IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Efficie

[SATHYABALARAMAN]

Re: IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Eff

Process: Customer complaint Handling
Effectiveness parameter: Field returns 100 PPM max
Efficiency parameterPM reduction in accepted claims

Process: Design & Development
Effectiveness parameter: New product development cycle time 12 weeks max
Efficiency parameterrocess cost reduction by 10%

 

[Andrei77]

Re: IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Eff

Hello Amit,

I got a non-conformity during my audit which my colleagues are still arguing regarding the Process effectiveness and efficiency but not against 9.3.2.1 but against 5.1.1.2 - Process Effectiveness and Efficiency.

According to our auditor, all the processes in the business have to have KPI`s and we didn`t have any for Engineering, Design and Calibration. The gauges calibration one was all right as we can easily set it up with a target of 0 overdue gauges and monitor it through our gauge management system.

The others two, though, its a big problem as my colleagues in Engineering are arguing that it can`t be monitored as its more about creativity than quantities and timescales.

It's really a pain in the ass and it's definitely not helping anyone having KPI`s for the sake of the auditor.

So everything is up to the auditor and how he sees things.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Eff

Hello Amit,

I got a non-conformity during my audit which my colleagues are still arguing regarding the Process effectiveness and efficiency but not against 9.3.2.1 but against 5.1.1.2 - Process Effectiveness and Efficiency.

According to our auditor, all the processes in the business have to have KPI`s and we didn`t have any for Engineering, Design and Calibration. The gauges calibration one was all right as we can easily set it up with a target of 0 overdue gauges and monitor it through our gauge management system.

The others two, though, its a big problem as my colleagues in Engineering are arguing that it can`t be monitored as its more about creativity than quantities and timescales.

It's really a pain in the ass and it's definitely not helping anyone having KPI`s for the sake of the auditor.

So everything is up to the auditor and how he sees things.

I agree it's a way overbroad requirement. Especially for smaller companies. We have some processes that are used so infrequently that measuring them is a waste.

 

[AMIT BALLAL]

Re: IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Eff

Hello Amit,

I got a non-conformity during my audit which my colleagues are still arguing regarding the Process effectiveness and efficiency but not against 9.3.2.1 but against 5.1.1.2 - Process Effectiveness and Efficiency.

According to our auditor, all the processes in the business have to have KPI`s and we didn`t have any for Engineering, Design and Calibration. The gauges calibration one was all right as we can easily set it up with a target of 0 overdue gauges and monitor it through our gauge management system.

The others two, though, its a big problem as my colleagues in Engineering are arguing that it can`t be monitored as its more about creativity than quantities and timescales.

It's really a pain in the ass and it's definitely not helping anyone having KPI`s for the sake of the auditor.

So everything is up to the auditor and how he sees things.

Calibration I would generally include under Quality Control / Assurance process and have KPIs for QA/QC process - not specific to calibration only.

For Engineering, KPIs can be defined. Ask top management about which results they want out of Engineering process.

In order to answer your question in better way, please let me know, which processes you have shown to the auditor.


Thanks,
Amit

 

[deb leonard]

Re: IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Eff

I am also trying to figure out what meets the requirement for 9.3.2c.5 for the monitoring and measurement results. Has anyone figured this out yet?