IATF 16949 "if required by the customer"

K

kylerf

Why does the new standard bother saying "if required by the customer" in the standard?

For example: 8.5.1.1- "If required by the customer, the organization shall obtain customer approval after review or revision of the control plan."

If you are not doing something that the customer requires you to do, it would already be a nonconformity as it is so it doesn't make much sense to me to put that in the standard. Thoughts?



Also something that doesn't make much sense to me is "the organization shall, as applicable".
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
re: IATF 16949 "if required by the customer"

Why does the new standard bother saying "if required by the customer" in the standard?

For example: 8.5.1.1- "If required by the customer, the organization shall obtain customer approval after review or revision of the control plan."
Probably because they want auditors to pay attention to this. Auditors should be sampling from customer-specific requirements. Putting this in the standard ensures that this requirement will rise to the top of those looked at regularly.
 

Ian_Morris

Involved In Discussions
re: IATF 16949 "if required by the customer"

Also something that doesn't make much sense to me is "the organization shall, as applicable".

The standard includes this statement on applicability:

"All the requirements of this International Standard are generic and are intended to be applicable to any
organization, regardless of its type or size, or the products and services it provides."

Not all organisations will have the same requirements and not all organisations will have processes that relate to certain clauses.

I work in professional services now, having worked in manufacturing and engineering for a long time and an example of difference would be that we do not use measuring equipment to validate the work that we do. Therefore this clause would not be applicable to our business and could be a stated exclusion.

Hope this helps.:2cents:
 
K

kylerf

re: IATF 16949 "if required by the customer"

Just to clear up any confusion,

does that mean that whenever "as applicable" is used then it is still a requirement? as long as the organization can conform to it?

for example: "The organization shall include in the control plan: as applicable"

with that clause, if you make parts and have control plans then it is a requirement to have first/last part validation, right?
 
B

BoardGuy

re: IATF 16949 "if required by the customer"

Just to clear up any confusion,

does that mean that whenever "as applicable" is used then it is still a requirement? as long as the organization can conform to it?

for example: "The organization shall include in the control plan: as applicable"

with that clause, if you make parts and have control plans then it is a requirement to have first/last part validation, right?
No it should not be viewed as a mandatory requirement because it may not be applicable. Your organization must review the “as applicable” to determine if it applies based on the product you produce, requirements of the customer, requirements of a regulatory authority or the needs of the organization. If any of these groups say it needed or required then it is applicable to you QMS.
 

Jack Chiew

Starting to get Involved
Hi Kylert
Not sure my comments are still useful to you. Your question is >2years old. I am a 3P auditor on IATF, just joining the group. The answer to your question is: customers out there are all different. And their requirements are also different. Example, OEM tend to be very stringent in their control. They want to approve any change taking place, including changes to the control plan. So you have to get their approval every time there is a change. Lower-tier customers tend to be more lax, and most of them will leave it to you to manage your business, after the PPAP stage. IATF does not want to make things mandatory when it is not required by the customers. I think that should be a welcoming piece of news.:)
 

jmech

Trusted Information Resource
Background as to why the standard might bother including "if required by the customer" requirements:

I've been involved in writing other standards (not IATF 16949) where the committee added this type of requirement. One or more committee members strongly felt that we need a requirement. Other committee members felt that this requirement was not necessary or that it should be up to the customer to specify if this requirement was necessary. The compromise was to add the requirement to the standard with "if required by the customer".

I agree that it would already be a nonconformity not to meet customer requirements, so this type of requirement adds little (or no) value and tends to add confusion. However, some people feel that it draws organization and auditor attention to an area and/or that it can make it easier to transition to an "always" (not just if required by customer) requirement in the next edition.
 
Top Bottom