Has anyone successfully challenged the new IATF site extension change?

[Reg Morrison]

Update: We were given a wavier from the IAOB/IATF to treat our buildings as one site!!

Can you share some details so that others might be able to do something similar?

I suspect that, now jurisprudence has been set, and the registrars and the IATF will receive a flood of similar requests...

 

[msoules]

Here is what we sent to our registrar, who forwarded it. The names and some details have been changed to protect ... well, just because I am paranoid:

To Whom It May Concern:

Our Company would like to address the New 4th edition rules regarding site extensions.

We operates three adjacent facilities on Main Drive in Detroit, Michigan. All facilities in the compound work under the same management team, quality management system, and management representative. All corporate support functions (purchasing, accounting, human resources, etc.) and records are at one facility. Each building produces similar products and we ship out of the same one facility. Customers have just one supplier code for Us. Only one set of financial books is kept for Us; buildings are not reported separately on financial statements.

Recently we were informed that each facility must be audited separately because of the aforementioned new site extension rule. To audit each facility would effectively be auditing the same system three times. This is neither efficient nor will it provide any benefit to Us or our customers. It will simply cost Us more both in dollars paid and productive time spent.
Our Co. is requesting that our three facilities be audited as we operate; as one company.

Thank you,

Signed by our management rep and president. Hope that helps.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Here is what we sent to our registrar, who forwarded it. The names and some details have been changed to protect ... well, just because I am paranoid:

To Whom It May Concern:

Our Company would like to address the New 4th edition rules regarding site extensions.

We operates three adjacent facilities on Main Drive in Detroit, Michigan. All facilities in the compound work under the same management team, quality management system, and management representative. All corporate support functions (purchasing, accounting, human resources, etc.) and records are at one facility. Each building produces similar products and we ship out of the same one facility. Customers have just one supplier code for Us. Only one set of financial books is kept for Us; buildings are not reported separately on financial statements.

Recently we were informed that each facility must be audited separately because of the aforementioned new site extension rule. To audit each facility would effectively be auditing the same system three times. This is neither efficient nor will it provide any benefit to Us or our customers. It will simply cost Us more both in dollars paid and productive time spent.
Our Co. is requesting that our three facilities be audited as we operate; as one company.

Thank you,

Signed by our management rep and president. Hope that helps.

Excellent! This is exactly what I hoped and expected would happen at some point. This describes 80% of the companies out there, and I fully expect that common sense will prevail at some point and they will modify this rule. It never made sense that each building would require separate certification. It simply does not make sense unless there is more of a management structure at each building. Now, the question becomes, will they modify this rule in time to stop this lunacy now, or will they wait until all the systems have been separated and then they will act? ...here is hoping for common sense to prevail....

 

[rjkozak]

There are no known wins on the site extension with IATF , waivers have been attempted. Make sure you get corporate scheme ( must have corporate QA ) as support function , for the corporate scheme reduction- talk to your CB about this TS rule 5.3. Seems the only other option is to build air bridges to each building so they are connected . Or move all mfg into one building. In any case you can ask your CB to request a waiver for a special case , and try.

 

[Reg Morrison]

There are no known wins on the site extension with IATF , waivers have been attempted.

did you see the post that reads

Update: We were given a wavier from the IAOB/IATF to treat our buildings as one site!!

?

 

[rjkozak]

My bad , I did see the post , perhaps could not believe after all the " rejected attempts " with the rulers . Blinded by the light ? Great start to bringing down the walls of and making progress ,

 

[Jen Kirley]

Re: Has anyone successfully challenged the new site extension change?

How dare one challenge an organization such as this it has helped to improve automotive quality to the level that we have exploding airbags, ignition switches that start fires, floor mats that hold down gas pedals and the other nice things new car owners have earned to love and cherish.

Yes-sir-ee-bob

Much as they'd like CB auditors to behave like regulators, we can't. It's too easy to hide the data.

 

[Golfman25]

Here is what we sent to our registrar, who forwarded it. The names and some details have been changed to protect ... well, just because I am paranoid:

To Whom It May Concern:

Our Company would like to address the New 4th edition rules regarding site extensions.

We operates three adjacent facilities on Main Drive in Detroit, Michigan. All facilities in the compound work under the same management team, quality management system, and management representative. All corporate support functions (purchasing, accounting, human resources, etc.) and records are at one facility. Each building produces similar products and we ship out of the same one facility. Customers have just one supplier code for Us. Only one set of financial books is kept for Us; buildings are not reported separately on financial statements.

Recently we were informed that each facility must be audited separately because of the aforementioned new site extension rule. To audit each facility would effectively be auditing the same system three times. This is neither efficient nor will it provide any benefit to Us or our customers. It will simply cost Us more both in dollars paid and productive time spent.
Our Co. is requesting that our three facilities be audited as we operate; as one company.

Thank you,

Signed by our management rep and president. Hope that helps.

That is awesome. Good for your guys. And will be helpful in my future as well. Thanks.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

Do you hav e three manufacturing facilities? If so what what does each facility make? it depends on your process flow chart? You may want one facility to be TS and the other 2 as support processes. Then only the manufacturing facility gets the audit and the other 2 can be visited once every cycle.

 

[Golfman25]

What you need to understand is most of us older/smaller component manufacturers grow by acquiring our neighbor's buildings. So we may start in 10,000 sq. feet. Then buy the guy next to us for another 10,000 sq. ft. Then we put processing equipment (ie; injection molding machines) in both facilities. We don't consider them separate. They are one facility. No different than a single 20,000 sq. ft. site. Only the IATF would consider them separate, but it looks like they may have come around.