Audit Nonconformities Management CARA
NC No
Auditor
IATF Clause
Process
NC Type
NC Statement
Clause Requirement
To be completed
by the CB auditor Objective Evidence
Justification of Minor NC
Correction (Containment) action, including
timing and responsible person:
Date : 7 days from Closing meeting
Evidence of implementation
Root cause analysis ( 5 Why)
Does the root cause impact other similar
processes or products?
Please describe how the root cause does
not impact other process?
To be fill by
Supplier
Please describe how the root cause
impacts other process?
Root cause result
Systemic corrective actions, including
timing and responsible person
Date : Within 40 days from the closing
meeting
Evidence of implementation
Action taken to verify effective
implementation of corrective actions
date : Within 60 days from closing meeting
Reviewer comments
To be completed by
the CB
To be fill by
Evidence
Supplier
Management CARA
RKS01
Sathia Narayanan Ramamurthy Kothandaraman
8.3.2.1
New Product Development(Process Design)/Manufacturing Engineering
Min
The Process of development of PFMEA is not partially effective in the sample aud
8.3.2.1 Design and development planning - supplemental
Development of -
Part: Muff.Assy.1
Part no.: BGP1-E4710-10
FMEA for the above does not include Process step – BGP1-500 – CATALYST 1
SUB Assy.-TIG TAG Manual welding
In PFMEA – failure modes due to gas flow rate, weld wire stick out not found
considered.
The parameters such as gas flow(spec.:10-15LPM), Stick out(spec.:8 ~12mm)
were found considered and monitored in the On Job Record. Lapse in the
documentation.Hence graded as minor.
The FMEA has been reviewed and failure modes updated for Part no.: BGP1-
E4710-10 Part Name: Muffler Assy.,1.
Document No: SAPI /F/ME/016
Responsible Name: Mr.Arul Nathan
Date: 17th May'2023
Guidelines for the preparation of FMEA: SAPI /F/ME/016
Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
1. Why: BGP1 model FMEA Not Captured all welding failure modes
2. Why: Major Welding failure mode only Captured in the FMEA
3. Why: All Welding failure modes are not defined in FMEA PROCEDURE
4. Why:
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the FMEA PROCEDURE
YES
NA
Since it is related to Process failure hence applicable to all the products.
Inadequate information for capturing in the FMEA PROCEDURE
1. BGP1 Muffler FMEA PROCEDURE to be Updated.
Part no.: BGP1-E4710-10 Part Name: Muffler Assy.,
1. Format No: SAPI /QMS/QP/16
Responsible Name: Mr.Anto
Target Date: 12th June'2023
2. BGP1 Muffler FMEA needs to be Updated.
Part no.: BGP1-E4710-10 Part Name: Muffler Assy.,1
Document No: SAPI /F/ME/016
Responsible Name: Mr.Arul Nathan
3. Training provided to process members.
Target Date: 14th June'2023
1. Process control sheet: SAPI /F/ME/016
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI /QMS/QP/16
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
1. Process control sheet: SAPI /F/ME/016
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI /QMS/QP/16
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
PB-01
Prabhu Balaji
8.6.2
Quality Assurance
Min
The process of conducting layout inspection against the customer drawing in
quality process found partially in effective.
8.6.2 Layout inspection and functional testing
Layout inspection report Doc no: SAPI/QA/F/07
Frequency yearly once
Drawing details
Drawing no: RLX00558 Rev g
All drawing dimensions covered
Dated: 18.04.23. 'However, Layout inspection was not carried out
for all the notes mentioned in the drawing, 'Inspection and conformance
against Wrinkles ,Scratch marking, burr and Finished product to be oiled
with GARDOROL DW 3601.which is not done
During audit trial it is observed as single isolated lapse ,all the drawing
requirements are captured except mentioned above. However the
mentioned requirements are captured in the control plan and inspected on
daily basis. PDI inspection report Dated:09.05.2023,Lot name : 556,21 check
points evident visual and Oiled GARDOROL DW 3601 Captured and checked
ok .So there is no chance of affecting the product quality and no risk to
customer .Hence it is categorized as minor non conformity .
The Layout Inspection report has been established and updated for the
changes for Drawing no: RLX00558 Rev g
Document No: SAPI/QA/F/07
Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
Date: 16th May'2023
Guidelines for the preparation of the layout inspection Report:
SAPI/QA/F/07
Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
1. Why: J model Ext pipe Assy Layout inspection report not Captured all
drawing notes checkpoints.
2. Why: The layout inspection report only captured Critical inspection
checkpoints.
3. Why: The layout inspection report is not defined properly in the Quality
Assurance PROCEDURE
4. Why :
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the Quality Assurance PROCEDURE
YES
NA
Since it is related to Product dimension confirmation hence applicable to all
the products.
Inadequate information for capturing in the Quality Assurance PROCEDURE
1. J Model Ext pipe Assy Quality Assurance PROCEDURE to be Updated.
Format No: SAPI/QMS/QP/11 Responsible Name: Mr.Anto
Target Date: 17th May'2023 2. J Model Ext pipe Assy Layout inspection
report needs to be Updated. Drawing no: RLX00558 Rev g
Document No: SAPI/QA/F/07 Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
3. Training provided to process members.
Target Date: 17th June'2023
1. Layout Inspection report: SAPI/QA/F/07
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
1. Layout Inspection report: SAPI/QA/F/07
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
PB-03
Prabhu Balaji
8.4.2.4
Purchase, Outsourced Sheet Metal
Min
The process of monitoring supplier performance in purchase process found
partially in effective
8.4.2.4 Supplier monitoring
Shot blasting Process
Supplier name: Winoa abrasives India pvt ltd
Supplier Purchase order -13.03.23, 0087, Steel grits,15,000 Nos
Purchase was made and used in the process Purchase was made and used
in the process However the for supplier winoa performance rating is not
calculated for the march month
During audit trial it is observed as single isolated lapse ,Performance rating is
not calculated for the particular month .However the for suppliers rating
evident and followed effectively ,checked and found no issue in terms of
quality and delivery at in coming stage .So there is no chance of affecting
the product and low risk to customer .Hence it is categorized as minor non
conformity.However the for supplier winoa performance rating is not
calculated for the march month
The Supplier Performance Monitoring report has been established and
updated for the Indirect material suppliers.
