- 182 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
About This Book
This book addresses the essentials of an automotive audit which is required by all automotive suppliers world-wide. They are based on customer specific requirements, ISO standards, and Industry specifications. This book covers both the mandated documents and records that are necessary for compliance, with an extensive discussion on Layered Process Audits and distance auditing.
The book addresses the six standards for certification in one volume. It explains "why" and "how" an effective audit should be carried out. It identifies the key indicators for a culture change with an audit, explains the "process audit" at length, discusses the rationale for Layered Process audits and summarizes all the mandatory documents and records for all standards and requirements. The book covers the issue of risk in auditing and emphasizes the role of a "checklist" in the preparation process.
This book is for those that conduct audits, those that are interested in auditing, and those being audited. It specifically addresses automotive OEMs and their supplier base but is also of interest to anyone wanting information on auditing.
Frequently asked questions
Information
1 Legitimate Concerns about Audits
In the auto industry we are witnessing a record number of recalls in 2016 reaching 52,985,779 in total. That’s a steep number that was plumped up in large part due to the massive Takata airbag campaign that ultimately drove the Japanese company into bankruptcy. Specifically, Howard (2019) reports that “Ford workers break their silence on faulty transmissions: ‘My hands are dirty. I feel horrible.’ Ford knew Focus, Fiesta models had flawed transmission, sold them anyway. They knew the truth and kept quiet.” In 2017, Wong (2017) reports that the number of recalls was about 28,146,661 with Fiat Chrysler, Honda, Ford, Hyundai and BMW leading the way. That’s not a small number, but it’s a far cry from the 2016 levels. [It is very interesting that even GE has issues with major quality problems to the tune of $1 billion dollars due to facing potential costs in its jet engine unit from the grounding of Boeing Co’s 737 MAX airliner (Scott and Ajmera, 2019)].
-
By far, the first and most critical and common is the manipulation of data. Wrong strategy, wrong definition, wrong selection, wrong methodology, inadequate analysis, and bias presentations.
-
The second is that management knows about it, but as the workers reported in Howard (2019), “They knew the truth and kept quiet.”
-
The third is that the significant tools, i.e. APQP, FMEA (failure mode and effect analysis), and appropriate (applicable) problem-solving techniques are not conducted, or if they are, they are not done correctly. They are done to have a checklist completed for “things done” and not for improvement.
-
The fourth is (perhaps the predominant one) production is priority and nothing else matters. Quality and even safety are secondary considerations, although they are preached as priority. They are evaluated after the fact, rather than being evaluated up front.
-
The fifth reason why things are becoming problems for the customer I believe is the “laissez-faire” attitude of organizations towards audits. The intent of “audits” is to identify weakness in a system. However, in most organizations – if not all of them – audits are taken place because some “standard” or “regulation” or “specification” calls for them. Unfortunately, as many millions of dollars are spent on audits, the benefits are questionable at best, given the problems and recalls of many products. This is verified by the amount of rejects, recalls, and issue notifications to customers. Stoop (2020) reports that according to the National Safety Council, workplace fatalities have risen 17% since 2009 after decades of steady improvement in occupational safety, outpacing workforce growth over that period. At the same time, international, industrial, and customer-specific standards/requirements have increased in both volume and complexity.
-
The sixth reason is that the focus of management is short-term gains based on “quarterly earnings” and not long-term, real improvements and productivity and earnings.
-
The seventh reason is that the audits – at all levels – were not effective for whatever reason.
-
The manufacturer;
-
The age of the oldest affected vehicle;
-
The vehicle type involved (i.e. passenger cars, lights trucks, Multi-Purpose vehicles (MPVs));
-
The component category;
-
The recall safety risk description includes the word “crash”;
-
The recall safety risk description includes the word “fire”;
-
The recall safety risk description includes the word “death”;
-
The recall safety risk description includes the word “injury”;
-
The recall safety risk description includes the word “serious”;
-
The year the recall was initiated; and
-
The number of vehicles affected by the recall.
-
The combination of tests to identify “a” formulating policy by Center for Disease Control (CDC) regarding the corona virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC&P) acknowledged on Thursday that it is combining the results from viral and antibody COVID-19 tests when reporting the country’s testing totals, despite marked differences between the tests. First reported by NPR’s WLRN station in Miami, the practice has drawn ire from the US health experts who say combining the tests inhibits the agency’s ability to discern the country’s actual testing capacity. “You’ve got to be kidding me,” Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told The Atlantic. “How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess” (Johnson, 2020). Madrigal and Meyer (May 21, 2020).
-
Lancet Study (AP, 2020). One of the most prestigious health journals published a hydroxychloroquine study, even though they knew there were serious concerns about the data. The AP reported the study thusly: Concerns are mounting about studies in two influential medical journals on drugs used in people with corona virus, including one that led multiple countries to stop testing a malaria pill.
-
The New England Journal of Medicine issued an “expression of concern” on Tuesday on a study it published on May 1 (2020) that suggested widely used blood pressure medicines were not raising the risk of death for people with COVID-19. The study relied on a database with health records from hundreds of hospitals around the world. “Substantive concerns” have been raised about the quality of the information, and the journal has asked the authors to provide evidence it’s reliable, the editors wrote.
-
The same database by the Chicago company Surgisphere Corp. was used in an observational study of nearly 100,000 patients published in Lancet that tied the malaria drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to a higher risk of death in hospitalized patients with the virus. Lancet issued a similar expression of concern about its study on Tuesday, saying it was aware “important scientific questions” had been raised. For more information on the faulty data, see Ramsey (2020).
-
2 Preassessment Preparation
A Typical Internal Preassessment Survey
Table of contents
- Cover
- Half Title
- Series Page
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Dedication
- Table of Contents
- Preface
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Author
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Legitimate Concerns about Audits
- Chapter 2 Preassessment Preparation
- Chapter 3 Risk Consideration in Audits
- Chapter 4 Audits
- Chapter 5 Mandatory Auditing Items
- Chapter 6 Acronyms
- Chapter 7 Methodologies/Tools That the Auditor Should Be Familiar With
- Chapter 8 Performance beyond Specifications
- Chapter 9 Quick View of Auditing
- Chapter 10 Process Approach to Auditing
- Epilogue
- References