IATF 16949 8.5.1.4

[Ron Rompen]

I am doing a gap analysis for our transition to IATF 16949 (currently ISO 9001), and I am having a few concerns with this requirement;

'The organization shall define and implement the necessary actions to ensure product compliance with requirements after a planned or unplanned production shutdown period.'

The process controls that have been implemented to ensure compliance during NORMAL operations should suffice to ensure compliance - if they don't, then your APQP process did not succeed.

Agree/disagree?

 

[Miner]

Fortunately, I left automotive before IATF 16949, but am very familiar with complying with the prior 16949. I understand where they are coming from, particularly with the unplanned shutdown. The focus is not so much with the product (though that is still important), but also with the process.

I have worked with processes that, under normal conditions are never shutdown (e.g., hydrogen furnace) unless they need to be rebuilt. An unplanned shutdown can cause major process issues. Or a stamping press when you lose a single phase of power. There are a lot of non-product requirements that must be in place to check on the condition of the process equipment, make repairs, get it back up and running (~ 24 hours for the hydrogen furnace), and checked out. I have heard stories of some of the issues encountered by the OEMs when these shutdowns occurred, so they have a reason. Part of the requirement is simply to call attention to it to make sure you have it covered.

 

[Ron Rompen]

I don't disagree Miner, and I fully understand and appreciate the need to verify non-product requirements before restarting equipment. However, the clause in the standard specifically addresses PRODUCT compliance, and makes no mention of process compliance.

 

[Ashland78]

We have often found a contingency plan works for this. I totally agree with what Miner stated. Think of if there was a fire or flood how would you guarantee production started back up adequately.

 

[Johnnymo62]

I don't think that a first piece type of check is adequate to verify the parts and process are stable after a cold start up for injection molding.

 

[malasuerte]

I don't disagree Miner, and I fully understand and appreciate the need to verify non-product requirements before restarting equipment. However, the clause in the standard specifically addresses PRODUCT compliance, and makes no mention of process compliance.

To your exact question: Disagree - "normal" does not ensure. It could, but is not guarantee.

To this statement:
If your 'Process' is not in control, then how can you expect your 'Product' to be in compliance. So the process is actually a part of this reqt.

 

[Johnnymo62]

I don't think that a first piece type of check is adequate to verify the parts and process are stable after a cold start up for injection molding.

NOT ADEQUATE, sorry

 

[Sebastian]

Definition of planned production shutdown.
It could be weekend or single shift.

Power shortage.
Part get stuck in mold. Can we wait with it's removal until power return or do we need to remove it urgently?
What is procedure of part removal?
Power returns.
What is procedure for machine restart? Including return to position zero, check for damages.
What is procedure for process setup?
How setup is verified (verification of product samples)?
Finally - first piece verification by Production Operator.