Format No: SAPI/QMS/QP/08
Responsible Name: Mr.Sudhakar
Date: 18th May'2023
Guidelines for the preparation of Supplier performance monitoring report.
1. Why: Supplier Performance Monitoring Report not Captured Indirect raw
materiel Supplier (M/s Winoa abrasives India pvt ltd- Shot grid ).
2. Why: Supplier Performance Monitoring report Captured only Direct Raw
material suppliers.
3. Why: The indirect raw material supplier performance monitoring not
defined properly in the Purchase PROCEDURE
4. Why :
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the Purchase PROCEDURE
YES
NA
Since it is related to delivery & Quality failure hence applicable to all
products.
Inadequate information for capturing in the Purchase PROCEDURE
1. J Supplier Quality Performance Monitoring adequate information updated
to be Purchase PROCEDURE.
Format No: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
Responsible Name: Mr.Anto /Sudhakar
Target Date: 17th May'2023
2. The supplier Quality performance monitoring report needs to be updated.
Document No: SAPI/PU/DO/012
Responsible Name: Mr.Suthakar
3. Training provided to process members.
Target Date: 22nd June'2023
1. Supplier Performance Monitoring report to be updated. SAPI/PU/DO/012
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
1. Supplier Performance Monitoring report to be updated. SAPI/PU/DO/012
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
VK-01
Vivekanand Kangralkar
10.2.4
Production Planning, Production
Min
The Production process is not effective for the identification of the part
master ( Golden part).
10.2.4 Error-proofing
In the Welding process one of the Part No:: B7J-E4710-10, Part Name:
MUFF.ASSY.,1. Customer: IYM, as per control plan SAPI :QA: DO 011Catalyst
2 direction confirmation master sample needs to confirm during the
assembly process, but the master sample is not available at work station
However, the muffler assembly part is 100% checked in the final inspection
and some of the golden samples are identified with tag, hence it is not
effecting to final customer.
The Master sample report has been established and updated for all
processes.
Part No:: B7J-E4710-10
Part Name: MUFF.ASSY.,1.
Document No: SAPI/QA/DO/023
Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
Date: 15th May'2023
Guidelines for the preparation of in-process master sample report:
SAPI/QA/DO/023
1. Why: Master sample not provided in Catalyst Sub Assy process
2. Why: One point lesson provided. So the master sample was not
provided
3. Why: Master sample list not Captured catalyst sub-assy process
4. Why: Master sample-providing system does not properly define the
Quality Assurance procedure
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the Quality Assurance PROCEDURE
YES
NA
Since it is related to customer compliant hence applicable to all the
products.
Inadequate information for capturing in the Quality Assurance
PROCEDURE
1.Quality Assurance PROCEDURE to be Updated.
Format No: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
Responsible Name: Mr.Anto
Target Date: 17th May'2023
2. Master sample master list needs to be Updated.
Format No: SAPI/QA/DO/023
Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
3. Training provided to process members.
Target Date: 17th May'2023
1. Master Sample Master list : SAPI/QA/DO/023
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
1. Master Sample Master list: SAPI/QA/DO/023
2. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/11
3. Awareness Training records: SAPI/HR/DO/O18
VK-02
VivekanandKangralkar
9.1.1.1
Production Planning, Production
Min
The Production process is not effective for adherence process parameters as
per control plan.
9.1.1.1 Monitoring and measurement of manufacturing processes
In the production pipe drilling process the process parameters like Hydraulic air
pressure: as per the control plan it is to be maintained at 25 to 40 Kgs/cm2 but
actually maintained is 10 kg/cm2, adherence to the control plan is not
evidenced.Part No: B7J-E4710-10, Part Name: MUFF.ASSY.,1. Customer: IYM
However, during FML approval the product parameters are being verified,
hence it is not affecting to the final product
On Job training has been established and updated for all Operators.
Part No:: B7J-E4710-10,
Part Name: MUFF.ASSY.,1. Document
No: SAPI:PR:RE:021
Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
Date: 17th May'2023
Guidelines for the preparation of On Job Traning report. SAPI:PR:RE:021
1. Why: The drilling Process Hydraulic pressure Control plan and the actual
parameter are a mismatch
2. Why: Operatorr Wrongly set the Hydraulic oil pressure
3. Why: Oprator not followed the Process standard
4. Why:
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate knowledge about Process std follow
YES
NA
Since it is related to inhouse rejection hence applicable to all the products.
Inadequate information for capturing in the HR PROCEDURE
1. HR PROCEDURE to be Updated.
Format No: SAPI/QMS/QP/07
Responsible Name: Mr.Anto
Target Date: 17th May'2023
2. Training provided to process members.
Target Date: 24th June'2023
1. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/07
2. On Job Training records: SAPI:PR:RE:O21
1. Relevant Procedure updated: SAPI/QMS/QP/28
2. On Job Training records: SAPI:PR:RE: O21
8.3.2.1 Design and development planning - supplemental
