Who has had a Transition Audit from TS 16949 to IATF 16949

Dave Cx said:

Yes when it came to the actual audit my auditor added a day so 3 + 1/2 a day to write it up. I have the IATF rules also, being as this is a transition audit I understand it counts as an "Initial certification Stage 2 audit" The audit days quoted are a minimum.
Dave

Click to expand...

Did they quote you for 2 days? Did they requote you after the auditor changed the duration of the auditor? They SHOULD have quoted you an accurate estimate of days - that's their contractual agreement which they are supposed to have...

Andy
Actually no the audit was arranged for 2 days at the previous surveillance (6 months prior), we have increased head count (to 24) since then, so the 3 days for the re-certification was correct to IATF rules.

On reflection I should have advised in advance of the increased head count, if he wasn't able to increase to 3 audit days then it would have meant re-scheduling which would have caused a problem as my TS cert is close to expiring.
Dave

We had our transition audit in November and it didn't go well at all. We've gone the last 3 years with TS with 1 minor NC found during the re-certification audit two years ago, zero NC last year. During the transition audit we were hit with 4 majors and 15 minors. We were able to overturn 2 on appeal but now it seems our auditor has taken offence to the appeal because getting the minors closed has been impossible with the constant requests for more evidence.

From what I'm hearing from others auditors, they are afraid to not write every little finding they have. We've switched from auditing the intent of the standard to the letter of the standard. Painful would be an understatement.

When during audit I've been asked "How are we doing?" I always replied in two ways: "Fatally, 0 NC so far." or "4 NCs, he (auditor) can finally see." As you see there are different perspectives.
Chin up, other posters here would be more sympathetic, for sure.

Well we (my manager and I) worked intensely over the last year on our transition. We picked apart every shall statement and section one by one. Then went back and double checked the old verbiage, the supporting documentation, and made sure that every loop was closed by a meeting, document, and or action. It was not easy, and I am lucky that my manager has been doing this for a dozen years, because this was my first go around and it has me a bit baffled still. And in the end, we passed with 4 minors which we reconciled, and we are now certified.
But I am also hearing horror stories of excessive interpretation and other issues. In the end, I wish everyone in this boat the best of luck.:

Our company sells just to automotive and we had our audit with 9 minors and no majors. We have one where we don't have an ethics escalation policy in our handbook. It was verbal open door policy for anything. Items like this when doing a root cause should be easy because the new standard requirement is different and we missed it or overlooked it.
But is this enough? On a fishbone, nothing but man or method can be used and the root cause is we overlooked it. The auditor wants good hard countermeasures because in the past they we not so good. This is not a product where I can dig into it, any ideas how to make it better or more robust ? Thanks for your help

BuckeyeMike said:

We had our transition audit in November and it didn't go well at all. We've gone the last 3 years with TS with 1 minor NC found during the re-certification audit two years ago, zero NC last year. During the transition audit we were hit with 4 majors and 15 minors. We were able to overturn 2 on appeal but now it seems our auditor has taken offence to the appeal because getting the minors closed has been impossible with the constant requests for more evidence.

From what I'm hearing from others auditors, they are afraid to not write every little finding they have. We've switched from auditing the intent of the standard to the letter of the standard. Painful would be an understatement.

Click to expand...

Yeah. They have really cracked the auditors recently. You have been running pretty good for several years, and then all of the sudden you "stink." It's a bunch of BS.

Jimr2011 said:

Our company sells just to automotive and we had our audit with 9 minors and no majors. We have one where we don't have an ethics escalation policy in our handbook. It was verbal open door policy for anything. Items like this when doing a root cause should be easy because the new standard requirement is different and we missed it or overlooked it.
But is this enough? On a fishbone, nothing but man or method can be used and the root cause is we overlooked it. The auditor wants good hard countermeasures because in the past they we not so good. This is not a product where I can dig into it, any ideas how to make it better or more robust ? Thanks for your help

Click to expand...

This is where their corrective action requirements to fix non-conformances is silly -- every problem is a nail, so ever solution is a hammer. You either overlooked it or assumed your "open door" policy should cover it (which in my opinion, it should for smaller companies). Change some words, fix it and move on to more important things. But noooooo. You have to jump through all sorts of hoops to satisfy some auditor/CB. Value added for sure. Good luck.

Had our transition audit to ISO & IATF, 6 man days. 3 minors, only one related to the new requirements. 7.5.1.1.d, linkage of CSRs to the QMS. We identified linkage to our QMS processes where requirements were addressed, but the expectation is that the linkage is more discreet, down to the relevant procedure. The clause does not state that level of detail.
Other than that, I'm satisfied with the results and appreciative of the information provided here for reference as well as the efforts put forth by our organization to accomplish this task.
Some info to share... Be prepared to show your traceability plan(s), including external providers. Process for deeming internal auditors competent, must start with a person that is deemed competent or another defined method. They really drilled for evidence of remote support. Looked for evidence of determining context, interested parties and risk assessment throughout the organization. Process for Special characteristics identified externally or internally with ties to product safety related products. Etc., etc...

I wish everyone luck with their transitions!

ksanders said:

Just completed our transition audit to IATF 16949.

12 minors non-conformances and 1 major. Nothing we can't correct quickly and move forward.

Two auditors for two days (relatively small site remote location) IATF should have modified the rules to allow remote sites to stay with TS until the main site had their transition audit. This would have benefited our site in the audit.

Click to expand...

My transition audit was back in October 2017 where I had 2 Minor NC's, we did the RCA and Corrective Actions and submitted to the Registrar in December, yesterday I received the confirmation that we are now certified. What I take from the experience, for the implementation it was frustrating, the experience during the audit my thoughts were that the auditors still don't know what to look for and its going to take time to build the auditing criteria for this new standard.