AS9100 VS IATF 16949

[dives1313]

Hello All,

We have an site in France that performs our Engineering for our space platform. We are looking to only have our US site certified to AS9100 and want to exclude the Engineering portion that is done in France. Unlike IATF 16949 standard I do not see anything in the AS9100 to identify remote locations. If this is the case, I could exclude the design since its in another site. This is only if we do not mention in QMS or in our core processes / linkages to Engineering. Is this an accurate view point?

 

[Michael_M]

I guess the question would be: How will your company interact with the French location. Will they be a vendor? Will you be purchasing the designs from them and how do they comply with AS9100 if that is going to be a requirement?

I am going from personal experience here so I may be wrong or may not express the full information. AS9100 has the ability to have remote sites, multiple sites, and sites that only provide specific services. You just have to define the scope and abide by the scope.

 

[dives1313]

Hey Michael,

Our France site does all the design and engineering at this location and is a division of our company. The manufacturing is done in the US. My company is trying to exclude the France site as a remote site or multiple site. I don't see in AS9100 the specific criteria of remote sites similar to IATF-16949. Do you know where this is discussed in AS9100? I don't see anyway our company can exclude design/engineering if these are inputs into the production process. I'm trying to dot my i's and cross my t's to make sure I'm not missing an avenue where these function can be excluded from the scope of an audit. - Thanks for your feedback

 

[Michael_M]

Hey Michael,

Our France site does all the design and engineering at this location and is a division of our company. The manufacturing is done in the US. My company is trying to exclude the France site as a remote site or multiple site. I don't see in AS9100 the specific criteria of remote sites similar to IATF-16949. Do you know where this is discussed in AS9100? I don't see anyway our company can exclude design/engineering if these are inputs into the production process. I'm trying to dot my i's and cross my t's to make sure I'm not missing an avenue where these function can be excluded from the scope of an audit. - Thanks for your feedback

I "think" it's in AS9101 or AS9104. One of these 'extra' documents specifies what you are looking for. I know nothing about IATF-16949 so I cannot compare but I would talk to your (potential) registrar and see if they have better guidance as mine is from experience having multiple sites and being told this is how it will be done.

 

[Big Jim]

I'm pretty sure that you don't need to involve the French site in the USA registration. Your scope would include manufacturing and not design. A simple statement that the design entity is the parent company might be a good idea somewhere in your documentation, perhaps in your justification for non-applicability. Although you can't claim non-applicability for things you outsource, this is not outsourcing. The USA site didn't outsource design.

This is a discussion, as mentioned above, that should really be taking place with your registrar. It may be helpful to use the same one that you use in France if they operate in both countries.