinkingly, not considering that there's a long period of inaction on their part.

    I'd take it up with CB management, rejecting the NC and citing a lack of due diligence of their auditors over a prolonged period. Ask them for a Corrective Action!
     
  8. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    277
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    My response as copied from the "other" site...

    So, hopefully I understand (it may be easier for us if you refer to the various entities as "location A", "location B", etc... There are a lot of references to "we"..."other site"..."us"...."my site" etc...). Very confusing.

    At the risk of getting caught up in semantics, "Site" is by definition an entity that provides the value added work.

    If I understand correctly, ...
    1- "Your" site does manufacturing (and other activities). We'll refer to that as location "A".
    2- Location "A" holds an IATF 16949 certification as part of a corporate scheme that also includes site "B"
    3- Within the scope of the QMS at location "A", it states that location "A" receives support from location "B" for Customer Service and Sales.
    4- As part of an audit of site "A", your CB auditor wrote site "A" up with a non-conformance, because location "B" does not identify in the site "B" QMS scope, that location "B" provides "Customer Service and Sales" support to site "A".


    If my understanding above is accurate AND the auditor's review of site "B" showed that site "B" does indeed provide and control the Customer Service and Sales support as defined on site "A"'s scope, then I see no reason for a nonconformity (i.e. IATF does not have a requirement specific to this scenario).

    Is my understanding/are my scenarios accurate to your situation ?

    Be well.
     
  9. Anthony Purdie

    Anthony Purdie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2020
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi John,

    You are correct in your interpretation. Apologies for my confusing terminology. I may edit the top post to make things clearer.

    Thank you for your input this far
     

Share This Page