Nonconformity management
Organization name ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE LIMITED
Audit start date 26.Jun.2021
Audit end date 27.Jun.2021
Audit type 2nd Surveillance audit
CB identification no. 50253631
CB certificate no. 50253631 IATF16
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
LIMITED 1/8
Nonconformity management
NC no. NC identification no. Standard Standard clause Classification Due date max. 20 days Due date max. 60 days Nonconformity observed in process
1 RH-AR-01 IATF 16949:2016 8.5.1.3 minor 26.Aug.2021 Production planning & control, Production
(Stamping, Welding and Machining )
2 RH-AR-02 IATF 16949:2016 9.1.1.1 minor 26.Aug.2021 Quality
3 RH-AR-03 IATF 16949:2016 10.2.4 minor 26.Aug.2021 Quality
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE LIMITED CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
2/8
Nonconformity management
NC & actions
Nonconformity 1
To be completed by the CB auditor
NC header
NC identification no. RH-AR-01
Standard IATF 16949:2016
Classification minor
Due date max. 60 days 26.Aug.2021
Nonconformity observed in process Production planning & control, Production (Stamping, Welding and
Machining )
Standard clause 8.5.1.3
Verification of job set-ups
Requirement The organization shall:
a) verify job set-ups when performed, such as an initial run of a job,
material changeover, or job change that requires a new set-up;
b) maintain documented information for set-up personnel;
c) use statistical methods of verification, where applicable;
d) perform first-off/last-off part validation, as applicable; where
appropriate, first-off parts should be retained for comparison with the
last-off parts; where appropriate, last-off-parts should be retained for
comparison with first-off parts in subsequent runs;
e) retain records of process and product approval following set-up and
first-off/last-off part validations.
Statement of nonconformity
The process of production (press shop) is not fully effective.
Objective evidence
Refer Part: Restrictor:89211, Control Plan: AFL/01/CP/SO1, Operation: Blanking, wherein Stroke Height during setting approval, however same
found not monitored during production run dated 26.06.2021.
Justification for classification
The parts were got checked and found meeting customer drawing requirement, one out of 5 samples, and shut found maintained within
specifications , there are subsequent in downstream processes, there is no risk to customer, hence categorized as minor.
Rajesh Handoo 27.Jun.2021 This document is valid without a signature
Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date
To be completed by the organization
Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:
Re-inspection to be done with shut height monitoring
Pankaj /26.6.21
Evidence of implementation
Shut height monitoring done for restrictor report attached
Root cause analysis
W1 Shut height monitoring was missed
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
LIMITED 3/8
Nonconformity management
W2 Requirement was not identified explicitly
W3 There was no specific requirement mentioned in current procedure
Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? No
Please describe how the root cause does not impact other process? No impact on other processes, issue related to recording of shut
height
Root cause result
There was no specific requirement mentioned in current procedure
Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person
Procedure to be amended to make it more clear about recording of process parameters during set up approval
Training also to be given
Pankaj Gaur
20.7.21
Evidence of implementation
Updated procedure AFL/PR/PD/01 to this effect
Training given to concerned persons
Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions
Another sample of shut height verified for part Bracket Rear Seat Side and effectiveness checked through internal audit no issues observed.
Submission(s)
Pankaj Gaur 18.Aug.2021
Organizations representative date
To be completed by the CB
Date reviewed 06.Sep.2021
Reviewer decision Accepted and closed
Reviewer comments Correction: Shut height monitoring initiated
Corrective action: Procedures been updated with inclusion of
requirements related to process parameters, trg. also imparted
Effectiveness: Shut height verified for another part, including internal
audit.
The corrective actions are effectively implemented.
Reviewer name Rajesh Handoo
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
LIMITED 4/8
Nonconformity management
Nonconformity 2
To be completed by the CB auditor
NC header
NC identification no. RH-AR-02
Standard IATF 16949:2016
Classification minor
Due date max. 60 days 26.Aug.2021
Nonconformity observed in process Quality
Standard clause 9.1.1.1
Monitoring and measurement of manufacturing processes
Requirement The organization shall perform process studies on all new
manufacturing (including assembly or sequencing) processes to verify
process capability and to provide additional input for process control,
including those for special characteristics.
The organization shall maintain manufacturing process capability or
performance results as specified by the customer’s part approval
process requirements. The organization shall verify that the process
flow diagram, PFMEA, and control plan are implemented, including
adherence to the following:
a) measurement techniques;
b) sampling plans;
c) acceptance criteria;
d) records of actual measurement values and/or test results for
variable data;
e) reaction plans and escalation process when acceptance criteria are
not met.
Significant process events, such as tool change or machine repair,
shall be recorded and retained as documented information.
The organization shall initiate a reaction plan indicated on the control
plan and evaluated for impact on compliance to specifications for
characteristics that are either not statistically capable or are unstable.
These reaction plans shall include containment of product and 100
percent inspection, as appropriate. A corrective action plan shall be
developed and implemented by the organization indicating specific
actions, timing, and assigned responsibilities to ensure that the
process becomes stable and statistically capable. The plans shall be
reviewed with and approved by the customer, when required.
The organization shall maintain records of effective dates of process
changes.
Statement of nonconformity
The process quality wrt conformity to control plan requirements not fully effective.
Objective evidence
Refer Control Plan of Part: Round Head Special: 0105HG0370N, wherein Drilling ID: 5.05-5.18 after set up approval , the said ID is to be checked
every 1 hour, however during audit in process report dated 26.6.2021, monitoring found being done every 2 hours, which is contrary to the
requirements of the control plan.
Justification for classification
It is only an isolated case of documentation conformity, one out of 7 samples checked, the parts are meeting customer requirements, there are
subsequent checks in other processes, operator is checked the same dimension 100% with gauge, there is no risk to customer, hence
categorized as minor.
Rajesh Handoo 27.Jun.2021 This document is valid without a signature
Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date
To be completed by the organization
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
LIMITED 5/8
Nonconformity management
Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:
In Drilling operation after set up approval petrol inspection will be checked done every one hour. Target date=28.06.2021, responsibility: Rakesh
Evidence of implementation
Hourly monitoring started report dated 26.6.21
Root cause analysis
W1 Hourly monitoring was skipped in some operations
W2 Requirement was not clearly mentioned in system documents
W3 Set up work instructions is not having such requirement
Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? No
Please describe how the root cause does not impact other process? It is limited to single operation only, in other processes the hourly
monitoring is already done, no impact on other processes
Root cause result
Set up work instructions is not having such requirement
Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person
Training to be provided on Petrol inspection to quality person, Responsibility –Pankaj Gaur 28.06.2021
Set up work instructions will be revised for including guidelines related to hourly monitoring.
Evidence of implementation
Updated work instruction
Training record
Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions
Verification done for another part and found hourly monitoring is done (part M10x1.25 round pin), effectiveness checked also during internal
audit, no repeat issues observed.
Submission(s)
Panakaj Gaur 18.Aug.2021
Organizations representative date
To be completed by the CB
Date reviewed 06.Sep.2021
Reviewer decision Accepted and closed
Reviewer comments Correction: Hourly monitoring initiated
Corrective action: Set up work instruction has been updated with
inclusion of requirements of hourly monitoring, trg. also imparted
Effectiveness: Hourly monitoring verified for another part,
effectiveness assessed in internal audit.
The corrective actions are effectively implemented.
Reviewer name Rajesh Handoo
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
LIMITED 6/8
Nonconformity management
Nonconformity 3
To be completed by the CB auditor
NC header
NC identification no. RH-AR-03
Standard IATF 16949:2016
Classification minor
Due date max. 60 days 26.Aug.2021
Nonconformity observed in process Quality
Standard clause 10.2.4
Error-proofing
Requirement The organization shall have a documented process to determine the
use of appropriate error-proofing methodologies. Details of the
method used shall be documented in the process risk analysis (such
as PFMEA) and test frequencies shall be documented in the control
plan.
The process shall include the testing of error-proofing devices for
failure or simulated failure. Records shall be maintained. Challenge
parts, when used, shall be identified, controlled, verified, and calibrated
where feasible. Error-proofing device failures shall have a reaction
plan.
Statement of nonconformity
The process of documenting Error proofing in PFMEA is not fully effective.
Objective evidence
Refer Part: Extension Wheel House: AFL-3-SO2, in Blanking operation there is error proofing in tool to avoid blank cut, details of not evident in
the process risk analysis (such as PFMEA).
Justification for classification
Monitoring of error proofing is checked during tool preventive maintenance, and parts produced found meeting customer requirement, there is
zero complaint related to blank cut, risk to customer is not witnessed, one of 5 samples checked, hence categorized as minor.
Rajesh Handoo 27.Jun.2021 This document is valid without a signature
Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date
To be completed by the organization
Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:
FMEA review will be done . Target date=28.06.2021, responsibility: Pardeep Kumar & Pankaj Gaur
Evidence of implementation
Update FMEA submitted 28.06.2021
Root cause analysis
W1 Error proofing missed to be put in PFMEA
W2 Review Requirement was not clearly mentioned in system documents
W3 Current procedure is not adequately having FMEA review and incorporation of Error proofing requirement
Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? No
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
LIMITED 7/8
Nonconformity management
Please describe how the root cause does not impact other process? There is no impact on other processes because it is limited to process
single PFMEA only, there are ample controls during process review.
Root cause result
Current procedure is not adequately having FMEA review and incorporation of Error proofing requirement
Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person
Responsibility –Pankaj Gaur 15.07.2021
Procedure AFL/PR/DV/02 will be revised for including guidelines related to FMEA review frequency including error proofing details
Evidence of implementation
Up-dated Procedure AFL/PR/DV/02
Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions
Verification done for another PFMEA for inclusion of Error proofing details (NUT LOWER ARM M10x1.25), effectiveness checked also during
internal audit, no repeat issues observed.
Submission(s)
Pankaj Gaur 18.Aug.2021
Organizations representative date
To be completed by the CB
Date reviewed 06.Sep.2021
Reviewer decision Accepted and closed
Reviewer comments Correction: PFMEA updated with error proofing details
Corrective action: Procedural change has taken place with review
frequency and inclusion requirement of error proofing devices
Effectiveness: Another part PFMEA verified for another part,
effectiveness assessed in internal audit.
The corrective actions are effectively implemented.
Reviewer name Rajesh Handoo
Organization name : ADINATH FORGING PRIVATE CB certificate no.: 50253631 IATF16 Cara Version 1.2.2
LIMITED 8/8
