Gray areas of vda 6.3 process auditors

Please share your feedback on kiranwalimbe@live.com
I have, not only been auditing, but also
related subjects, for over 7 years now. During this period, I have had the opportunities of
cross tallying the expectations of VDA 6.3
version – against actual knowledge levels of the aspiring practitioners;
but also from outside India, in countries ranging from Egypt to Singapore. I have found that
the following topics are on the top of the list when it comes to
not a hard and fast rule covering all, this
participants. The top five gray topics are:
1. NTF guidelines (P3.4, P4.7, P7.4*)
2. Trigger matrix as per VDA volume 2 (P6.1.5*)
3. Ergonomically designed workstations (P6.4.4)
4. Critical path method of Project Management (P2.2, P2.3)
5. Contingency planning (P3.4, P4.7, P7
During the formal training of VDA 6.3 Process auditing, there is hardly any scope for
detailed coverage of these topics. However, I do share snippets of what these subjects are
all about. I wish to share my notes
you, who are practitioners of Process auditing as per VDA 6.3, to kindly share your views,
feedbacks and thoughts on these.
NTF Process:
“The analysis process for 0-km and field complaints is planned for delivery. The customer
requirements are, taken into account for field failure analysis.
implementation - NTF process.”
Although not mentioned anywhere as a part of ‘Minimum requirements relevant for
assessment’, ‘NTF Process’ is mentioned in the column for ‘Examples for Implementation’ for
the questionnaire nos. P3.4, P4.7, P7.4*; in the Red Book. This also happens to be o
the knowledge requirements for IATF 16949. So, when I set out to gather the VDA’s
expectations of this subject, I first discovered a brief mention of NTF Process in the training
material of VDA 6.3 – 2010, which was issued to me by my German trainer
2013. It does contain a case study spelt out only one slide, related to a case of a resolution
of NTF complaint of non-functioning of a CD/DVD changer by making use of the NTF
process. This was a case study of investigations done after the rece
VDA’s publication titled ‘Marketing and Service
treatment to this subject. The detailed procedure has got several steps of implementation.
These are: Data collection and evaluation
data, Classification of customer complaints, Diagnosis results, etc.) Supplier data (like part
analysis, Comprehensive failure data
data and information including
any; Supportive techniques like
Kepner_Tregoe (KT) analysis, cross
related documentations. As one can se
fact’ or re-active. They will suit the intent of P7.4* which asks, “If there are deviations from
I have, not only been auditing, but also been imparting formal training of VDA 6.3 and
cross tallying the expectations of VDA 6.3 – 2010 version as well as the current 2
against actual knowledge levels of the aspiring practitioners; not only
in countries ranging from Egypt to Singapore. I have found that
the following topics are on the top of the list when it comes to inadequate clarity. Though
not a hard and fast rule covering all, this observation does cover a large number of
cipants. The top five gray topics are:
NTF guidelines (P3.4, P4.7, P7.4*)
Trigger matrix as per VDA volume 2 (P6.1.5*)
Ergonomically designed workstations (P6.4.4)
Critical path method of Project Management (P2.2, P2.3)
Contingency planning (P3.4, P4.7, P7.3*)
the formal training of VDA 6.3 Process auditing, there is hardly any scope for
all about. I wish to share my notes as attachment to this post, on this group.
feedbacks and thoughts on these.
km and field complaints is planned for delivery. The customer
requirements are, taken into account for field failure analysis. - Examples for
NTF process.”
P3.4, P4.7, P7.4*; in the Red Book. This also happens to be o
2010, which was issued to me by my German trainer way back in
functioning of a CD/DVD changer by making use of the NTF
process. This was a case study of investigations done after the receipt of the complaint.
VDA’s publication titled ‘Marketing and Service – Field Failure Analysis’ gives an in
Data collection and evaluation - Includes OEM data (like Complaints, Vehicle
analysis, Comprehensive failure data-bases, Production process data etc.); Evaluation of
data and information including - Trend diagram, mileage, Vehicle history, correlations if
any; Supportive techniques like - Ishikawa, 6-Sigma, Shainin, Pareto, 5_Why,
Kepner_Tregoe (KT) analysis, cross-matrix, etc.; Results of various tests and studies,
related documentations. As one can see, all of these belong to the category of ‘After the
active. They will suit the intent of P7.4* which asks, “If there are deviations from
imparting formal training of VDA 6.3 and
2010 version as well as the current 2016
not only from India
in countries ranging from Egypt to Singapore. I have found that
clarity. Though
a large number of
the formal training of VDA 6.3 Process auditing, there is hardly any scope for extra
on this group. I invite all of
km and field complaints is planned for delivery. The customer
Examples for
P3.4, P4.7, P7.4*; in the Red Book. This also happens to be one of
way back in
functioning of a CD/DVD changer by making use of the NTF
ipt of the complaint.
Field Failure Analysis’ gives an in-depth
s OEM data (like Complaints, Vehicle
bases, Production process data etc.); Evaluation of
end diagram, mileage, Vehicle history, correlations if
Sigma, Shainin, Pareto, 5_Why,
matrix, etc.; Results of various tests and studies,
e, all of these belong to the category of ‘After the
active. They will suit the intent of P7.4* which asks, “If there are deviations from

