IATF 16949 and ISO 9001 Remote Support - Pass Through Inventory

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
#11
I'm not sure that ISO 9001 is the complete answer, as you still have customers that require IATF registration and expect that all of your products fall under it. It could be that they will accept ISO 9001 and just move forward, but if there are a lot of customers it could be a heady task to break the news to all of them. Knowing now that the same CB services your facility and your parent company's, it seems like it would be a good idea to get them talking to each other to work this out.
I agree. I am not sure what the top of the technical team at our CB will say about this, but both CB locations need to fully understand the circumstances and offer the best solution for us. At this point I still do not have a response from him yet, so I do not know if he agrees or disagrees with their Japan location, but it would be probably the best that both CB locations discuss to get this resolved. Thanks.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
#12
Can't your IATF scope just be for Part C (i.e.; production of part C)? That way there is no possible "misrepresentation." Otherwise, just have your customers buy from you Japan HQ. Why be the middle man? Or just let the customers know you're simply a distributor of parts A & B. I would keep ISO and IATF out of it as much as possible.
We already have the third party audits for locally produced parts. The issue is that because IATF cannot audit non-fab process (which is the pass-through parts), the status of imported parts is unknown (not audited) after being shipped out of Japan. This was why the auditor brought this up in the discussion since our customers require IATF compliance over all products (our parent company in Japan can be ISO 9001 certified and IATF compliant, but because the imported part's process ends when they ship, the inventory here is never audited for storage and shipping).
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
#13
Summarizing.
1. For your customer you are nominated supplier of pass-through parts.​
2. Your total quality performance score is affected by concerns related to pass-through parts.​
3. You manage (lead) corrective action process for pass-through parts concerns.​
Did I understand it correctly?

I guess scope of your automotive QMS covers pass through parts too.
If parts are made in Japan, then IATF requirements apply to them too.
Problem is, first you have not identified manufacturing among remote supporting function you get form your HQ.​
Second, they are not IATF 16949 certified.​
Third, most important, they resits, and that's nothing new for me, as I know their approach very well.​
You are in bad position as long your customer reports concerns, monitor performance including pass-through parts.
If it is not reported, so auditor won't mind otherwise he is obliged to audit your interfaces with HQ.
And it won't be nice for you and your HQ too.

Two options.
1. Discuss matter with your customer and exclude pass-through parts from your performance and satisfaction score.​
2. Discuss with HQ their approach to development of their QMS towards IATF 16949 certification.​
Probably you won't succeed, so prepare for mayor nonconformity during future 3rd part audit for 4.3.1 and then you won't be able to do too much within <90 days.​
Last option​
3. Try transfer Japan production to you or local supplier.​
Your 1 - 3 interpretation of the circumstances is roughly correct. The customers do not distinguish our parent company from us in terms of whether the parts are made here or in Japan (and this would be too much for them as each customer headquarter collects the data from each plant and it's not always well-organized at plant floor level), but they require IATF compliance for all parts. The support function of our parent company in Japan is already included in our scope, so they get audited every year for process design (they do the tool design). The problem is that the pass-through parts from Japan that are stored in our warehouse is never audited because IATF cannot audit non-fab process. Basically once these pass-through parts leave Japan, these are not audited in terms of storage, preservation and shipping. This was why the auditor brought this up in the discussion. The issue is that our parent company is struggling to get certified for IATF 16949 and it's been at least 2 - 3 years they've been discussing but never came to realization. But even if they remain as ISO 9001 with IATF compliance, there's got to be a way that pass-through parts inventory is monitored by the 3rd party and they just can't be left fallen in the crack.

