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.

TS audit - finding related to old control plans

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Mike Geitner, Feb 18, 2016.

  1. Mike Geitner

    Mike Geitner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Mukwonago, WI USA
    Hello,

    We recently had a TS surveillance audit. The auditor found an old control plan that has been in use since before our company became TS certified. His finding was that the control plan did not meet all the requirements in "Annex A". These control plans were all part of PPAPs to Ford Motor Company, and all had been accepted with signed PSW's.

    He said there is no grandfather clause and we'd have to update all the old control plans.

    Is he correct?


    Mike
     
  2. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Sucks to be you. :) I swear these guys go to some secret auditor pow wow -- "hey get them on Annex A."

    While there is no grandfather clause, common sense would indicate that a document created, and approved, prior to implementation of TS would not need to be updated unless issues have been found in the process that an updated control plan would address. Otherwise, you could spend years updating old documents. What's the point. Did he give you any specific deficiencies?

    Good luck. I have some left over Vodka from my audit I can send you. :)
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    So that's a good question for the OP. Has the part spec etc not been changed at all? No issues come back from Ford? None internally? Basically, everything's been fine for THAT long?
     
  4. Mike Geitner

    Mike Geitner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Mukwonago, WI USA
    Yes, everything was fine for that long. It's a very simple, stable metal stamping process.
     
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    So it was a simple thing to fix, he felt proud to find it and you'll move on, safe in the knowledge that, while he was wasting time doing that, he wasn't looking at something important...
     
    Candi1024 likes this.
  6. Mike Geitner

    Mike Geitner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Mukwonago, WI USA
    Simple to fix that particular control plan...............not so simple to fix the scores of others. That's why I'm asking the group, can an auditor force a company to bring all pre-TS certified control plans up to the current standard. It will be a lot of extra work. Ours, like most companies, does not have the resources for this kind of busy work.
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    So there are more? What were your own internal auditors doing when they audited them? Who is the owner of the "control plan"? Didn't they know about the revised version in Appendix A?
     
    MCW8888 likes this.
  8. Mike Geitner

    Mike Geitner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Mukwonago, WI USA
    I don't know, I haven't been here long enough.

    I'm still interested to know whether we have to retroactively bring old Pre-TS, customer accepted documents up to the current standard.
     
  9. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I believe, that, since the Annex Control plans are part of the ISO/TS requirements, it's not unreasonable to believe that (by now) those control plans in use, should reflect that format. The ISO/TS standard has been out for while a few years at this point.
     
    mlouc likes this.
  10. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    62
    The fix may be simple, but don't forget you now have to go thru a full root cause analysis, corrective action, blah, blah, blah. What was wrong? My guess is something not consequential.
     
  11. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Why? Correction is allowed too!
     
  12. Candi1024

    Candi1024 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I can't speak for Mike or Golfman, but we would need to because our procedures states that we will do this for all NCs found during an audit.
     
  13. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Correction has always been an option! It's one of the myths - and confusions - in the auditing of management systems. The external auditor's view is always the "iceberg" - there's more to it that they saw )or chose to spend time on). Internal audits should allow for correction. If you draw a parallel with non-conforming products, you don't do rca for every non-conformance - you fix it!
     
  14. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    42
    If there has not been any change to the products and processes what is there to change? I think you need to show the antiquated date of the Ford Specification that matches the original date of the Control Plan and take this incompetent audit to the CB. Once again if you do not like the auditor contact the CB and ask to do a Customer Satisfaction Survey in addition to the appeal process.
     
  15. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    62
    You'll need to refer to the 4th edition of the IATF rules. They seem to require the whole shebang -- correction, root cause analysis, systemic corrective action, and verification of effectiveness.
     
  16. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    62
    There could be a lot of semantic/interpretation type issues, none of which will improve their process.
     
  17. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Well you'd have to ask yourself why, if the CP format has been in there as long as TS has, why it hasn't been adopted... Usually, "no time to do it" doesn't cut it.
     
  18. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Why would you need to go backwards? I have parts in production prior to the invention of fire, let alone ISO and TS. We had control plans back in the 80s. What value was there by putting it on the "new form?" People with 100s of parts would take a year's worth of time if they did one every 2 days - a busywork nightmare.

    That's why a common sense approach works -- making the control plan revision if something changes or a new PPAP is requested, or other need arises.
     
  19. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Why is it backwards? The simple fact is that ISO/TS 16949 is written by representatives of the major automotive industry players. In the requirements is a Control Plan format which is referenced - whether or not the actual Ford SQAE etc has ever made an issue of the current condition of the form - to comply with TS, and it's reasonable to expect the Control Plans will be as shown. Once again, you can ask lots of questions about WHY it's taken so long when all this time they could have been brought up to date.

    In other discussions we have people who believe that an annual review of ALL documents is a value added thing to do, so how do you reconcile that viewpoint with the "it's been like that for ever" approach?
     
    MCW8888 likes this.
  20. Sebastian'PL

    Sebastian'PL New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Poland
    Activity which can be audited must be TS-compliant, irrespectively when it was performed.
    Otherwise auditor would be forced to accept your explanation "We knew about this nonconformity from 8 years, but we did it in the past, now we do it properly."
    It is still nonconformity and active nonconformity.
    You are still supplying customer with products which were designed/developed/validated/approved without taking into account all applicable requirements.
    Customer's approval of incomplete PPAP file does not release you from meeting all PPAP requirements.
     

Share This Page