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.

Scope questioned

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Adriane, Nov 5, 2015.

  1. Adriane

    Adriane Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    During our last surveillance audit our auditor noted that our scope was in need of review. "Per Rules, this scope is inappropriate, please review. It should not contain "for the automotive industry"." I'm not seeing that in the 4th edition IATF Rules. Anyone?
     
  2. Candi1024

    Candi1024 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I'm not sure of the answer here, but is it possible that you actually produce for more than just the automotive industry so they want you to expand your scope?

    I don't know if that would even matter.
     
    Nikki likes this.
  3. Nikki

    Nikki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Maine
    I was wondering the same as Candi1024. Our scope states "for the medical industry" and I have never heard of such a rule.
     
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Did you receive a non-conformity? If this has been your scope for some time and the auditor is finding fault with it, take it up with your CB! THEY should have sorted it out, not you! Which specific "rule" are they thinking/citing? I'd be pushing this type of thing back to your CB for their comment. Either the CB is asleep or their auditor is off the rails...
     
    Jim Gardner likes this.
  5. Adriane

    Adriane Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Thank you for your replies. We did not receive a specific nonconformity for this but it is highlighted in yellow on the first page of the Audit Report. This has been our scope for years. I have read the rules multiple times and cannot find anything regarding this statement. As to being "off the rails", yes this auditor seemed to be during the audit. It's pretty bad when you'd almost rather endure a witnessed audit to avoid all of the interpretation that seems to happen as of late o_O. Again thank you all for your replies. I believe that our scope shall remain as is.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Hopefully, you'll inform your CB of this bogus issue, ask them to redact it from the report and NOT to send that auditor again. Please do this, since the CB may not be aware of the nature of these issues.
     
  7. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    42
    If you received a nonconformity that requires a corrective action, then please challenge the finding and report ot your CB. During the closing meeting, please ask the auditor to read verbatim what the Rule#, or the TS standard that your organization is violating. If the auditor is paraphrasing the rules or TS standard, then there is a justification for an appeal. There is nothing wrong with CB's. The auditors need to be disciplined or witnessed by IAOB.
     
    Adriane likes this.
  8. Kathleen Karlis

    Kathleen Karlis New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hopefully your CB has responded to you by now. But I want to add some comments to let you know that the auditor's comments were valid. In Rules 4th Edition 5.13 b) it states that the certificate shall "include all design and manufacturing activities ...". When this clause was explained to the CBs at the November 2013 IATF Global Conference, which was held to explain Rules 4th requirements, CBs were instructed "for consistency" that certificates "shall not include: for the auto industry". Therefore, I think this is probably your first recertification audit since Rules 4th went into effect and is why the auditor added the comments to the audit report.
     
    Adriane and Sidney Vianna like this.
  9. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Since this was an instruction to the CB, I'm thinking it would have been a lot more effective to have sent out a pro-forma letter to their TS clients with the advisory, rather than leaving it to individual auditors to deal with? The certificate is, after all, the property of the CB and, as such it should have been re-issued. Now, it appears they have made the client responsible - and reported it as such - that the cert scope is now incorrect.

    Sad, when it's supposed to come from a provider of services...
     
    Adriane likes this.
  10. Adriane

    Adriane Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    FINALLY! I asked my CB and their reply was just that per the Rules 4th, it needed to be removed. Thank you Kathleen for a more specific reply.
     
    Kathleen Karlis likes this.
  11. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    42
    So they are making up the rules as they go along? Nice. What difference does it make if you have "for the auto industry?" Maybe they should worry about actual problems instead?
     
  12. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    In talking with my technical people, it seems it's not a "rule" as such but a "preference" of specific IAOB oversight organizations. Since the TS requirements ONLY apply to automotive suppliers, SOME individuals believe having the words "for the automotive industry" (or similar) is redundant. That's ALL this really is, IMHO...
     
    Adriane likes this.
  13. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    42
    In other words, a complete waste of time to even worry about. I am beginning to think more an more that TS stands for "Totally Stupid."
     
    Adriane likes this.
  14. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    One auditor's comment, based on what is a (small and possibly redundant) scope statement doesn't make a "totally stupid" automotive industry quality system requirement, surely?
     
  15. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    42
    But for the fact that this wasn't just "one auditor's comment" you would be right. However, see Kathleen's post above. Apparently, this significant issue was revealed at some big IATF conference "explaining" the new rules. That's value added if I have ever seen it. I hope they at least got a free drink ticket to learn that one.
     
  16. Sidney Vianna

    Sidney Vianna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    42
    The certification body is responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the scope of certification. So if something needs correction, send it back to the certification body and tell them to fix it.
     
    Adriane likes this.

Share This Page