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.

Root Cause for Auditor/Client Interpretation Issues

Discussion in 'ISO 19011 - Auditing Management Systems Guidelines' started by Golfman25, Nov 8, 2015.

  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,968
    Likes Received:
    1,024
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    As posted before, you contact your CB management and you appeal the finding. Any time you receive an NC without a "reason", it's WRONG. Since this seems to be an on-going issue, I'd also lodge a complaint with ANAB or whomever their accreditation body is. This CB's auditors (or at least a few of them) appear to not be professionals. Did you know that some CBs hire auditors without actually checking their knowledge base?
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,968
    Likes Received:
    1,024
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    So, what equipment are you calibrating? Torque wrenches aren't "calibrated". They are set against a known - torque mastering device - as a comparitor. It's validated, at best. So, are you shooting yourself in the foot by calling it calibration? You should be better informed that the auditor. If the torque mastering device is sent out for checking and the torque wrenches are NOT calibrated, it doesn't need to be in scope. Until YOU are clear about this stuff, you will find your auditor(s) will take advantage of you.
     
  3. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    42
    We send the torque wrench out to be "calibrated" or verified, or whatever they do to make sure it gives us a good reading. We then use it to check the breakaway strength of a molded item. Less than x lbs. we are good to go. It's a pretty simple measurement.

    As I indicated when we developed our scope, we considered that this measurement was includable under general inspection using all the common gages. So we did not separate it out. For some unknown reason (I have asked several times), the auditor wants in separate. Fine, BFD, revise the scope. But now we need to so some type of root cause that will get thru and that is the current hang up.
     
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,968
    Likes Received:
    1,024
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Why are you doing this? Tell them to pack sand! Where the "requirement" to have torque in your lab scope?
     
  5. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    42
    So it the root cause is "misunderstanding intent of the requirement" then what is the systemic corrective action?
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,968
    Likes Received:
    1,024
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Find a good class on what TS 16949 implementation is all about?
     
  7. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Must be where the unicorns hang out. :)
     
  8. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    USA
    The words "process" and "map" do not appear next to each other in the standard. Maps are a phantom pseudo requirement that auditors have been expecting for so long that it's become like folk lore. Unless your customer requires one, I would challenge a NC over something like that so long as you have some means to show process interaction in your system. I have seen it done with a table and text.
     
  9. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    USA
    When used for critical components, I would expect to have some means to give yourself confidence that a torque wrench is accurate. We as a society have been interchanging the terms "calibrate" and "verify" so often and for so long that I believe it is not worth the time to argue about it. If you can't use a traceable standard, cite how the verification was done as the standard asks.
     
  10. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,968
    Likes Received:
    1,024
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Sad, but true. Worse is that people have only a little knowledge, and instead of gaining the knowledge, will allow someone with a different set of that little knowledge, make work doing something which isn't required. Better to get the knowledge to lay out a case and send the other person - with their little knowledge - packing.
     
  11. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    42
    You are correct. But it is folk lore secretly adopted by the IATF. If you look at their answers to FAQ regarding the new rules they specifically state that auditees should provide a process map as part of pre-planning.
     
    Jennifer Kirley likes this.
  12. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    42
    The torque wrench is included in our calibration system and gets sent our for calibration/verification or whatever you want to call it. It even gets a little sticker. :)

    The issue in this case was that it wasn't "included" in our laboratory scope even though we consider it part of our general inspection equipment.

    If you knew what the measurement was actually for (nothing really important at all), and how many "failures" we have had over the last 10+ years (zero), you would join me in drinking vodka heavily when dealing with this. :)
     
    normzone and Jennifer Kirley like this.
  13. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, the dreaded "should..." Things like this (also insisting clients must use the core manuals where no clear requirement exists) really turned me of AIAG and this process. I am much happier with Responsible Care than I would have been had I stayed with TS 16949... Actually the process map myth is so widely believed that I am sure lots of incorrect writeups are made for the various standards.
     
  14. normzone

    normzone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Yes, [Golfman25], but you neglected to mention what brand of vodka. With that knowledge we could replicate your process remotely.
     

Share This Page