There seems to be much discussion in our Divisions on GM's Customer Spedific Requirment for CQI-9 section4.1.11.2. I hope that someone can clear this up for us. The debate seems to be over weather we, a supplier to General Motors and has a part that we have to send out to be heat treated, has to go into the heat treaters facility to conduct an on-site audit or is a self-assessment by our heat treater enough.

The Requirement is as follows:
4.1.12 Heat Treating Processes

Clause 8.2.2.2 of ISO/TS 16949:2002 requires that the organization shall audit each manufacturing process to determine its effectiveness. Applicability and effictiveness of heat treating process shall be determined utilizing CQI-9, 2nd Edition, Special Process: Heat Treat System Assessment (HTSA) published by AIAG, and records maintained. The effectiveness evaluation shall include the organization's self-assessment, actions taken, and that records are maintained.......

My intrepretation of GM Customer Specific Requirements is that We the organization is to audit each manufacturing process (which would include the heat treat facility) and that we are to use our Heat Treaters self-assessment to help determine the effectiveness of their processes.
If I am wrong, please someone tell me. If I am not I hope someone can tell me that too so that I can explain to everyone in my division what GM is requiring. Thank you so much :thanx:

There seems to be much discussion in our Divisions on GM's Customer Spedific Requirment for CQI-9 section4.1.11.2. I hope that someone can clear this up for us. The debate seems to be over weather we, a supplier to General Motors and has a part that we have to send out to be heat treated, has to go into the heat treaters facility to conduct an on-site audit or is a self-assessment by our heat treater enough.

The Requirement is as follows:
4.1.12 Heat Treating Processes

Clause 8.2.2.2 of ISO/TS 16949:2002 requires that the organization shall audit each manufacturing process to determine its effectiveness. Applicability and effictiveness of heat treating process shall be determined utilizing CQI-9, 2nd Edition, Special Process: Heat Treat System Assessment (HTSA) published by AIAG, and records maintained. The effectiveness evaluation shall include the organization's self-assessment, actions taken, and that records are maintained.......

My intrepretation of GM Customer Specific Requirements is that We the organization is to audit each manufacturing process (which would include the heat treat facility) and that we are to use our Heat Treaters self-assessment to help determine the effectiveness of their processes.
If I am wrong, please someone tell me. If I am not I hope someone can tell me that too so that I can explain to everyone in my division what GM is requiring. Thank you so much :thanx:

I can't help, but it seems that the phrase "...the organization's self-assessment..." fails to define what's meant by "the organization." It doesn't make any sense if it's meant to define you as "the organization," because you can't do a "self-assessment" of someone else's processes. Maybe someone here with direct experience can shed some light.

Added in edit: When in doubt, ask the customer. :D

I wish it was as easy as asking the Customer. In the past when I have asked for clarification on their requirements They usually say, What Customer Specific Requirement, I didn't even know we had one. Or, I don't have a clue what that means, or people we don't even know write those things I think you know more about it then we do.. But, I can try again. Thanks

I wish it was as easy as asking the Customer. In the past when I have asked for clarification on their requirements They usually say, What Customer Specific Requirement, I didn't even know we had one. Or, I don't have a clue what that means, or people we don't even know write those things I think you know more about it then we do.. But, I can try again. Thanks

:topic: I understand, believe me. Once I had a PPAP submission rejected by GM (with an ensuing PRR --Problem Resolution and Reporting--GM's CAR) on the basis that required information was missing. The information wasn't missing, so a phone call was placed. After about three days of phone tag, I finally reached the person responsible for rejecting the submission. I explained to him how to find the allegedly missing information, and he acknowledged that he had missed it. I then had the temerity to ask him to rescind the PRR, as it had a negative affect on our PPM numbers. He refused. I tried to reason with him telling him that if I answered the PRR I would (A) cite him as the root cause of the problem, and (B) still take an unwarranted (no pun intended) PPM hit. His final answer to me was, "Look, I don't know how to back the PRR out of the system. I just got out of school, I've only been here for a month, and I have no idea what I'm doing, so you'll have to answer it." :frust::mad:

I was guessing before I even finished reading your note that he probably didn't know how to take it out of the PRR System and he was probably afraid to ask how and your PPM numbers suffered because of it.

There seems to be much discussion in our Divisions on GM's Customer Spedific Requirment for CQI-9 section4.1.11.2. I hope that someone can clear this up for us. The debate seems to be over weather we, a supplier to General Motors and has a part that we have to send out to be heat treated, has to go into the heat treaters facility to conduct an on-site audit or is a self-assessment by our heat treater enough.

