Permissible Exclusions - How is 6.2.2.1 Product design skills being handled

[db]

Sub-Clause 1.2 reads (in part): “The only permitted exclusions for this Technical Specification relate to 7.3…..”

If this is the case, how is 6.2.2.1 Product design skills being handled for a non-design organization? How can you meet the “shall” if you exclude product design?

IMNSHO, this is a hole in TS.

[db]

16949 Allows 7.3 product design to be excluded. It specifically states that process design are not included. Hence my question. There are parts of 7.3 that call out process design, there are other parts that do not. For example: 7.3.1.1 Multidisciplinary approach, does not say "process". Does this apply to process design? 7.3.4 Design and development review, same thing. Does it apply? Or does process design only apply to those sub-clauses that actually say "process"? I think that if the sub-clause can be applied to process, it should be. But where is the "shall", and how should this be approached?

[db]

It is not a good thing when I have to post replies to my own posts.

[Dean P.]

I'm not well-versed in TS, I just want to wait and see if you start arguing with yourself.

[E Wall]

Is there no-one out there that uses or is familiar with 16949 and can help out?

Dave, Not having the benefit of the spec...I will take a stab (you are at least forwarned to blow this off if it isn't a match )

If the 6 series is resources, like the 9001:2000...then I would say you should use this to point (refer) to whomever is actually performing the tasks and what your company will accept as the minimum requirements.

Does that make sense? Eileen

Since the shall is under the banner of human resources and training I would say that "if" you are design responsible those individuals performing the function must be competant.

I would say that if a company is not design responsible, it will not formally have trained product design personnel therefore the shall could be covered by a simple statement.

Just a thought.

[Marc]

db said:

It is not a good thing when I have to post replies to my own posts.

Nope - it's not good. But, all in all, most questions get responses rather rapidly as you know because often you're answering someone elses - for which I and all the others thank you for. Sometimes you have to 'bump' your question as you did. You know how it is with free services!

I'll have a look when I get back to the house tonight, but I suspect it's one of those 'little' things which will end up in a 50 page interpretations list (which those who wrote the document will, of course, blame on auditor incompetence or lack of training!

Dean P. said:

I'm not well-versed in TS, I just want to wait and see if you start arguing with yourself.

I want to see this as well!

[M Greenaway]

db

Perhaps not a hole as such, but not very clever either.

I cant imagine that an auditor would expect to see trained product design personnel at a company that performs no product design.

But you never know.........