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.

Question on a Major...

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Chris Glover, Aug 30, 2016.

  1. Chris Glover

    Chris Glover Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    17
    We have two buildings on our site - with different addresses. Our sales department moved from one building to the other..there was an expansion and there is more room in the second office.
    All business is conducted out of the original address..that is all business correspondence with our customers. During an TS audit (for a sister site...we share the sales department) a major non-conformance was written due to the address change.

    I have never heard of a finding written against the rules..Is this something that can be contested?
    Also, as the move was merely desk move and not a move of the business..
    Thoughts?


    Here is the Non-conformance as written:

    Scope: TS 85497


    Statement of non-conformance: The process to notify the Certification Body of changes is not effective.

    3.2 Notice of changes by a client

    The certification body shall have a legally enforceable agreement to ensure that the client informs the certification body, without delay, of matters that may affect the capability of the management system to continue to fulfill the requirements of the ISO/TS 16949 certification. These include, for example, changes relating to:

    a) legal status,
    b) commercial status (e.g. joint venture, sub-contracting with other organizations),
    c) ownership status (e.g. mergers and acquisitions),
    d) organization and management (e.g. key managerial, decision-making, or technical staff),
    e) contact address or location,
    f) scope of operations under the certified management system,
    g) IATF subscribing OEM customer special status (see section 8.0),
    h) major changes to the management system and processes.

    Failure by the client to inform the certification body of a change is considered as a breach of the legally
    enforceable agreement and may result in the withdrawal of the client’s ISO/TS 16949 certificate by the
    certification body.
     
  2. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    62
    A really dumb auditor. So much for customer service. The rule requires notification of a change of location, not addition of new space. It's arguable whether you have a separate location anyway. The rule also provides for the action - it may be a breech of agreement and may require withdrawl of cert. that would seem extreme in this circumstance. Good luck to you.
     
  3. Chris Glover

    Chris Glover Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    17
    I am not sure how to answer other than
    "We're sorry..smack our hands and let's move on..."

    And tell the registrar never to send that auditor again.
     
  4. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I'd reach out to the CB and indicate that all correspondence business is conducted out of the original address...it's like having a P.O. Box in town when you live out in the country.

    Not worth being a major, but I can sort of see the point. If the address is the original but the sales business (outside of correspondence) is done at a different address (even if the same property), one could find the loophole of "Hey, as long as we stay on this side of the invisible line, we don't have to do that ISO/TS stuff." It's childish, I know, and isn't the intent...but it is possible.

    How are the addresses set-up? Totally different (like XX Main Street and YY Main Street) or sub-divided (like XX-Unit 1 Main Street and XX-Unit 2 Main Street)? If the former, I'd consider including on the cert just to avoid the loophole. If the latter, can you live the subdivisions out and just say XX Main Street?
     
  5. Chris Glover

    Chris Glover Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    17
    We will answer..provide the corrective answer best we can...
    From what I understand the auditor came in with a burr under his saddle and this was the first thing out of his mouth...and he wouldn't let it go

    The sales department serves 3 sites, 2 have TS certs, the other an ISO cert. One TS site and the ISO site have had audits and this was never questioned..
    The other variable is a couple of other items, that should have been "found" at the actual site during their audit..not a remote site audit..were missed..by this same auditor and this was his chance to "set things right"
     
  6. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    62
    You may recall a few years ago when the 4th ed. rules came out there was a big issue with additional site certificates, corporate schemes, etc. We have two buildings literally separated by an alley and went spent hours arguing about it with the CB. It was typical TS - Totally Stupid. They finally came to their senses and "fixed" it by the following year.
     
    tony s likes this.
  7. Chris Glover

    Chris Glover Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Love that!
     
  8. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    42
    This is very hard. Doesn't the CB send you a pre-planning activity worksheet before they send their auditor? The pre-planning activity sheet allows you to document any changes to the scope and location, if need be. When the auditor comes he/she is suppose to check this pre-planning activity sheet to verify all the changes you declare. This nonconformance is not against TS16949 but against the ISTF rules. So try to appeal your case. Lots of luck.
     
  9. Candi1024

    Candi1024 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I may be way off the mark here, but it says e) contact address or location.

    Are you the contact? Did you move?
     
  10. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1,861
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Complain to the CB! This is NOT a QMS matter or even a rules issue. Take control over this supplier and their lack of effective training - or competent auditor - and tell them to do the audit over, at their cost! I heard a similar story this week, when a client organization got an NC for not having their WI pictures in COLOR!
     
  11. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    42
    The IATF rules are written for CB's not for your organization. Appeal this NC right away.
     
  12. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Chuckling to myself. When we evaluate suppliers, one of the items on our checklist is do they have a TS cert?
    It's threads like this that make me think "What does THAT guarantee?" I've see ridiculously effective suppliers dropped off bid lists because of not having this thing. And I've seen it hanging on the walls of suppliers that I'd swear must have had it forged.
     
  13. Chris Glover

    Chris Glover Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Our Sales department supports another location as well..this was an audit of that support function.
    This was just one of the non-sensical findings from this auditor...from what I have been told not only will they not allow this auditor to do any further audits but a search for a new registrar has begun.
     
    tony s and Candi1024 like this.
  14. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1,861
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I am not certain you understand the purpose of (ISO 9001 etc) implementation and certification. It's not and never was any kind of guarantee. All it was - and is - intended to do is to reduce the amount of supplier development work purchasers had to do to bring suppliers up to minimum level of control of product processing. FACT.

    Many have lost sight, sometime through the hype of CBs and "value added" etc. All it really says is, the organization has fairly basic "blocking and tackling" in place to minimize the opportunity of making something wrong. That's all.
     
  15. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I checked the definition on IATF Rules and don't agree that Chris' issue does warrant an issuance of a Major NC. It's not even a breach of a legally enforceable agreement.
    Does transfer of the Sales Department to another building on your site an issue related to above-quoted statement?

    If the CB says so, then it's really TS! (as per Golfman25):D
     
  16. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    That's a good point. I do get it. I just think it is time to evolve a bit. It's gotten a little lethargic. I've seen too many places with certs that did NOT have the block and tackle (admittedly outside the US) and come across too many auditors who had no clear idea of what they were auditing. I get the fact that the auditing body is a large, bureaucratic organization and as such can suffer some of the same ills.

    There are also good auditors out there. Many of who are cynical of their own organization.

    Now, if you ask me what would be better, I don't have an answer.
     

Share This Page