Well, I'm begrudgingly back from a week at the beach - much needed, I was THAT close to going postal! I'm in need of a copy of this document, the AIAG Actionline Document that came out in November 2002. As a NON-Aiag member I only have access to the $$$$ one. Anyone feeling generous - wanna share??? :)

Thanks!

Let me see if I can find it........

Thanks!

It lists three articles, I can email them to you if you want.

Suweet! Please DO! . Thanks!

I'm back.... I got the documents but they don't include a "page 43" which is referred to often in the 29 page document and is THE page my auditor pointed me to when I asked what they were looking for exactly when requesting a list of customer specific requirements. Can anyone help?

I'm back.... I got the documents but they don't include a "page 43" which is referred to often in the 29 page document and is THE page my auditor pointed me to when I asked what they were looking for exactly when requesting a list of customer specific requirements. Can anyone help?

Page 43 is a listing of where Customer-Specific Requirements can be found. I think I would be arm wrestling an auditor that was saying I had to have that page.

Oh, my PM is lighting up. Could that be you Steel?

They're not saying I have to have that page, but when I scheduled my TS transition audit for April '04 (yes, I work in advance) they sent a page of the items I have to provide them with in advance of the audit... one was "a list of customer specific requirements." Since we're Tier 2, I sent an email to audit body asking exactly what they were looking for, and that's when they said "see page 43."

They're not saying I have to have that page, but when I scheduled my TS transition audit for April '04 (yes, I work in advance) they sent a page of the items I have to provide them with in advance of the audit... one was "a list of customer specific requirements." Since we're Tier 2, I sent an email to audit body asking exactly what they were looking for, and that's when they said "see page 43."

Okay, I can accept that. Once you get to your fax, and read it, the whole thing might be clearer. Your welcome! :agree:

db, got your fax. Thanks! So, if we're not Tier 1 and we don't supply to any of these folks, then my list to my registrar of "customer specific requirements" will be BLANK???

db, got your fax. Thanks! So, if we're not Tier 1 and we don't supply to any of these folks, then my list to my registrar of "customer specific requirements" will be BLANK???

That list is just where to find the customer specifics. If your customers are not on the list, the next question, naturally, is: "How do you know what your CSRs are? The answer may be found in your 7.1 and 7.2 activities. Not every customer has a "list" of requirements. Auditors know this, and may ask to see if you really know what your customer requires.

Bottom line is you might not have a "list". Just like under QS, you did not have to have an AVL.

Obviously what I'm trying to avoid is having to send registrar a list of ALL our customers and their requirements! All our customer's tell us the basics - what gauge material they want, how they want it packaged, cold roll versus hot roll, etc - all of which is captured on our "shop order" system, and all of which is traceable to the purchase order/fax/phone record when they sent the order. So we will have NO problem demonstrating in an audit that we know customer requirements and comply with them. But for this pre-audit documentation requirement, I'm not keen on idea of sending a list of EVERY customer's requirements!

I'm leaning toward modifying an existing Order Preview procedure to note how we WOULD handle OEM "customer specific requirements" if we had any, and noting how we handle "non-OEM" specific requirements, and sending that procedure on to the registrar to satisfy the requirement.

Obviously what I'm trying to avoid is having to send registrar a list of ALL our customers and their requirements! All our customer's tell us the basics - what gauge material they want, how they want it packaged, cold roll versus hot roll, etc - all of which is captured on our "shop order" system, and all of which is traceable to the purchase order/fax/phone record when they sent the order. So we will have NO problem demonstrating in an audit that we know customer requirements and comply with them. But for this pre-audit documentation requirement, I'm not keen on idea of sending a list of EVERY customer's requirements!

I'm leaning toward modifying an existing Order Preview procedure to note how we WOULD handle OEM "customer specific requirements" if we had any, and noting how we handle "non-OEM" specific requirements, and sending that procedure on to the registrar to satisfy the requirement.

What clause (requirement) are they citing?

My guess is element 9.1.2.2, which states, "The supplier shall comply with any and all obscure "requirements" cited by registrar."

Steel,
If you get one, look at your scope of work you receive from your customer, also you may look at your PO's. Those are your contracts and when not specified by CSRs the Tier 1's may put them in those documents.

Randy, we don't get that kind of document. Our customer's all produce their OWN PO's, instead of passing on the one from their customer (lest we discover who their customer is - oooohhhh!) - so we only get the basics.

My guess is element 9.1.2.2, which states, "The supplier shall comply with any and all obscure "requirements" cited by registrar."
ROFLASTC*!


*rolling on floor laughing and scaring the cat

ROFLASTC*!


*rolling on floor laughing and scaring the cat

I'm glad you explained that. I spent hours trying to figure it out. Perhaps you will scare it all the way to Marc. He needs another stray (sorry, wrong thread) :vfunny:

DON'T SCARE THE CAT!

Steelwoman, aka Rabid Cat Lover :D

DON'T SCARE THE CAT!

Steelwoman, aka Rabid Cat Lover :D
I'll keep my three healthy ones, but I'll be sure to send any & all rabid cats your way then...

lmaosmb!!!


(laughing my *** off scaring my boss! I'm pretty sure that's more danagerous than scaring the cat! :D)

Our customer's all produce their OWN PO's, instead of passing on the one from their customer
That's what I mean, if there were requirements from their customer I would hope that they passed them on to you! I know, wake up and smell the cat food (or is that rabid cat food?).
No, I'm just looking at 7.4.2 which put the responsibility on your customer and their purchasing documents. "The organization shall ensure the adequacy of specified purchase requirements prior to their communication to the supplier". You're the supplier so that's where you go for your customer requirements. At least that's what I'd tell my auditor.

Okay, I seek further clarification, maybe I'm just missing something here, but...

We supply raw material (sheet steel) to four customers (out of our base of hundreds) whose paperwork says, for instance, Honda.... but we do not provide the material TO Honda.... it instead goes to a stamper, who stamps out and forms parts for Honda who THEN supplies those parts to Honda. We have always maintained - and been supported in audits - that this still makes us "tier 2" - as we are one step removed from THE Honda, and one step removed from the process of making the part that goes on the car. You can argue (and I'm sure someone will) the logic there, but it's what we've maintained lo these many years with success.

Anywho, so in transitioning to TS, our registrar asked us to supply them with a list of "customer specific requirements". When I asked for clarification on that, she pointed me to page 43 of the AIAG guidance doc in November, which lists a load of Automotive/OEM customers, and points to their respective online Supplier Quality manuals. She said see page 43, that's what we're looking for.....

If I, as a Tier 2 supplier to Honda (who is on that list) never get provided with information by our customer of any "honda specific" requirements, am I STILL responsible for knowing the specifics of that manual and complying with all the requirements? An example: I looked and found PPAP requirements in the supplier manual. But OUR customer NEVER requires a ppap from us - they, presumably, do their own once they produce the part and supply that to Honda.

So my question/my MRT's question, WHAT info DO we supply a registrar asking for a "list of customer specific requirements?"

Am I just totally brainfogged from my week at the beach?

Steel,
So in the scenario you described above...why are you going TS16949 vs ISO9001?

Okay, I seek further clarification, maybe I'm just missing something here, but...

We supply raw material (sheet steel) to four customers (out of our base of hundreds) whose paperwork says, for instance, Honda.... but we do not provide the material TO Honda.... it instead goes to a stamper, who stamps out and forms parts for Honda who THEN supplies those parts to Honda. We have always maintained - and been supported in audits - that this still makes us "tier 2" - as we are one step removed from THE Honda, and one step removed from the process of making the part that goes on the car. You can argue (and I'm sure someone will) the logic there, but it's what we've maintained lo these many years with success.

Anywho, so in transitioning to TS, our registrar asked us to supply them with a list of "customer specific requirements". When I asked for clarification on that, she pointed me to page 43 of the AIAG guidance doc in November, which lists a load of Automotive/OEM customers, and points to their respective online Supplier Quality manuals. She said see page 43, that's what we're looking for.....

If I, as a Tier 2 supplier to Honda (who is on that list) never get provided with information by our customer of any "honda specific" requirements, am I STILL responsible for knowing the specifics of that manual and complying with all the requirements? An example: I looked and found PPAP requirements in the supplier manual. But OUR customer NEVER requires a ppap from us - they, presumably, do their own once they produce the part and supply that to Honda.

So my question/my MRT's question, WHAT info DO we supply a registrar asking for a "list of customer specific requirements?"

Am I just totally brainfogged from my week at the beach?

Okay, you are responsible for YOUR customer's requirements, not your customer's customers (unless the requirements are passed down to you from YOUR customer. In the case given, you do not sell to Honda, so you would not be expected to have Honda's requirements. Take a look at page 43. See all of the "(password required)" notations? If you have the password, then the requirements have probably been passed to you.

So, what do you tell the reqistrar? How about this:

"We have no list. Our customers give us their requirements as part of our 7.1 and 7.2 activities. The requirements are determined at that time, and change with every order."