quality requirements or complaints, are failure analyses carried out and corrective actions
implemented effectively?’
However the focus of P3.4 (Are the activities planned for customer care / customer
satisfaction / Customer service and field failure analysis?) and of P4.7 (Are the processes
established for securing customer care / customer satisfaction / Customer service and field
failure analysis?) are different. Here we are doing the planning / implementation of the
product and process development. The focus here ought to be more of preventive rather
than analytic in nature.
However, I find that today’s tier-1 industry is more pro-active in this regard. It does not
want the NTF complaints to arise at all. The industry tries during the project phase itself, to
get into the act of solving the failure issues, which may arise in future. The common set of
pre-emptive procedures adopted by these few but enlightened industries could be summed
up in the category of Multiple Environment Over Stress testing or MEOST. These proactive
tests not only predict likelihood of occurrence of NTF issues in future, but also pave way for
their solution during the APQP phase itself. Evidence of MEOST during the project phase
should adequately satisfy the OEM auditor of steps to ensure avoidance of NTF cases.
Trigger matrix as per VDA volume 2 (P6.1.5*)
The TRIGGER MATRIX is an extensive & detailed document, which essentially is a part of
VDA 2 standard (training slides 80 to 100). It begins by listing situations which could be
recognized as ‘Change’ or ‘Not Change’. It mentions broadly, 5 types of possible changes
to the product or the process which can happen in the course of serial production, which act
as ‘Trigger’ and further, how these changes are expected to be handled as per VDA 2. These
five types are : 1) the electronic components change 2) the design change 3) the process
change 4) the logistics change 5) the documents change.
The responses could broadly be of three categories:
1. Customer involvement not essential (Note: PPA documents must be archived in-
house)
2. Customer must be informed - as ISO/TS16949, para. 4.2.3.1 The customer must
have 2 weeks to issue findings.
3. Customer agreement required, execution of PPA procedure
The matrix comprising of these triggers and the consequent response, is as follows:
# Trigger Expected response
1 It concerns a electronic components Refer to ZVEI (= Central association for
the electrical/ electronics industry) Carry
out action as in the guideline
2 It concerns a design change and contract
documents and fit / function, etc. e.g. a
change to the design of the tools or
software
The customer's approval is required and
carry out a PPA
3 It concerns a design change and contract
documents but not fit / function, e.g. , a
change to a sealing material
carry out a PPA
4 It concerns a design change but not the
contract documents but does the fitting,
function,
carry out a PPA

contract documents and also not fitting,
function,
carry out a PPA if change to the
requirement in the internal specification
or tolerance changes outside the
customer's specification. The customer's
involvement is not essential, but a PPA
must be carried out if a change to the
requirement in the internal specification
or tolerance change but still within the
customer's specification. The customer's
involvement is not essential, yet a PPA
must be carried out
contract documents and also not fitting,
function, etc. For example a modified
name of parts or materials but with the
same composition or For example a
change to the pre-process steps (e.g.
dimension of pre-drill, wafer, jig, …
The customer's involvement is not
essential, yet a PPA must be carried out in
both the situations.
7 It concerns a process change and the
contract documents. For example,
changes in the process chain (including
supplier, duplicated production line,…)
carry out a PPA.
8 It concerns a process change and fit /
function etc. but not the contract
documents. E.g. changes to hardening
parameters, injection temperature or
changes in the process chain, etc …
carry out a PPA
production line but not the contract
documents and not fit / function, etc. For
example, changes tool cavities or
duplication of test/inspection equipment
OR For example, a change to setting
parameters or injection temperature.
The customer must be informed and the
customer should react (IATF 16949
section 7.5.3.2.2) and carry out a PPA. In
second case, Customer involvement is not
essential, but even so carry out a PPA
testing but not the contract documents
and not fit / function etc. For example, a
change in a test or inspection method. OR
For example, an inspection is expended
but the method is not changed.
the second case, Customer involvement is
not essential; even so carry out a PPA.
transfer of production but not the contract
document and not the fit / function, etc.
For example, transfer of production to a
different location OR For example, transfer
of mobile equipment.
carry out a PPA. In the second case, the
customer's involvement is not essential,
but even so carry out a PPA.
12 It concerns a logistic change and contract
documents. For example, a change of
supplier, a new second source.
carry out a PPA.

13 It concerns a logistic change but not the
contract documents. For example, a new
transport company. OR For example, a
change to internal packaging. OR For
example, a change in packing for the
customer.
second case, Customer involvement is not
essential, but even so carries out a PPA.
In the third case, the customer's
approvals are required and carry out a
PPA.
14 It concerns a document change and are
these contract documents. For example, a
change to documents in order to align
them with the status of the approved
product.
The customer's approvals are required
and carry out a PPA.
15 It concerns a document change and are
they not contract documents. For
example, adaptations to documentation or
corrections of errors in form.
The customer's involvements are not
essential, but even so carry out a PPA.
No matter what the categorization a production process and product approval must always
be carried out internally! – Requirement of VDA 2. Trigger matrix tells if you have to inform
the customer or not. But internal approval must always be carried out for all PPA. You may
or may not submit the findings depending upon ‘y’ or ‘n’ of trigger matrix. Whatever be the
submission level, supplier must generate all 22 evidences which he may or may not submit
depending upon the submission level. Knowledge and qualification to VDA 2 is necessary for
satisfactorily complying with this star question.
Ergonomically designed workplace layout (P6.4.4)
P 6.4.4 deals with the question ‘Are the work and inspection stations appropriate for the
needs?’ While expecting the auditor to audit risk-freeness of various factors like Lighting,
Cleanliness and tidiness, Climate control, Noise Pollution, Clean rooms, workplace lay-out,
surrounding / handling parts at the workplace and Work Safety, in addition, it asks the
auditor to confirm that the workplace layout is adapted ergonomically to the work to be
carried out. Thus there seem to be two focus areas to confirm ergonomic suitability – 1.
Work / inspection stations and 2. Workplace layout.
We will first see the seven check points which are audited in judging the ergonomic
suitability of the work and inspection stations. These are: 1: Body and working height .
Working at the wrong height can lead to a hunched posture, craned neck and strained
eyes. 2: Work area - Ergonomically designed stations reduce the risk of injury by adapting
to fit the person instead of the other way around. 3: Reach zones - A well-designed
workstation should be set up into three zones. Primary; for equipment used constantly
throughout the working day with equipment or tooling within easy reach when elbows are at
an operator’s sides; secondary, for tools and parts that are often reached with one hand
with everything being available within a 1800 sweep of both arms when outstretched; and
reference, for occasional handling such as reference files or transferring parts to the next
workstation. 4: Parts presentation - The presentation of parts to the operator is key in
minimizing physical exertion and unnecessary movements. 5: Range of vision - Each head

turn or change in line of sight, results in lost time and decreases productivity. Key vision
issues for workstation planning are: a. Avoid unnecessary eye and head movements; b.
Vision distances should be as identical as possible to eliminate refocusing; c. Avoid fastening
locations not visible to the operator. 6: Lighting - The correct light, adapted to the activity
of the workstation, is a basic prerequisite for high efficiency and quality. It is therefore
important to: a. Avoid strong lighting contrasts; b. Avoid glare and reflection; c. Ensure all
workstations are free from shadows, flickering and glare. 7: Adjustment of work
equipment - To maintain performance levels and promote productivity, the correct
adjustment of a table, chair, footrest and position of tools and material shuttles must be
easily achieved.
Generally, it is better if a qualified Industrial Engineer develops a check list to audit your
work-stations. This check list may include verification of • awkward postures. • Forceful
exertions. • Duration (the amount of time a person is continually exposed to a risk factor). •
Wrist deviations. • contact stress (repeated or continuous contact with hard or sharp
objects, such as unpadded, narrow tool handles and non-rounded desk edges, may create
pressure over one area of the body that can inhibit nerve function and blood flow). And •
hand-arm or whole body vibration. Good workstations allow the Mizusumashi to feed the
input material without disturbing the workman.
Critical path method of Project Management (P2.2, P2.3)
Both, P2.2 and P2.3 fall under the process element P2 which deals with Project Management
– P2.2 verifies ‘Are all resources required for the project implementation planned and
available and are changes shown’ whereas P2.3 verifies ‘Is there a project plan and has this
been agreed with the customer?’ The minimum audit requirement in one asks to confirm,
‘the critical path is given special consideration within the resource planning’, whereas in the
other it seeks to confirm, ‘the critical path is generated from the project plan and takes
account of critical delivery items’. And in the examples for implementation, we see items
like Customer’s project plan, deadlines, milestones, targets etc.
As defined by Wikipedia, The critical path method (CPM) is an algorithm for scheduling a
set of project activities. A critical path is determined by identifying the longest stretch of
dependent activities and measuring the time required to complete them from start to finish.
Thus, in order to generate the time-efficient planning for any project, evolving the critical
path for a project which meets the customer’s requirements of various milestones and the
organization’s (including supplier’s) internal milestones / limitations, evolving the Critical
Path, right during the phase of Project Management makes sense. Extrapolating these, we
can see that the auditor is expected to confirm implementation of ‘Concurrent’ or
‘Simultaneous’ engineering practices in the management of projects.
Generation of Critical Path requires the organization to have the details of:
1. A list of all activities required to complete the project
2. The time (duration) that each activity will take to complete,
3. The dependencies between the activities and,
4. Logical end points such as milestones or deliverable items.