As Jim had suggested, it may be best that this be discussed between our CB location and the CB in Japan (same company) so they can suggest the best way to resolve this issue. I personally feel that we get included in their scope as remote location for distribution would be the best and easiest option but their technical team needs to understand the circumstance thoroughly and agree to this as they seem to have completely different opinion about this (they even said that this was none of our business, which I thought was kind of rude).
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#14
We already have the third party audits for locally produced parts. The issue is that because IATF cannot audit non-fab process (which is the pass-through parts), the status of imported parts is unknown (not audited) after being shipped out of Japan. This was why the auditor brought this up in the discussion since our customers require IATF compliance over all products (our parent company in Japan can be ISO 9001 certified and IATF compliant, but because the imported part's process ends when they ship, the inventory here is never audited for storage and shipping).
I get that, but it is really your customer's problem. I'll bet they haven't even thought of it -- your just getting caught by boilerplate "everything IATF." The discussion should be with your customer and HQ, IMO. I have had situation where the auditor brought something up, we contacted the customer, who shook his head and said "we have never thought about it, that's not what we want."
 

Englishman Abroad

Involved In Discussions
#15
I know that in the US the CBs have a Strange Outlook on things… However parts are not IATF certified, only a manufacturing site. It looks to me like you have outsourced a manufacturing process to a ISO 9001 certified sub supplier (which happens to be part of the same group). See Section 8.4?

Or am I over simplyfying?
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
#16
I know that in the US the CBs have a Strange Outlook on things… However parts are not IATF certified, only a manufacturing site. It looks to me like you have outsourced a manufacturing process to a ISO 9001 certified sub supplier (which happens to be part of the same group). See Section 8.4?

Or am I over simplyfying?
These pass-through parts are manufactured by our parent company in Japan, which is still ISO 9001 certified but not yet IATF 16949 certified. The issue is that some of our customers require IATF 16949 compliance.
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
#17
I get that, but it is really your customer's problem. I'll bet they haven't even thought of it -- your just getting caught by boilerplate "everything IATF." The discussion should be with your customer and HQ, IMO. I have had situation where the auditor brought something up, we contacted the customer, who shook his head and said "we have never thought about it, that's not what we want."
Still though even if the customer purchasing department or the assembly person does not realize it, if the customer manual requires compliance to IATF 16949, it's going to be a problem I think. Auditors won't care what the individual people we deal with everyday - for them customer's requirements in the manual is everything.
 

blile

Registered
#18
We also ship pass-through parts from our parent company in Japan. Our parent company is IATF certified, and we are listed as a remote support location supporting logistics, warehousing, sales, and customer support. I am not sure if ISO 9001 works in the same way (although I think it does) but we are audited as a remote support location.
Even though you are Tier 2, the customer is requiring IATF?
 

blile

Registered
#19
We also receive some pushback whenever we ask such questions. We have another location that I thought should also be remote support but it isn't yet. I basically was told it was none of my business too. Ultimately we tell our auditor that the CB in Japan says its not necessary and we are waiting for them to make the decision. You could just make sure that those areas are audited internally in preparation for them to eventually get added as a remote support location. It may be enough to satisfy the OFI.
 

Crimpshrine13

Involved In Discussions
#20
We also receive some pushback whenever we ask such questions. We have another location that I thought should also be remote support but it isn't yet. I basically was told it was none of my business too. Ultimately we tell our auditor that the CB in Japan says its not necessary and we are waiting for them to make the decision. You could just make sure that those areas are audited internally in preparation for them to eventually get added as a remote support location. It may be enough to satisfy the OFI.
We're tier 2 but some of our customers require IATF certification, and ISO certification is a minimum.

With regards to the non-fab area of our process (the inventory control of the goods we import from our parent company in Japan), we ended up getting ISO 9001 certification at the same time. This way there's no areas in our processes that are not audited by the 3rd party. The next surveillance audit will include this and we'll just have to get it over with and won't have to worry about anyone questioning the gray area. Obviously in our quality manual even the imported goods have the same level of control, but the auditor did not like the fact that it was not audited by the 3rd party because some of our customers require IATF certification.

