IATF 16949 Cl. 8.4.2.3 - Supplier Quality Management System Development

[John C. Abnet]

Good day @joekirk. There have been numerous accurate and beneficial replies to your original post. Let's look directly and objectively at the standard and also ISO 9000:2015, "fundamentals and vocabulary" .
a) 9001:2015 [3.2.5] identifies "provider" as...
"organization that provides a product or a service".
b) IATF 16949 8.4.1.1 indicates...
"...all products and services that affect the customer requirements, such
as...calibration services.

I believe you will agree that these two documents make it quite clear. Hope this helps...
Be well.

 

[vincee]

Hi all, this is great correspondence...IATF published a "Sanctioned Interpretations" effective June 2018 that states, "the organization SHALL require their suppliers of automotive products and services to develop, implement, and improve a QMS with the ultimate objective of becoming certified to this Automotive QMS Standard". Perhaps I am at fault for not being up to date as our transition audit from TS to IATF was on June 6(6 days later since sanctioned interpretation requirement was released)!
As the actual minor finding was the supplier QMS development process was not fully effective as there was no plan for suppliers relative to QMS development with the ultimate objective of becoming certified to IATF 16949:2016.
What this means is yes we do currently have ISO only certified suppliers but are Compliant to IATF(Formally TS16949:2009) and all 8.4.2.3 elements a to e were met, i.e., 2nd party audits, certified through third-party audits, etc.
So my plan is to have a plan in place that encompasses:

• 
  Senior management communication to applicable supply base's senior management

Suppliers to complete a supplier assessment

• 
  Gap analysis completed with timelines(ISO - IATF)
  Selection and implementation of applicable supply base is based on risk using Top Suppliers Dollars Spent or Volume.
  
  In summary as I believe this is all subject to interpretation, I look forward and appreciate your comments...great thread folks!
  Thanks,
  Vince

 

[Golfman25]

Hi all, this is great correspondence...IATF published a "Sanctioned Interpretations" effective June 2018 that states, "the organization SHALL require their suppliers of automotive products and services to develop, implement, and improve a QMS with the ultimate objective of becoming certified to this Automotive QMS Standard". Perhaps I am at fault for not being up to date as our transition audit from TS to IATF was on June 6(6 days later since sanctioned interpretation requirement was released)!
As the actual minor finding was the supplier QMS development process was not fully effective as there was no plan for suppliers relative to QMS development with the ultimate objective of becoming certified to IATF 16949:2016.
What this means is yes we do currently have ISO only certified suppliers but are Compliant to IATF(Formally TS16949:2009) and all 8.4.2.3 elements a to e were met, i.e., 2nd party audits, certified through third-party audits, etc.
So my plan is to have a plan in place that encompasses:

• 
  Senior management communication to applicable supply base's senior management

Suppliers to complete a supplier assessment

• 
  Gap analysis completed with timelines(ISO - IATF)
  Selection and implementation of applicable supply base is based on risk using Top Suppliers Dollars Spent or Volume.
  
  In summary as I believe this is all subject to interpretation, I look forward and appreciate your comments...great thread folks!
  Thanks,
  Vince

It's a bogus requirement. There is no reason the entire supply chain has to be IATF certified. There are many component suppliers where ISO will do just fine. So you can go to your supply chain and ask "what are you plans?" And they can give you some BS how they are working towards compliance and certification -- only to never actually get there because they have real work to do. Great, now everyone feels warm and fuzzy. I wish you auditor focused something actually substantive. Good luck.

 

[AMIT BALLAL]

It's a bogus requirement. There is no reason the entire supply chain has to be IATF certified. There are many component suppliers where ISO will do just fine. So you can go to your supply chain and ask "what are you plans?" And they can give you some BS how they are working towards compliance and certification -- only to never actually get there because they have real work to do. Great, now everyone feels warm and fuzzy. I wish you auditor focused something actually substantive. Good luck.

I would agree this is a bogus requirement if each supplier has to be IATF16949 certified. But I don't see a shall requirement in standard saying "each supplier shall be certified to IATF16949". It just says to follow a sequence towards IATF16949 certification, but for some suppliers this sequence needs to be followed and for some suppliers only some steps might be sufficient depending upon the automotive business / business with the organization they are having and risk.

Only requirement I don't like is "certification to ISO 9001 with compliance to IATF 16949 through second-party audits". This has always been a hectic to audit suppliers as per ISO9001 as per earlier sanctioned interpretation for clause 7.4.1.2 for ISO/TS16949.
For some organizations this might be useful, but I don't find it feasible (to maintain competence, provide additional resources, etc.).

 

[Golfman25]

I would agree this is a bogus requirement if each supplier has to be IATF16949 certified. But I don't see a shall requirement in standard saying "each supplier shall be certified to IATF16949". It just says to follow a sequence towards IATF16949 certification, but for some suppliers this sequence needs to be followed and for some suppliers only some steps might be sufficient depending upon the automotive business / business with the organization they are having and risk.

Only requirement I don't like is "certification to ISO 9001 with compliance to IATF 16949 through second-party audits". This has always been a hectic to audit suppliers as per ISO9001 as per earlier sanctioned interpretation for clause 7.4.1.2 for ISO/TS16949.
For some organizations this might be useful, but I don't find it feasible (to maintain competence, provide additional resources, etc.).

Right, but it clearly states the ultimate objective of IATF certification. How long before some auditor looks and says "this supplier has made no progress" and writes a non-conformance?

 

[vincee]

Yes I agree, and is subject to interpretation. Key here is to have a plan in place that is incremental, feasible and realistic to the Supply Base. KPI's or Metrics as Scorecard increasing thus lowering risk, use of APQP Mythology core tools (PFD, PFMEA & C. Plan), etc.

 

[AMIT BALLAL]

Right, but it clearly states the ultimate objective of IATF certification. How long before some auditor looks and says "this supplier has made no progress" and writes a non-conformance?

I am not saying there should be no progress. There has to be a plan, accordingly you'll check the progress. If the results are not achieved as per plan, analysis needs to be done and necessary actions needs to be taken.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Please note that supplier development is subject of a recently revised Sanctioned Interpretation #8.

 

[Golfman25]

I am not saying there should be no progress. There has to be a plan, accordingly you'll check the progress. If the results are not achieved as per plan, analysis needs to be done and necessary actions needs to be taken.

The problem is many supplier have no immediate or even long term plans to become certified. They do just fine serving multiple industries so Auto doesn't "own" them. Or they are small "mom & pop" types who don't need it.

 

[vincee]

Thanks Sidney...how do receive these updates from IATF, are they automated or some trigger of some sort?
Thanks
Vince