Effective on December 15, 2004

From http://www.qualitydigest.com/currentmag/articles/04_article.shtml

NOTE: The above link will 'expire' within a mionbth because of the way Quality Digest's site is set up.The International Automotive Task Force’s second edition rules were recently updated in response to a number of factors having to do with the IATF audit scheme, registrar office and witness audits, and IATF training feedback. They were also updated to improve the overall performance of audits within the ISO/TS 16949:2002 scheme.

The second edition of the rules was launched through a training class for certification bodies (CB) in July, and the Automotive Industry Action Group made the new rules available in September. They become effective on December 15, 2004.

The rules document accomplishes three major tasks by clearly laying out the requirements of the automotive process audit, the requirements necessary for stage 1 (readiness review) and stage 2 (on-site audit), and providing precision and clarification in a number of areas of auditor performance. Two seemingly insignificant changes will have a major affect on the standard. The first is the definition of minimum expectations for closing out corrective actions; the second is the definition of ISO/TS 16949:2002 as solely automotive and how that decision affects the rules document. Changes in pre-audit rules, including the requirement that the pre-audit and stage 1 cannot be performed by the same auditors.
Identification of a stage 1 and stage 2 audit.
No use of checklists during audits.
Definition of process audits.
Audit plan based on the organization’s processes.
Stage 1 requirement of process map, interfaces and objective evidence that all ISO/TS 16949:2002 requirements are being satisfied by the processes
Auditor automotive experience.
Definition of ISO/TS audit scope.
Minimum expectations of corrective action closeouts.
ISO/TS 16949:2002 can only be applied to automotive organizations and that an ISO/TS audit can be conducted only for the automotive products of a company.
Per the new rules, support functions need to be audited before the site audit, and the two must occur within 90 days of the completion of the stage 1 assessment.
There's more. See the article for details.

1. What bugs me is that the Rules seem to be secretive. Why have a separate set of rules?? Could the interpretations not be better dealt with within the standard? Now we have an unclear condition whereby the standard stays the same but the rules change - sounds absurd to me?
2. How does the rule on automotive organisations affect companies who deal with non automotive & automotive product?
3. Is the above summary a complete version of the changed rules?

1. What bugs me is that the Rules seem to be secretive. Why have a separate set of rules?? Could the interpretations not be better dealt with within the standard? Now we have an unclear condition whereby the standard stays the same but the rules change - sounds absurd to me?
2. How does the rule on automotive organisations affect companies who deal with non automotive & automotive product?
3. Is the above summary a complete version of the changed rules?

Problem is, this probably won't be the last interpretation made -

1) In the QS days, the IASG made all kinds of interpretations which became part of the rules. A good registrar will keep you up to date on all the new changes. I think it is a good thing to clarify the standard when it is needed and it would be more insane to keep re-publishing the standard (at hundreds of dollars cost each time).
2) Remember that only automotive is covered by 16949. The non-automotive portion of your business is not affected by requirements within 16949. All non-automotive portions of the company will have to meet the requirements of whichever other QMS you certify to.
3) Yes, so far all the changes are contained in the list Marc gave - but that doesn't mean more aren't on the way.

Dave

The rules are not interpretations of the standard, they are rules for the registrars who are issuing certificates. To me it wouldn't make sense to include them in TS 16949. They aren't secretive either - they are readily available to all who are interested.

The ISO 9001 standard has basically the same type of system. ISO 9001 contains the QMS requirements. Registrars are required to live with the "rules" in ISO Guide 62 if they are going to issue certificates. In addition to Guide 62, there is also another document giving guidance on the application of Guide 62, which changes from time to time.

Thanks Howste - I wrote that one confusing it with IASG and forgetting about the IATF. I need to look before I leap.

Dave

Last week I was discussion of TS16949 with a very knowledgeable and industry involved contact. He stated that TS16949 may not be around much longer due to automotive OEMs having issues with supplier compliance, and supplier refusual to get registered. Has anyone heard anthing more about this recently? There were rumblings previously, but I just chalked it up to rumor.