1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
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.

ISO/TS Clause that supports non-conformance of SWIs not being followed

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by mlouc, Apr 1, 2016.

  1. mlouc

    mlouc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Detroit
    Hello everyone. Can someone help me with the clause that most closely ties to the non-conformance finding from my recent external audit of employees not following the standard work instructions? I'm leaning towards 7.5.1 Control of Production and Service Provision. However, I'd appreciate getting some dialogue started on this issue. Thank you!
     
    mlouc, Apr 1, 2016
    #1
  2. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    62
    What section did the auditor cite? How were the swi not being followed? Could be training - 6.something?
     
    Golfman25, Apr 1, 2016
    #2
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I'd be asking the auditor for clarification! Apart from anything else, this is missing some vital information! How was the auditor reporting this?
     
    Andy Nichols, Apr 1, 2016
    #3
  4. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Out of curiosity...what was the problem?

    1. The employee not following the Work Instruction?
    2. The Work Instruction being out of date or incorrect?

    Both are problems...but they are quite different problems...oh how often we assume that the written word is true because it is written...
     
    Eric Twiname, Apr 1, 2016
    #4
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Surely, it's not the job of the auditor to guess at reasons. Some SWIs can't be followed even WITH training...
     
    Andy Nichols, Apr 1, 2016
    #5
  6. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Bottom line: What clause says that documents and actions actually have to line up with each other?
     
    Eric Twiname, Apr 1, 2016
    #6
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Who is to say, Eric? Certainly NOT the auditor! This is where subjectivity creeps in. And, worse, the REAL cause of the issue is lost through the auditing "iceberg" principle. That is, the auditor sees some ice and then stops auditing, citing "not following SWI/Procedure", when in fact there's a potentially MUCH bigger deal under the surface. The auditor should ask themselves why the SWI would be out of date. Changes made? Why didn't they flow down to the SWI? So, instead of creating a "duh" audit finding, why not dig and find the true systemic issue?
     
    Andy Nichols, Apr 1, 2016
    #7
  8. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    42
    7.5.1 is very general. Was this instruction referred in the Control Plan? He needs to find out the underlying cause of employees not following standard work instruction. First of all is the standard work instruction effective in getting the desired output? If not , then maybe there's an opportunity for improvement.
     
    MCW8888, Apr 2, 2016
    #8
  9. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    ↑
    Eric: The Work Instruction being out of date or incorrect?

    Andy: Who is to say, Eric? Certainly NOT the auditor! ......, why not dig and find the true systemic issue?

    You are correct, this is not for the auditor to do...it is for the company to do. But if the auditor does not determine whether it is the WI or the following of the WI that is the problem (by asking the company which is the issue, not the auditor choosing for themselves), they'll not get to the true systemic issue...if there is one.
     
    Eric Twiname, Apr 4, 2016
    #9
  10. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Right, Eric. Hence, "no following the SWI" as a reported NC is useless, really. All auditors should be looking at the effect downstream...
     
    Andy Nichols, Apr 4, 2016
    #10
  11. Englishman Abroad

    Englishman Abroad Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hello Mlouc,

    If it is not 100% cristal clear in the Non conformity report from your external auditor, I suggest you go back to them and ask. For a non conformity exists, there must be a requirement in the standard, and objective audit evidence to prove non conformity.

    The objective evidence will help you to identify the root cause. For example "Temporary worker A was not following work instruction 1234" is completely different from "All workers did not follow the work instructions, which were incomprehensible to them".

    Go back to the auditor and ask, if you get nowhere ask the CB, if you get nowhere change CB!
     
    Englishman Abroad, Apr 5, 2016
    #11
  12. David Bradley

    David Bradley Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Michigan
    I agree! When I teach Internal Auditing I bring out this exact issue. A nonconformity is a non-fulfillment of a requirement. In the context of auditing it is when the audit evidence does not meet the audit criteria. If I were to write this, I would not write against the standard, but against the WI, since that is the criteria. In this case, in order to make the nonconformity go away, either the evidence has to change (they follow the work instruction) or the criteria has to change. The question is which is more valid? The work instruction, or the activity? Adjusting either one will make the nonconformity disappear. However, that will not explain the "why it was allowed to happen". Perhaps conducting a 3-legged 5 Why could shed some light on the systemic issue.
     
    David Bradley, Apr 5, 2016
    #12
  13. mlouc

    mlouc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Detroit
    The finding was written against clause 7.5.1 Control of Production and Service Provision. I agree with this because some of the reasons why SWIs are effective in a production environment include: ergonomic concerns, safety concerns, minimizing employee drift, and to control variations in operator processes. The latter, I believe, speaks directly to the portion of the clause that requires that production be carried out under "controlled" conditions. While its up to the organization to define what those controlled conditions will be, a good way of proving controlled conditions existing (I believe) is the consistent use of SWIs. I would love to hear your thoughts on my position and if you believe the finding was written incorrectly. Thank you.
     
    mlouc, Apr 15, 2016
    #13