1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
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.

Audit Non-Conformance

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Golfman25, Nov 6, 2015.

  1. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Need a little help. In the past when we have received non-conformances, the auditor identified the section of the standard clause by number and then made a statement of the "rule" and then described the evidence why he/she felt the "rule" was not met. Basically showing me the shall.

    Currently, I have an audit non-conformance and all that is indicated is the clause number. Then a statement about the process being "partially effective." This is followed by a description of the "evidence." I am having a hard time making heads or tails of it.

    Before I challenge, have audit report requirements changed? Should she be required to be more clear?
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    The clue is that you're here asking us... I'm driven to distraction when an auditor is required to make a statement of "effectiveness" but then gives no clue as to the result or the performance which backs up the statement. "Partially effective" is, what, 25%, 30%, 40%? What?
     
  3. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Who know what they where doing. However, it seems to have been fixed on the new report. Thanks.
     
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    In what way "fixed"?
     
  5. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Well frankly it is a complete cluster. So they do a draft report with like 8 issues. Two days later we get a "final" with 10 issues. I question it and am told it should be 8, only to be told a few days later, no its 10. The draft report didn't indicate the standard language at issue, just the number. So I spent two days trying to figure out what they where talking about. The new report quotes the language, so in that respect it is "fixed." However, some of the "evidence" doesn't even come close to matching the subject matter of the particular section of the standard. All I really want to do is figure out what they are talking about so I can determine what to do. Is that too much to ask?

    Gosh, I miss the old Elsmar Cove. A lot of the issues had been previously addressed there over the years.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Find another CB! Don't pay for this audit until they fix the report to be helpful.
     
    Tom Waite, MCW8888 and Bev D like this.
  7. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Please go to the appeal process to justify the nonconformance. Simply make a phone call to the CB. There is something wrong with the auditor, not the CB.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  8. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Maybe there is! How does a CB allow this type of thing to happen? Many CBs take little/no care in ensuring their auditors are competent. One of them tried to hire me and didn't have any method to check on me, other than I was listed as an RAB Lead Auditor...
     
  9. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    We have been using this CB (and their predecessors) for 3 cycles. In the past, the auditors have all be really good. Unfortunately, IATF is driving auditors out of the TS business due to their onerous requirements. I have already had 2 good ones "retire" from TS and another will likely once the kids are out of school. So we got stuck with this one - the classic nit picker who then goes on to make reporting errors. With less and less TS auditors, the workloads and travel have expanded for the existing ones. Nobody in their right minds would continue under those circumstances indefinitely.
     
    Jennifer Kirley likes this.
  10. Rich008

    Rich008 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    North West - UK
    This sounds like a TS auditor I have had in the past... :mad:

    What is the process they are saying is partially effective?
     
  11. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    42
    As a client we need to submit a Customer Satisfaction Survey after an audit. I will be asking my CB have the auditors leave a CSI survey after they complete a surveillance audit. And I will suggest that the report on the CSI has to be submitted to IAOB for disposition.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  12. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    So when I appeal, do I appeal the finding, i.e.; the "evidence." Or the application of the evidence to the standard clause? Or both.
     
  13. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I believe you should lay out the entire set of issues you are unhappy about. From the auditor's lack of clarity on what was being reported to the low level of service in the delays getting the - inaccurate - report to you. If you have yet to be invoiced for the trip then suggest to them that you won't be paying until resolution to your satisfaction has been achieved.
     
  14. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    So can I appeal a "finding" which cites the wrong clause of the standard, even though it may be valid against another clause? Or will they just revise the finding to the proper clause?
     
  15. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Yes! Shouldn't a report be accurate? If you don't have correct information to bring to the table for management review, why pay for the service of being certified? IS it a typo? Did the auditor not "get" what they were reporting? If you are left to make assumptions, the auditor isn't doing their job.

    Of course, given the fact that your CB appears to hire poor quality auditors, I'd suggest that they'll simply correct the paperwork - but that tells you a LOT about their understanding of corrective action (given the total picture of this auditor's performance).
     
    SteveO likes this.
  16. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    42
    ABSOLUTELY!!! My TS auditor has been giving us what could be classified as "bogus" findings but since they are minor, Top Management does not want to appeal. In the future, when an auditor gives you a non-conformance, I suggest that you and the auditor read the standard "verbatim" and ask him (where is the requirement?) If he paraphrase the standard and you have a different interpretation, that is a ground for appeal.
     
  17. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    I'm not ready the throw my CB under the bus yet. This is the first bad auditor we have had from them. We'll see how they handle it from here.
     
  18. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I didn't mention throwing anyone under a bus... Bearing in mind this auditor doesn't save up this kind of poor performance just for you! The CB has to have a review of the auditors' reports. If you're OK with having them simply fix a typo go ahead and do that. Earlier, you mentioned it was a "complete cluster". I'm wondering why you're asking for advice here, in that case. Or do you have a bigger problem with the auditor than a simple error of paperwork?
     
  19. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    As I said, we have had good luck with previous auditors from the CB. Maybe this guy had a bad day. I'll give them a chance to review an appeal and go from there.
     
  20. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    42
    And so it goes. Seems like my CB is spooked by the IATF. It appears to me that the IATF is really putting the hammer down and taking all discretion/judgment away from the auditors. All the findings I have read like bullet points from findings the IATF have given them. Things that have been reviewed and effective for years are now insufficient. New interpretations are effectively adding new requirements. Looks like I am stuck deciphering the report and creating a bunch of new non value added documents because the IATF says so. Common sense has left the building.
     

Share This Page