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.

7.5.3.2.1 Record retention

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Diego_99atv, Aug 27, 2020.

  1. Diego_99atv

    Diego_99atv Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2020
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hello

    i had a Non Conformance due a lack of record on a several Quality Alerts that was posted on the Production floor.

    The Quality Alert form asked for the signature of all the personal involved.

    The external auditor rise a NC against the clause 7.4 Communication

    i think that NC should be agaist the 7.5.3.2.1 Record retention

    Could you please help me if im wrong?
     
  2. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Good day @Diego_99atv ;
    Can you please provide the actual problem statement that the auditor provided to you? That would help us understand and assess.

    If I understand correctly, the auditor wrote a nonconformance because Quality Alerts were missing signatures. Is that correct?

    Is there an internal rule that requires signatures on the quality alerts?

    Thank you.

    Be well.
     
    Diego_99atv likes this.
  3. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    17

    Record retention has more to do with how long you keep the records for and how they are stored. The communication clause has several requirements but they ultimately depend on what your company requires, so was there something in your internal procedure that lead them to issue the NC against 7.4? I would have to see how they actually wrote up the actual finding......
     
  4. Diego_99atv

    Diego_99atv Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2020
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Thank you John for youe quick answer, yes the signatures on the quality alert is an evidence that proof that all the personal involved were notified about a Costumer complaint acording to our Costumer Complaint Procedure

    is there an specific clause that mention the lack of record on any form?
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  5. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA

    Consider this....
    The scope of the standard (paraphrased)...
    1-
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    An auditor seriously wrote this as a finding? Were all signatures missing or just a few?
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  7. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    The short answer to your latest question is "no". However, it appears your organization has clearly not conformed to the internal procedure.

    A- Consider this....

    The scope of the standard (paraphrased)...
    · Make good stuff
    · Continually improve

    8.7 (control of nonconforming product) [paraphrased]
    · Don't let bad stuff leave get delivered to the customer

    9.2 (internal audits)
    · Make sure actions conform to INTERNAL rules and the standard.

    B- Actual situation

    · Your organization has a RULE in regards to the control of non-conforming product, that states….”required people sign and post a quality alert”
    · The quality alert(s) was posted but not signed.

    C- The gap

    · There is a gap in regards to not following internal “control of nonconforming product” related procedure. If not followed, it appears your organization has determined that it could
    jeopardize the requirements of 8.7 stated above.

    D- The nonconformance.

    Not sure why the auditor would write this up against 7.5.3.2.1. That is clearly incorrect based on what I understand the situation to be. I would suggest it should go against where your procedure intended. The RISK your organization apparently determined, is a violation of 8.7.
    Therefore, I would suggest that nonconformance would be written under that clause.
    (or should internal audits have detected this? If so, 9.2)


    Summary: It seems clear that there is indeed a nonconformance because of not following internal procedural requirement, regardless of which clause the auditor chose to place it under. Choose your battles wisely.

    Hope this helps.
    Be well.
     
  8. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    You are not "wrong". To give an accurate answer, I'd need to know more. Firstly, what is the requirements? Clearly, IATF 16949 doesn't mention customer alerts of signatures. Does the organization, therefore, have signatures as a requirement? If it's simply a case of spaces for sign-offs on a form, it might be inferred that the number of places to sign off should be complete, but that's not "required" only inferred. Does a procedure specify a requirement for people to sign? If so, what doesn't signing signify? BTW these are all questions an effective auditor should have asked before taking the simply route to writing a non-conformity and having you, Diego 99atv do extra work trying to fill in this detail.

    Here's what I'd do. I'd reject the non-conformity back to the Certification Body, explaining that because it is unclear what is actually a) non-conforming and 2) ineffective, you'd like them to provide clarification. Make them do the work you paid them for.
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.

Share This Page