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.

Repeat nonconconformance during IATF audit leading to major nonconformance

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Pondo, Mar 27, 2019.

  1. Pondo

    Pondo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Does anyone know how you go about formulating a corrective action for a major ncr due to a repeat ncr from the previous year?

    I now have two major nonconformances I need to answer...but they ultimataly address the same thing. (Product Identification)

    I guess the second should address why we failed to fix it after last year's finding...but does't the corrective action turn out to be the same...we need to fix our product identification issue?

    It just seems to me I will be answering to ncr's with the same corrective action.

    I hope I am asking the question clearly. Thanks.
     
  2. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    351
    Trophy Points:
    62
    No. You have two. One on the original issue -- product identification. And the second one on your corrective action process -- the assumption being that you have an ineffective correction action process because you failed to "fix" the problem.

    Starting with the corrective action process. Why didn't it correct the problem? My guess is your root cause analysis failed (of course that assumes the true root cause is 100% fixable and not just manageable). So your corrective action might be some root cause education, or using the various forms available (5 why, fishbone, etc.). Once you figure out where you corrective action system failed and fix that. Then tackle the underlying product identification problem.

    Assuming your product ID wasn't a real high risk, you can't than the IATF people for this fun. I find a good bottle of Vodka helps. Good luck.
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I've encountered this before. Trouble was the audit led us a merry dance! TBH, since its a CB rule, I'd be contacting them directly (not through the auditor) and have them lay out the expectations for your responses. The auditor I encountered changed their mind at every submission!
     
  4. Pondo

    Pondo Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Thanks guys!
     
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    In thinking this through further, be careful to select the appropriate method to do root cause. I've found that if the nc which is being reported isn't actually a systemic type issue, trying to do a 3L 5W will tie you in knots and a simple 5W would have been far more appropriate.
     
    Pondo likes this.
  6. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    977
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Very true. Granted, I find that a 5W can sometimes be too simplistic an approach on a larger issue where the nonconformance was the result of a "perfect storm" of root causes. In these situations, I like using a fishbone diagram with input from various stakeholders. By highlighting all the possible variables that led to the situation and then determining which ones will be used as the basis for the action plan, there's the ability to correlate actions to cause, and, should there be a need at a later date, add new actions (to new causes) if results/outcomes aren't going in the desired direction.
     
    Jennifer Kirley likes this.
  7. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    IATF Rules section 5.11.5 specifies "In cases where the accepted corrective action plan for a minor nonconformity is found to be not effectively implemented, a new major nonconformity shall be issued against the corrective action process and the previous minor nonconformity reissued as a major nonconformity"

    What if an NC with this nature occurs? "When evaluating the action needed for a nonconformity the organization could consider that there might be instances where the cause of a nonconformity cannot be eliminated, therefore, the organization should consider taking actions to be able to detect and minimize the effects of the nonconformity if it were to occur again" - (section 10.2.1 of ISO/TS 9002:2016)

    How can CB auditors reconcile the two statements?
     
  8. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    351
    Trophy Points:
    62
    They can't and IATF doesn't care. :)
     
  9. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    If a major NC was raised against the corrective action process during the first surveillance audit due to an ineffective corrective action found in a minor NC that was raised in the initial certification audit, then, on the 2nd surveillance audit, another ineffective corrective action for a different minor NC was found, this would mean another major NC for the corrective action process.

    If this kind of situation is happening on organizations certified to IATF 16949 all over the world, then maybe ISO and IATF need to change the definition of a corrective action:
    • "Action to eliminate the systemic cause of a detected nonconformity" by IATF Rules;
    • "Action to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent recurrence" by ISO 9000:2015.
     
  10. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    351
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Automotive lives in a dream world of lowest price and zero defects. They think everything is permanently correctable. Sure, but at what cost?
     
    tony s likes this.
  11. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Why should a "corrective action plan for a minor NC that is found to be not effectively implemented" translate into a major NC? For instance, if I plan to implement a corrective action within one month from the time the minor NC was raised but was delayed for another two months due to some constraints, this can be considered "ineffective implementation of a corrective action plan". Why? Because effectiveness is defined as the "extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results are achieved".

    IATF should stick with their definition of a major NC. If they hatched an arbitrary form of it, this will be prone to impositions of CB auditors. If IATF don't want to share the wisdom behind the conversion from minor to major, then at least, revised the definition of major NC in the terms and definitions section of the IATF Rules. It doesn't include the ineffective implementation of a corrective action plan for a minor NC as specified in 5.11.5.
     
  12. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It gives auditors a stick to beat supplier, instead of making the auditors audit properly. Just recently I walked some people through their own corrective action/problem solving documentation: a procedure, a flowchart AND a turtle diagram and compared to the CQI20 document. All of it failed badly. The documents didn't even consider root cause! Yet, some IATF qualified auditor is supposed to have audited that! Bizarre!
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019

Share This Page