Most organizations, these days, make use of Project Management software like MS Project
etc. for their project activities. Most of these software automatically evolve the Critical Path,
which meet the requirement of the project team and also of auditor of VDA 6.3. Even if you
do not use the software, no problem, generating a CRITICAL Path from the first principles,
is not difficult. Also, it is part of most syllabuses for MBA courses.
Contingency planning (P3.4, P4.7, P7.3*)
P 3.4 deals with the planning of project activities for Customer Care etc; P4.7 deals with
implementation of the processes established for securing Customer Care etc and P7.3*
deals with Customer Care etc. related to guaranteeing of supply of parts – ensuring supplies
are available, up-to-date; covering internal processes and also those of suppliers (alternate
production, suppliers, transport). Most aspiring auditors of VDA 6.3 do have some sketchy
document to be shown as contingency plan, but the auditors from OEMs do not find it
realistic and ‘in-depth’ enough to be qualified as meaningful Contingency Plan. So how do
we make a correct Contingency Plan? The book on Robust Production Processes does cover
this subject over two pages. Some of the noticeable points are: Objectives - preventive
assessment of influencing factor, to contain the effects and eliminate disturbances/ failures,
desired benefits are Preventive securitization of delivery performance and quality. A
contingency plan must contain the following - The influencing factor/ disturbance/Fault.;
Control limits and tolerances. Responsible person (name, availability/ phone, deputies [at
two levels]); The influencing factor/ disturbance/Fault.; Control limits and tolerances;
Responsible person (name, availability/ phone, deputies [at two levels]); Where must the
plan be held and who must be aware of it? Where must the plan be held and who must be
aware of it? Also expected are the evidences of immediate actions e.g. “First aid”,
containment, damage containment and contingency concept. In brief, expected are the
work instructions for every possible type of contingencies. A simple yet structured way
would be to group the real-life contingencies into the 5-M categories of Men, Machines,
Material, Methods and Money. Apply the three levels of planning like, Prevention plan,
Containment plan and Recovery plan. And you should have your real-life contingency
planning ready.
Type Contingency
(Limit, when
situation becomes
contingency)
Prevention plan Containment
plan
Recovery plan
Man
Machine
Material
Method
Mother
Nature
(Review frequency of the contingency plan :____)

For example, let us consider Machine related contingencies. Thus the machines or units are
grouped as Repairable Line Replacement Unit [LRU], Repairable non-LRU, Non-repairable
LRU, Consumables, Piece parts employed in repair shops/depots. There could be ten groups
of strategies to handle contingencies e.g. 1. Increase “safety stock”, 2. Near-sourcing 3.
Supplier auditing 4. Develop repair schemes for non-repairable classified parts, 5. Develop
reverse design engineering capabilities, 6. “Cannibalize” equipment for parts, 7. Use of 3D
printing for one-off pieces, 8. Part pedigree tracking, 9. Reverse supply chain management,
10. Ownership of manufacturing tooling at supplier sites.
Once you make your plans for critical Machines with three levels of Prevention, Containment
and Recovery using these 10 groups of strategies, the first thing which will happen is your
team won’t be floundering when the real emergency happens and the second thing which
will happen is that the auditor of this contingency planning will be more than convinced of
it’s authenticity. The same principles are to be deployed while planning contingencies for
other ‘M’s. Remember – Details Lend Credibility.
(Kiran Walimbe.)

Gray areas of vda 6.3 process auditors

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Gray areas of vda 6.3 process auditors

Similar to Gray areas of vda 6.3 process auditors (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Gray areas of vda 6.3 process auditors