Is "service" a product in terms of ISO TS 16949?

[Korni]

Dear all
I`m trying to get the ISO TS certificate for my company next december. The company is a centre for sales, service and logistics and delievers electronic components to the OEMs. Due to the norm (the terms from ISO 9000 are valid) a "product" can be either "service", "hardware", "software" or "bulk material". Nevertheless the auditor wants to see a production line. He told me that he contacted the IATF and whatever is written in the norms or specifications the IATF takes "product" as a part which can be mounted into the car.
Unfortunately our customer - one of the Big Three and member of IATF - insists on the ISO TS 16949 certificate. I think, the guys from the purchase department do not know what this means for suppliers like us.

Has anyone of you made similar experiences or can give me some supporting arguments?
I appreciate your help very much!

Thanks in advance and best regards

Korni

[RCBeyette]

Originally Posted by Korni

Nevertheless the auditor wants to see a production line. He told me that he contacted the IATF and whatever is written in the norms or specifications the IATF takes "product" as a part which can be mounted into the car.

Have you asked to see a document where the IATF defines a product as such? Or, if you do not wish to step on the toes of your auditor, perhaps you could contact the IATF yourself?

Good luck and keep us updated on what happens!

[The Taz!]

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

If you are a service company, then your service IS your product. It sounds like the auditor has taken a very narrow definition here.

Did you address internal as well as external customers? One production area's product (Output) can be another's input. Engineering output (Dwgs, specs, FMEA, etc.) is their product.

I'm having a real hard time with the narrow view here. Sorta makes 3/4 of the TS and ISO standards meaningless.

[Howard Atkins]

Originally Posted by ISO/TS 16949 page 1

This Technical Specification is applicable to sites of the organization where customer-specified parts, for production and/or service, are manufactured.
Supporting functions, whether on-site or remote (such as design centres, corporate headquarters and distribution centres), form part of the site audit as they support the site, but cannot obtain stand-alone certification to this
Technical Specification.

I am afraid that he is right

[Korni]

Of course I asked the auditor where this IATF interpretation is written down. He told me somthing about "statements" but stayed cloudy. On the other hand he shares my opinion about this strange interpretation but he fears for consequences if he dosn't follow this. All certification data like audit plan, results, descriptions etc. are to be stored in an IATF database, so IATF can exactly see what's going on. Beyond that IATF can make the audit a wittness audit and that might stand for trouble for the auditor an me. So he doesn't want to risk his neck - and mine!
He promised me to be very "practical" because he understands our situation. He knows that it will be a show and it's allright for him. But too bad about the money...
Let's wait and see. I'm thankfull for every good idea, but I fear I don't have many possibilities.

Korni

[RCBeyette]

What about contacting the Customer with this apparently recognized interpretation of the Standard and getting their feedback?

[Korni]

Dear Howard,

at the first look I would agree with you but there is a litle difference:
We are a legal independent company. We buy the parts from another company wich belongs to the same corporate group and we have to pay for the parts. The other company has its own certification and we are not included there. How can we go further on?

Korni

[Korni]

Contacting the customer and call his attention to this point might awake sleeping dogs. We are a small company with only 15 people but turn over 3 million parts a year. If the customers suddenly has the idea to buy the parts directly from the production site whe can close the shop. I don't want to risk that only because of cloudy definitions.