IATF 16949 Contingency Plan Testing


Involved In Discussions
Any thoughts on the expectations for periodic "tests" of your contingency plans? Tests such as evacuation drills for fire, tornado, etc. are easy enough. How does one test or simulate major disruptions such as equipment failures, plant shutdown (fire, etc.), supplier shutdown? The requirement for testing is a separate requirement from annual contingency plan reviews, so I'm guessing the reviews won't constitute a test.


Rubber, Too Glamorous?
This is a good question; I am interested in the group's thoughts on this, too. For a supplier shutdown, you could certainly query your alternate suppliers to find if they can handle the workload in a timely manner. The simulation of major equipment failure could be a giant task, especially if production is at near-capacity. You could simulate a natural disaster, but the cost would be significant. If you can't compromise delivery schedules, you would have to schedule the simulation on off days at overtime wages. It will be interesting to hear feedback from ITAF 16949 auditors about expectations for this requirement.


Involved In Discussions
Good thought about testing backup generators. Like WCHorn, I'd be interested to hear more about expectations from the IATF auditors.
Good thought about testing backup generators. Like WCHorn, I'd be interested to hear more about expectations from the IATF auditors.
So would they. :) My understanding is the training has yet to be rolled out. This thing is going to be a real cluster for a while. Good luck.


Involved In Discussions
IATF has released ADP training & quiz on IATF16949 and rules 5th today. I hope I could understand their intention clearly after I complete all modules.:(

Englishman Abroad

Involved In Discussions

Yes it would be nice to have some guidance on what is needed here.

I do not want to have a conversation with my customers like;

"Sorry, we stopped the assembly plant because we were testing our contingency plan"


Starting to get Involved
Some are easy to do and probably is already done by your company such as fire drill, earthquake drill, violent person in the workplace, first aid drill, chem spill drill and others can be addressed through table talks on things you cannot simulate.


Quite Involved in Discussions
Requirement at point e) states "where appropriate". The example is "simulation" but where it is not "appropriate" , I think it is not pursuable.
Other example , in case you have group of continuity, you shall test during maintenance activity using simulation.
Having a cogeneration plant aimed at supplying energy in case of energy breakage from public line, could be a good method to minimize risks in this sense.
However there are other risks to be managed( natural events, manpower lost, infrastructure etc...)


Involved In Discussions
My view is that the "as appropriate" applies only to the example of simulations, because it is included inside the parentheses about simulations. If it were outside the parentheses, I would agree with you. On the other hand, I hope you are right and I am wrong! It will be interesting to see how this gets audited as has been previously mentioned here.

Top Bottom