{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

        
User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Resource Management
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Supply Chain
    • Resource Management
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Training

Cinderella Processes

Management system audit criteria must be based on risk assessment

Umberto Tunesi
Bio
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 12:59
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

We’ve all seen “Cinderella processes,” those processes that, although they do all the work in the company, are underevaluated, almost ignored by auditors.

ADVERTISEMENT

I recently conducted a survey on 20 auditors. It was intended to analyze what processes are emphasized in ISO/TS 16949 audits, as well as any nonconformances. The results were quite frustrating, considering that the ISO 9001-based quality management schemes were born during the late 1980s, some 25 years ago.

I included 20 auditors to have a reasonably representative sample, since I was reprimanded by one Quality Digest reader that one event is not significant enough. I wonder what he would think of one accident badly hurting his body; I personally consider even one event to be significant when it’s a system failure.

Let’s start with the Cinderella processes, then we’ll go through the nonconformances Hit Parade.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password
You Might Like...
What's a 150-year Old Meat Chopper Have to do With America's Favorite Sports Car?
How Remote Sensing and Aerial Imagery Can Improve Audit Accuracy
How to Get Your Employees to Love Your Brand
How DIY AI Unlocks Productivity and Flexibility
Which KPIs Prove Your Maintenance Plan Is Working?

Comments

Submitted by gsparks on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 11:04

7.5.1.4

As an internal auditor I HAVE written a finding for 7.5.1.4 predictive maintenance.  The division of my company that was registered to TS 16949 wasn't doing any!  Their preventive maintance was excellent but predictive was nonexistant.

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.

© 2026 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us