ISO 9001 does not work the same way as IATF 16949 and cannot include remote support function. I had confirmed this twice with CB's technical team.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Scope of Combined ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 QMS - Non-automotive customers ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
B Go Beyond ISO 9001 WITH IATF 16949 (January 28) [Paid] Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 1
Jimmy123 What is the difference between Error Proofing and Controls? ISO/IATF 16949 - Control Plans FMEA and Control Plans 16
M IATF 16949:2016 clause 8.4.2.3 - We don't have ISO 9001:2015 certificate IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 26
L Comparison matrix between IATF 16949:2016 to ISO 12207, ISO 9001 and Automotive SPICE IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
S Necessity of Legal Register to conform to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, IATF 16949 ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 6
B IATF 16949 manufacturing cell in ISO 9001 factory? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
A ISO / IATF 16949 Requirements for Second Party Services IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
Coury Ferguson Report the CB... Certification Audit (IATF 16949) not to ISO 17021 Registrars and Notified Bodies 1
eule del ayre IATF 16949 / ISO 9001:2015 audit criteria IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 17
xfngrs How similar or different are IATF 16949 Vs. ISO 13485 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
GStough IATF 16949: 2016 and ISO 9001:2015 - How Similar Are They? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
Sidney Vianna IATF 16949:2016 still doesn't get 7.1.4 of ISO 9001:2015 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
J 3 Questions about Management Review - ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 Management Review Meetings and related Processes 4
QMMike ISO (in search of) IATF 16949 vs. TS 16949 changes summed up IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
C Upgrading from ISO 9001:2015 to IATF 16949:2016 - Anyone have a gap analysis tool? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
G Combining ISO 9001:2015 and IATF 16949:2016 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
F IATF 16949 - Cl. 8.4.2.3 - Which type of suppliers could be exempt of ISO 9001 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
K Top Executive Management ISO 9001:2015 and IATF 16949 Overview IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
M ISO/TS16949 to IATF 16949:2016 Gap Analysis Questions IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
C Differences between IATF 16949:2016 vs ISO/TS 16949:2009 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
Anerol C IATF or ISO TS 16949 rules about Scope of QMS IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
B Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition: 4th edition for ISO/TS 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 97
F ISO/TS16949 (to become IATF 16949:2016) alignment to ISO 9001:2015 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 79
S ISO/TS 16949 IATF Rules: 2.9 Management of Impartiality IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
J Certification Scheme for ISO/TS 16949:2002 - Rules for achieving IATF Recognition IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
automoto Requirements of certification bodies recognized by IATF for ISO/TS 16949:2002 ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 12
Sidney Vianna Ten CB's have had their IATF contract terminated - ISO/TS 16949:2002 Registrars and Notified Bodies 3
Icy Mountain IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002 - Not auditable? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
Marc IATF SIGNIFICANTLY Changes ISO/TS 16949:2002 'Rules' ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 5
H IATF approved vs. ISO 9001 / TS 16949 Auditor Requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
A Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition - A Second Edition for ISO/TS 16949:2002 ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 10
T IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002 ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 10
R Where does IATF 16949 address Process mapping? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
A Document "Correspondence IATF 16949 vs ISO13485" available? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
H Remote product audits in Coivd-19 - IATF 16949 9.2.2.4 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
S IATF 16949 - Partial traceability of Aftermarket products IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
M IATF 16949 8.5.1.3 Verification of job set-ups - Do we need secondary check? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
C Industrial scales and MSA (IATF 16949 requirement 7.1.5.1.1) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 30
V Generic IATF 16949 Audit Checklist wanted IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
D Postpone IATF 16949 audit due to COVID-19 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 33
J Does anyone have an excel IATF 16949 Internal Audit checklist I could use? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
T Reaction Plan To Drive suppliers to IATF 16949 registration IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
B IATF 16949 - Is a Deviation required for sample components in a prototype build? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
C IATF 16949 - Scope or not? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
L "IATF-Compliant" IATF 16949:2016 certification? What does this mean? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
V IATF 16949 8.4.1 Control of externally provided processes, products and services - Should the CB be on our Approved Supplier List? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
S Can we provide training plan as corrective action for IATF 16949 Non conformity? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
C Design and implementation of process audits as defined within IATF 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
Q VDA 6.3 questions vs IATF 16949 clauses VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 0
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom