IATF 16949 Cl. 8.4.2.3 - Supplier Quality Management System Development

joekirk

Starting to get Involved
#1
This clause is "Supplier quality management system development".

Does this section only apply to "traditional" suppliers as defined by GM as "Suppliers are defined as organizations that are providers of production materials, or production or service parts, directly to an organization who is a provider of General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document. Also included are organizations who are providers of heat-treating, painting, plating or other finishing services."

I have had several auditors and consultants give conflicting answers when asked if this section applies to suppliers and/or "providers of externally provided products, processes and services".

Example: ABC company gets gauges calibrated by an out side company (DEF company). I know DEF is a provides of externally provided products, processes and services, but is the calibration company (DEF in this case) considered a supplier and is Clause 8.4.2.3 applicable to them?
 

Coury Ferguson

Moderator here to help
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
This clause is "Supplier quality management system development".

Does this section only apply to "traditional" suppliers as defined by GM as "Suppliers are defined as organizations that are providers of production materials, or production or service parts, directly to an organization who is a provider of General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document. Also included are organizations who are providers of heat-treating, painting, plating or other finishing services."

I have had several auditors and consultants give conflicting answers when asked if this section applies to suppliers and/or "providers of externally provided products, processes and services".

Example: ABC company gets gauges calibrated by an out side company (DEF company). I know DEF is a provides of externally provided products, processes and services, but is the calibration company (DEF in this case) considered a supplier and is Clause 8.4.2.3 applicable to them?
In the Aerospace Industry (AS9100, ISO9001), all of the above referenced are considered suppliers. A supplier is defined as "any product, services, processing provided outside of the organization (my definition)" are suppliers. But ones that provide office supplies and such could be excluded in the control, in my opinion.
 

Johnnymo62

Haste Makes Waste
#3
I believe the clause defines itself.

The organization shall require their suppliers of automotive products and services to develop...

Only automotive product and service suppliers need ISO9001.
 

mbehmazia

Involved In Discussions
#4
The way I interpret this clause, an IATF certified organization only has to make sure their key suppliers are ISO9001 compliant via second party audits. However, the standard also states, "unless notified by the customer" so the IATF certified organization can waive this requirement.
 

C.R.V.G.

Quality Engineer
#5
Good day!

I'm not sure how to initiate another discussion topic in this forum so I'm posting on this one because I think it fits best.

Our company is in transition to IATF 16949 and will be certified on May/18. Recently we had an internal audit already based on IATF 16949 requirements along with a gap analysis between TS and IATF. Going directly to the point, it was evidenced a non conformity in the clause 8.4.2.3, since we were not able to show any criteria for stablishing a minimum acceptable level and the target level for the QMS of each supplier.

My question is: could anyone please share some good practices or methods for determining minimum and target QMS levels? We are still thinking on a solution for that, but we're afraid to let our method too subjective and get another non conformity on the certification audit.

Thanks a lot for the attention!
 
#6
Good day!

I'm not sure how to initiate another discussion topic in this forum so I'm posting on this one because I think it fits best.

Our company is in transition to IATF 16949 and will be certified on May/18. Recently we had an internal audit already based on IATF 16949 requirements along with a gap analysis between TS and IATF. Going directly to the point, it was evidenced a non conformity in the clause 8.4.2.3, since we were not able to show any criteria for stablishing a minimum acceptable level and the target level for the QMS of each supplier.

My question is: could anyone please share some good practices or methods for determining minimum and target QMS levels? We are still thinking on a solution for that, but we're afraid to let our method too subjective and get another non conformity on the certification audit.

Thanks a lot for the attention!
To me it's pretty clear. You need them to at a minimum be ISO 9001 certified, or approved by your customer. Then they should have some planned progression toward IATF or a reason why full IATF wouldn't be applicable, i.e.; not enough auto business.
 

lmamao

Involved In Discussions
#7
My interpretation is only the suppliers that affect directly to customer requirements (this could be from components to packaging), this would include calibration, what is out of this scope are things like office supplies, cleaning supplies, etc.
 

C.R.V.G.

Quality Engineer
#8
Ok, I think I wasn't clear enough on my point... sorry for this...

IATF 16949 and its SI made it clear about minimum and target QMS. This is clear to us.

So... during the internal audit, the auditor from our consulting company suggested to plan some kind of decision score, which would determine initial & target QMS requirements for each supplier. He suggested some kind of score based on component criticality (not critical, functional, safety) technology/process domain and KPI performance. Multiplying the 3 criterias (like a RPN), the score (according to a score table) would show us:

- The minimum QMS level required for this supplier
- Which one should be upgraded to next QMS level
- Which one should only keep the current QMS level

The QMS levels could be:

- ISO 9001 requirements met and confirmed through 2nd party audit (and approved by customers
- 3rd party certified ISO 9001
- 3rd party certified ISO 9001 + MAQMSR requirements met
- 3rd party certified ISO 9001 + IATF 16949 requirements met and confirmed through 2nd party audit
- 3rd party certified IATF 16949


Point is (for example): XYZ Steel is one of our suppliers. Currently this supplier is ISO 9001 certified. The cl. 8.4.2.3 objective is to "upgrade" all suppliers to IATF 16949 certification, but XYZ Steel automotive market share is 5% of their revenue and our company represents not even 1% of their revenue. In short, this means that they won't upgrade their QMS just because of us.


Is anyone here working with a prioritizing method such as the above? Please share, if possible.


Sorry for the long text :tg:
 
#9
I suppose you can make it as complicated as you want, depending upon what you need it for.

But I would avoid a strict numerical "grade." You'll find and auditor who says once you are 0.5 over the grade, you move to the next level. I would make is as discretionary as possible. And what about your supplier. Do they have input? I expect a lot of push back from suppliers who aren't primary automotive. The new standard is just too burdensome for many. So their plans are important. Like your example of XYZ steel. They could be really critical, and really good, and really resistant to IATF based on their customer base.
 

C.R.V.G.

Quality Engineer
#10
Yeah... you're right. We thought this way too and we believe that this is the best option. We'll try something more subjective, although mainly based on risk analysis.

Our IATF transition audit is in May, so let's see what happens :D
 

Top Bottom