IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition Compliance

[joekirk]

New 16949 standard states that the organization shall not divert nonconforming product to service or other use without prior customer approval.

Does this mean that if a supplier is making a high quality part (screws) for customer A. It cannot disposition its rejects to a lower quality part for customer B without the approval of customer A????

In the scenario above I am talking about both customers purchase similar screws, Company A just has tighter specifications than company B.

Clarification or interpretation is needed here

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming product disposition

Does this mean that if a supplier is making a high quality part (screws) for customer A. It cannot disposition its rejects to a lower quality part for customer B without the approval of customer A????

I do not have a copy of the IATF 16949 Standard, but, based on the quote of the requirement you transposed, if you "regrade" the material and deliver it to ANOTHER customer, you would not be violating the requirement, in my assessment.

 

[QualitySpirit]

Hi, your situation is slightly different from most of the other factories that manufacture a unique part for a specific customer.

I have been to many clients that manufacture in that manner-

for example leather tanning factories, all finished products are checked for scars, holes, defects in each piece of leather hides then they are classified into different grades only then the client can decide which customers each one can be sold to (each customer has different tolerances for the number of holes,scars, per square meter etc.). If they have to scrap all leather hides that fail to meet the highest quality customer, they will go bankrupt very quickly.

In your case, you should have a better definition of nonconforming products that fits your company.

e.g. your nonconforming products = products that completely fail and can not be classified into any grades for any customers.

 

[Sebastian]

organization shall not divert nonconforming product to service or other use without prior customer approval.

If it does not fit to Customer 1 OEM requirements, you must not use it for Customer 1 OES purposes.

 

[Englishman Abroad]

All,

Do you interpret this as being applicable for finished parts only, OR does it apply to partly finished (In process) parts?

Thanks

 

[viperking]

The new standard states that the "organization shall verify that the product to be scrapped is rendered unusable prior to disposal". Does anyone have an interpretation to this requirement and/or an approach they can share?

 

[howste]

The new standard states that the "organization shall verify that the product to be scrapped is rendered unusable prior to disposal". Does anyone have an interpretation to this requirement and/or an approach they can share?

A similar question here: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unusable

Since this requirement was clearly "borrowed" directly from AS9100 it's possible that the IAQG's interpretation should be considered. Keep in mind that they are thinking about aerospace and defense applications, so they are trying to keep people from fishing nonconforming parts out of the recycle bin to put into an aircraft or a defense application. When looking at it from an automotive perspective it may be a little overkill, but it may not be if the product has special characteristics that are safety-related - YMMV.

Physically rendering product unusable (product mutilation) should be accomplished in such a manner that the parts become unusable for their original intended use. Mutilated parts should not be able to be reworked or camouflaged to provide the appearance of being serviceable such as, re-plating, shortening and rethreading long bolts, welding, straightening, machining, cleaning, polishing, or repainting. The intent of this requirement is for it to be impossible for the part to be used for its originally intended purpose.

Mutilation may be accomplished by one or a combination of the following procedures, but is not limited to:
- Grinding.
- Burning.
- Removal of a major integral feature.
- Permanent distortion of parts.
- Cutting a significant size hole with a cutting torch or saw.
- Melting.
- Sawing into many small pieces.
- Removing manufacturer’s identification, part, lot, batch, and serial numbers.

The following procedures are examples of mutilation that are often less successful because they may not be consistently effective:
- Stamping (such as a stamped “R” on a part).
- Spraying with paint.
- Hammer marks.
- Identification by tag or markings.
- Drilling small holes.
- Removal of a lug or other integral feature.
- Sawing in two pieces.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

One thing that some organizations fail to realize is the possibility that, in those situations where the parts are being scrapped exactly because they are already "unusable", no further mutilation may be necessary.

 

[Scanton]

We make components that we send to our customer, who then welds/brazes them onto a sub assembly which they send to their customer who attaches them to their sub assembly who sends them to their customer who attaches them to an engine.

I have deemed what we produce as a component and not a product. It may seem like semantics, but you cannot take one of our "components" and use it in your car, as it is not a product like a switch or a spark plug.

My understanding of the intention of this clause is to stop dangerous rejected items making their way into the end product. The likelihood of someone being able to steal one of our components out of a skip, sell it online to someone who has the knowledge and skill to use it in a car is billions to one.
There is more chance of me winning the lottery on the same day I get run over by a bus whilst getting struck by lightning.

If we made a readily identifiable switch, I can understand that this would need to be destroyed in order to prevent its unintended use in a car.

I have argued this on two IATF 16949 auditor training courses and both trainers have agreed with my interpretation. I will let you know how successful that argument is in three weeks after my IATF 16949 audit.

 

[Sebastian]

Application of this requirement, same as whole IATF 16949 is not limited to Tier-1 suppliers only. Therefore your "components" are also "products" and you shall address this requirement in your system.