STANDARDS
OUTLOOK
Tips for Automotive Auditors
by R. Dan Reid
I
SO 9000 has taken more than its
fair share of criticism, largely due
to the variation in international
third-party conformity assessment.1 A
significant difference in auditor and
registrar auditing competence is
caused by factors such as education,
training and experience.2
There are also systemic problems.
The oversight function3 design of the
international third-party conformity
assessment process has not consistent-
ly provided customer organizations
with confidence in the overall process.
The system design with respect to
the revenue stream contributes to the
problem. Companies contract with
registrars for auditing and certifica-
tion services so are viewed as cus-
tomers.
Another group of key customers are
the companies purchasing your orga-
nization’s product. They are the direct
customers of the quality system certi-
fication status of their suppliers. Yet,
because they are out of the revenue
stream, registrars usually don’t view
them as customers of the audit
process or results.
Initiatives To Reduce Variation
These were key concerns of
Chrysler (now DaimlerChrysler), Ford
FIGURE 1 Evaluating Effectiveness
Requirement
Process
System
72 I MAY 2004 I www.asq.org
and GM, who I’ll refer to as original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in
the rest of this article, when they were
designing QS-9000 and their recog-
nized third-party certification process.
OEM efforts to reduce
variation in conformity
assessment make
continual learning
essential.
Based on responses from a survey
of registrars from around the world,
QS-9000 Appendices B, G and H were
developed and made a condition of
achieving OEM recognition of the reg-
istrar ’s certificates. Despite much
OEM work to reduce variation in the
third-party conformity assessment
process (such as auditor qualification)
used to support the launch of QS-
9000, additional measures became
necessary.
One of these measures was an audi-
tor recertification process. This was
designed first to test the auditors’
knowledge of the QS-9000 require-
Are actions taken to address a
requirement effective in meeting
or exceeding the intent of the standard?
Are the operation and control of processes
effective in meeting planned results and
meeting or exceeding the intent of the
standard?
Is the management system effective
in meeting planned arrangements and
meeting or exceeding the intent of the
standard?
ments and their ability to properly
apply their knowledge in a variety of
given scenarios.
Where the testing revealed insuffi-
ciency, the process design required
auditors to take additional OEM sanc-
tioned classes to supplement or
update their competence to continue
as OEM recognized QS-9000 auditors.
This measure required recertification
every three years.
In today’s world, change is one of
the only constants, so it is critical for
auditors and registrars to make con-
certed efforts to keep their knowledge
and skills up-to-date.
Examples of Required
Auditor Skills
To add value, auditors should be
agents for positive change. In addition
to the requirement of bringing specific
industry experience to the audit
process, it is helpful if they are skilled
in process engineering or reengineer-
ing.4
An auditor should be able to readily
identify the inputs, outputs and
requirements of any process and
determine or confirm the key charac-
teristics, 5 inputs and outputs of the
process.
These characteristics can be either
variable or attribute. The OEMs pub-
lished a common statistical process
control (SPC) reference manual to pro-
vide common methodology for
understanding variation, process
capability or performance, control and
improvement.
Since its release in 1992, a strong
bias toward the use of variable data
has resulted in an underutilization of
process controls for attribute data.
While OEM and supplier quality has
continued to improve, many supplier
caused OEM quality problems today
result from attribute characteristics.6
Chapter three of the SPC manual is
dedicated to attribute control charts
and should be familiar to QS-9000
auditors.
Auditors must also review the OEM
customer quality feedback reports ➤
STANDARDS
OUTLOOK

of the auditees.7 Information in these
reports can and should be a major
consideration in determining the
effectiveness of the auditee’s process-
es and system.
Evaluating Effectiveness
One of the OEM survey questions
asked of auditors in designing the QS-
9000 third-party certification require-
ments was whether the auditors
evaluated the effectiveness of the
actions taken by auditees to address a
requirement.
Some indicated they did not because
they were only to verify whether the
auditees (the experts) were doing
what they said they were going to do.
Others indicated they made some
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
actions taken. The OEMs then made
the latter a QS-9000 Appendix B
requirement to increase confidence in
the eventual audit results.
Auditors must be able to evaluate
effectiveness on at least three levels (see
Figure 1, p. 72). They need to deter-
mine whether the:
• Actions taken to address a require-
ment are effective in meeting or
exceeding the intent of the stan-
dard.
• Operation and control of processes
are effective in meeting planned
results and meeting or exceeding
the intent of the standard.
• The management system is effec-
tive in meeting planned arrange-
ments and meeting or exceeding
the intent of the standard.
Process Capability
Process controls are widely used in
industry today. But process design
leading to a process capable of pro-
ducing the desired result all the time
must come before process control or
there will be inherent problems in the
process with no planning for mitigat-
ing potential downstream effect.
Process capability from a statistical
point of view is a function of tolerance
spread. The auditor should determine
whether characteristic tolerances were
based on statistical methodology. If
not, process capability or performance
index (Cpk or Ppk) values may not be
much help in determining whether
the process (at the characteristic level)
is, in reality, capable.
Regardless, the auditor should look
to downstream process results (scrap,
rework and customer complaints, for
example) to determine whether the
system is capable at a higher level.
Automotive OEM quality expectations
are at high level, less than 25 parts per
million for example, at a part number
level. Wherever possible, error proof-
ing methods should be in place rather
than relying on detection and correc-
tion of problems after they occur.
Measurement Systems Analysis
The amount of measurement varia-
tion as a percentage of the total toler-
ance spread must be understood to
determine process capability. Auditors

What’s the real cost

of inefficiency?...
Lost time... staff morale...
quotes... flexibility...
competitive edge...
customers... turnover...
profitability... MONEY!

ISO9000 can stop it today.

Call IMSM now at

1 800 708 8856
email: sales@imsm.com
Please quote ref: QP International
Management Systems
www.imsm.com Marketing

74 I MAY 2004 I www.asq.org

must have a basic understanding of
measurement bias, linearity, stability
and gage repeatability and repro-
ducibility studies.
Measurement system analysis com-
prehends operator-to-operator varia-
tion and same operator variation over
time. The OEMs published a common
measurement systems analysis manu-
al for suppliers in 1990. Auditors
should understand the key detailed
guidance in this manual, which goes
well beyond the ISO 9001 require-
ments for monitoring and measuring
processes or product.
several key points for automotive
auditors to understand about FMEAs.
To be effective, the FMEA must be a
live document, updated with informa-
tion fed back from the field, including
items such as warranty and customer
complaints. It is important the FMEA
be worked from the left to right sides
of the form, which means initial high
risk priority numbers (RPN) are
addressed to mitigate the effects of a
potential failure, and the RPNs are
recomputed and reprioritized on the
right side of the form based on these
initial actions.
Attempts should be made in the
process design stage to error proof
tooling, machinery and equipment.
Where the RPN or severity rating
remains high on the right side of the
FMEA form, these characteristics
should be designated as critical by the

Know the Terminology

*
With regard to process capability,
auditors must know the difference
between process capability, stability
and targeting. With regard to process
control, they must know the difference
between special and common cause
variation. They should know and be
able to determine proper application
of variable and attribute control charts
and how the charts can be used for
Highest Quality...
Laboratory accredited
process improvement. Guidance is
provided in the OEM’s SPC manual. to ISO/ IEC 17025
Effective communication depends
on a good understanding of the defin- Quick Turnaround Time...
itions of terms. This is especially criti- Prevents costly downtime
cal in standards work, as evidenced
by ISO 9000, a separate standard in Excellent Value...
the ISO 9000 series devoted only to Long-form certificates
terminology, and by other docu- with test data
ments—ISO 8402 for example.
The OEMs recognized this need Reliable Support...
during the global launch of QS-9000,
Factory-trained metrologists
when many questions led to the pub-
lication of QS-9000 sanctioned inter-
pretations. Convenient Reminders...
There are now 85 automotive sector When recalibration is due
specific definitions in QS-9000 to sup-
*Please consult our scope of accreditation
plement the ISO 9000 terminology doc- for a list of capabilities.
uments. Auditors must be students of
the ISO 9000/QS-9000 language to be
relevant and add value to audits. A InnoCal ™ offers NIST-traceable calibration
review of this terminology should be a services on a wide variety of instruments:
core component of continuing educa- • Barometers • Multimeters • Stroboscopes
tion programs for automotive auditors. • Dataloggers • pH/mV meters • Tachometers
Potential FMEA • Flowmeters • Pipettes/Dispensers • Temperature
• Glass thermometers • Pressure/Vacuum meters and probes
The OEMs published a common ref-
• Humidity instruments • Recorders • Timers/Stopwatches
erence manual for failure mode and
effects analysis (FMEA) in 1993. FMEA • Infrared thermometers • Refractometers
did not originate in the automotive
sector, but it has proven to be an effec- Call toll-free 866-INNOCAL or visit
tive risk management tool for a num-
ber of industries over time. There are InnoCalSolutions.com today!
QUALITY PROGRESS I MAY 2004 I 75
 Quality REVIEWS STANDARDS
OUTLOOK
ADVERTISEMENT

Machine/Process Capability Study supplier on the FMEA form and carried forward to the part
number control plan and appropriate work instructions to
A comprehensive step-by-step
mitigate the effects of a potential failure downstream—in
approach to characterize and opti-
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W

mize machines and processes to manufacturing or assembly.

achieve six sigma. Newly revised,
based on the original book, which
kick-started the six sigma imple-
mentation at Motorola.
Tried and tested by world-class
organizations. Ideal for all individ-
uals involved in improving
processes. 340 pg. $75+SH.
Author Mario Perez-Wilson.
Corporate Training Available
Advanced Systems Consultants
Tel: 480-423-0081 * Fax: 480-368-0614
www.mpcps.com * asc@mpcps.com
Opportunities for Improvement
The OEMs require auditors of QS-9000 to identify oppor-
tunities for improvement in their audit report—a signifi-
cant departure from the third-party conformity assessment
expectations of ISO 9000 auditors. This adds value and ben-
efits the auditee’s customers.
Many third-party auditors are excellent and dedicate
themselves to exceeding their client’s expectations. As with
law enforcement officers, however, there is a tendency over
time for auditors to view themselves, rather than the stan-
dard, as the authority.
Registrars must ever be on the alert to prevent this
mind-set in their auditors. The future success of the inter-
national third-party conformity assessment process in part
depends on it.

NOTES AND REFERENCE

1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology Guidance on Federal
Conformity Assessment, 15 CFR Part 287, effective Aug. 10, 2000, says confor-
mity assessment means any activity concerned with directly or indirectly
ASQ MARKETPLACE

determining requirements are fulfilled. It includes sampling and testing;

http://www.asq.org/shop/marketplace
Need Solutions? Look to ASQ
You’ve been assigned a project. You have been searching
for solutions. Look no further. ASQ Quality Marketplace is
your premier resource for quality products, services, and
information. We connect you with solutions from the man-
ufacturing, health care, service, and education industry.
ASQ Sales 800-248-1946
inspection; supplier’s declaration of conformity; certification; quality and
environmental management system assessment and registration; accredita-
tion; and recognition. Conformity assessment activities may be conducted
by the supplier (first party) or by the buyer (second party) either directly or
by another party on the supplier’s or buyer’s behalf, or by a body not under
the control or influence of either the buyer or the seller (third party).
2. In this article, “registrar” is synonymous with “certification body.”
3. A national accreditation body, typically a government agent, provides
oversight of the registrar process for registrars who have contracted with it
for its service.
4. The minimum knowledge for registrar auditors for QS-9000 and
ISO/TS 16949 is specified by the OEMs and is the basis for auditor certifica-
tion testing and training. These OEM requirements are not addressed in
their entirety in this article, and some of this article’s content goes beyond
the OEM specification.
5. While an auditor is prohibited from being a consultant to the same
organization, he or she should have this same ability. See ISO DIS
10019:2003 Guidelines for the Selection of Quality Management System
Consultants and Use of Their Services, clause 4.2.4.2.
6. R. Dan Reid, “Characteristic Management,” Quality Progress, November
2003.
7. The auditee is the company being audited, not just the employee to
whom a question is addressed.

R. DAN REID, an ASQ Fellow and certified quality engineer, is a pur-

chasing manager at GM Powertrain. He is co-author of the three editions
of QS-9000; ISO/TS 16949; the Chrysler, Ford and GM Advanced
Product Quality Planning With Control Plan; Production Part
ASQ MAGAZINE

Approval Process; and Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

manuals; the current version of ISO 9001; and ISO IWA 1. He was also
the first delegation leader of the International Automotive Task Force.
Free Quality Progress Update!
If you’d like to preview the next issue of Quality Progress,
subscribe to our FREE electronic newsletter, QP Update,
a summary of the next issue’s contents. Visit
http://listserv.asq.org/mailman/listinfo/qpupdate for Please
delivery options and instructions on how to subscribe. comment
Stay on top of the issues affecting the quality profession If you would like to comment on this article, please post
with QP Update! your remarks on the Quality Progress Discussion Board
ASQ 800-248-1946 at www.asq.org, or e-mail them to editor@asq.org.

76 I MAY 2004 I www.asq.org