The Requirement is as follows:
4.1.12 Heat Treating Processes

Clause 8.2.2.2 of ISO/TS 16949:2002 requires that the organization shall audit each manufacturing process to determine its effectiveness. Applicability and effictiveness of heat treating process shall be determined utilizing CQI-9, 2nd Edition, Special Process: Heat Treat System Assessment (HTSA) published by AIAG, and records maintained. The effectiveness evaluation shall include the organization's self-assessment, actions taken, and that records are maintained.......

My intrepretation of GM Customer Specific Requirements is that We the organization is to audit each manufacturing process (which would include the heat treat facility) and that we are to use our Heat Treaters self-assessment to help determine the effectiveness of their processes.
If I am wrong, please someone tell me. If I am not I hope someone can tell me that too so that I can explain to everyone in my division what GM is requiring. Thank you so much :thanx:

This is a bit murky, but here goes. IMHO - As I read this the Organization (read you) is to perform the Mfg. Process Audit of your HT process (subcontracted service see 7.4.1.2) using the HTSA. Since you have subcontracted the Heat Treating of the parts you also need to ensure that you include evidence of the supplier evaluation & selection (hopefully using one of the HT system surveys) as well as adequate supplier development (in this case it is hoped that the HTSA was provided to the selected source if it wasn't used as part of the evaluation process & they didn't already have it). It may be the possibile to use the supplier's self assessment to HTSA in lieu of conducting a full scale HTSA assessment at their site or a second party assessment that has already been conducted.

The content below is copied from the GM customer specifics dated Sept. 07.
This requirement shall also apply to heat treat suppliers to the organization pursuant to ISO/TS
16949:2002 Clause 7.4.1.2 (supplier development clause).

Note 2: 2nd Party assessment by a competent auditor and meeting the above requirements will satisfy
the self-assessment requirement.
Note 3: Implementation effectiveness should be based on evidence that the organization has a
process in place that includes elements such as auditors identified, schedule for self-assessment in place including schedule adherence, supplier development process identified for applicable suppliers,
monitoring of progress, defined corrective action process and record-keeping.

There seems to be much discussion in our Divisions on GM's Customer Spedific Requirment for CQI-9 section4.1.11.2. I hope that someone can clear this up for us. The debate seems to be over weather we, a supplier to General Motors and has a part that we have to send out to be heat treated, has to go into the heat treaters facility to conduct an on-site audit or is a self-assessment by our heat treater enough.

The Requirement is as follows:
4.1.12 Heat Treating Processes

Clause 8.2.2.2 of ISO/TS 16949:2002 requires that the organization shall audit each manufacturing process to determine its effectiveness. Applicability and effictiveness of heat treating process shall be determined utilizing CQI-9, 2nd Edition, Special Process: Heat Treat System Assessment (HTSA) published by AIAG, and records maintained. The effectiveness evaluation shall include the organization's self-assessment, actions taken, and that records are maintained.......

My intrepretation of GM Customer Specific Requirements is that We the organization is to audit each manufacturing process (which would include the heat treat facility) and that we are to use our Heat Treaters self-assessment to help determine the effectiveness of their processes.
If I am wrong, please someone tell me. If I am not I hope someone can tell me that too so that I can explain to everyone in my division what GM is requiring. Thank you so much :thanx:


Most of my clients ensure that the heat treat supplier performs the SELF-assessment, and get a copy. However, an organization can particpate if they choose to.

I can't help, but it seems that the phrase "...the organization's self-assessment..." fails to define what's meant by "the organization." It doesn't make any sense if it's meant to define you as "the organization," because you can't do a "self-assessment" of someone else's processes. Maybe someone here with direct experience can shed some light.

Added in edit: When in doubt, ask the customer. :D

We, as a direct supplier performed a "self-assessment" using the CQI-9 special processes audit which was then audited by GM. What I found interesting about this is that the intent of the audit is meant to be a self-improvement tool, rather than one that a customer could mandate or withhold business as a result of non-conformance....

We, as a direct supplier performed a "self-assessment" using the CQI-9 special processes audit which was then audited by GM. What I found interesting about this is that the intent of the audit is meant to be a self-improvement tool, rather than one that a customer could mandate or withhold business as a result of non-conformance....

Hello cbhigdon,

I understand your concern. However, the customer has the right to "verify." Regretfully, the OEM's have been "burned" a few times. Hence the urge to focus on "special processes." By the way, did you do well with the GM audit?

Stijloor.

Yep, No Findings, which is something that everyone appreciates (especially the customer and our upper management group)...

CBH