Once again, what sub-clause is the registrar referring to? Where does it say: "The organizations shall maintain a list of customer specific requirements."?

So in the scenario you described above...why are you going TS16949 vs ISO9001?


For the best of all reasons - 'cause Corporate says so. Sincerely, that's why - our corporate office requires ALL the divisions to be QS/soon TS certified. So we are.

db, I like your wording, mind if I steal it? :D

So in the scenario you described above...why are you going TS16949 vs ISO9001?


For the best of all reasons - 'cause Corporate says so. Sincerely, that's why - our corporate office requires ALL the divisions to be QS/soon TS certified. So we are.

db, I like your wording, mind if I steal it? :D

You're "StealWoman" aren't you?

But before you do that...

Make a list of your customers. Contact them and ask if they have any requirements that are not on the boilerplate (the back or PO's, or attachments to RFQ's, etc.). If they have them, then...make sure you have access to them. If all they use the boilerplate stuff and the RFQ (or equivalent), then tell the registrar that. The important thing is that YOU know what your customer expects from you.

If the auditor persists…ask “Where’s the shall?”

"Where's the Shall?" Hmmmmm, I think I've heard that on the cove somewhere before? LOL!

Yup, good input guys. Ya'll should go into Quality or something! :D

So in the scenario you described above...why are you going TS16949 vs ISO9001?


For the best of all reasons - 'cause Corporate says so. Sincerely, that's why - our corporate office requires ALL the divisions to be QS/soon TS certified. So we are.

db, I like your wording, mind if I steal it? :D

Refer to Para 2.2 of the Certification scheme:
"Any "site" may elect to pursue third party certification to ISO/TS16949:2000, however, such "sites" shall demonstrated capability to conform to all ISO/TS 16949:2000 requirements. (See Annex 1) Conformance with ISO/TS 16949:2000 for third party certification shall be based on objective evidence of meeting each applicable requirement, including customer specific requirements, at the time of audit."

So, Steel, in a nutshell, yes you have to meet the applicabel customer specific requirements. Regardless of what your flows down to you.

Refer to Para 2.2 of the Certification scheme:
"Any "site" may elect to pursue third party certification to ISO/TS16949:2000, however, such "sites" shall demonstrated capability to conform to all ISO/TS 16949:2000 requirements. (See Annex 1) Conformance with ISO/TS 16949:2000 for third party certification shall be based on objective evidence of meeting each applicable requirement, including customer specific requirements, at the time of audit."

So, Steel, in a nutshell, yes you have to meet the applicabel customer specific requirements. Regardless of what your flows down to you.

But they can meet this through their 7.1 and 7.2 stuff. They don't have to have a "list of CSRs" (a page 43 type document).

Steel,
Your compliance to customer requirements may be as easy as showing the material certifications compared to the order. On their PO to you they list what type/grade of steel they want (customer requirement), you test and ship.
I agree with db, Honda is not "your" customer the Tier 1 is.

But they can meet this through their 7.1 and 7.2 stuff. They don't have to have a "list of CSRs" (a page 43 type document).

CSR's are not defined in 7.1 or 7.2. How would you know what they are if you do not have a list.

CSR's are not defined in 7.1 or 7.2. How would you know what they are if you do not have a list.

The point is you need to know your Customer Specific Requirements. A list is one method (provided you keep it up to date), but not the only method. Most customers that do not have one place where they list CSRs will usually have them boilerplated on some form of documentation (usually POs and RFQs -- the "fine print" stuff). What the organization needs to do is to be able to figure out where the CSRs are.

As part of your 7.1 and 7.2 activities, you need to review the CSRs to ensure you have the ability to meet them.

DON'T SCARE THE CAT!

Steelwoman, aka Rabid Cat Lover This may be mean, but...

You have seen http://CheechWiz.com/Humour/Suicide_cat.mpeg have you not?

Okay, I can accept that. Once you get to your fax, and read it, the whole thing might be clearer. Your welcome! Is this something that can be posted?

Marc, my $*#!#* computer at work won't play an mpeg, so I forwarded that link to myself at home - I'll check it out tonight. "suicide cat"??? sounds intriguing!

Is this something that can be posted?

I wish I could, but I only have a paper copy and don't have easy access to a scanner. It is page 43 of the AIAG publication "Exploring ISO/TS 16949:2002. It is available from the AIAG ($50 if you are not a member).

I realize I am a bit late, but is there any chance I could get the same set of articles that you managed to round up a month ago? :eek: