IATF 16949 Clause 8.5.1.4 - Verification after Shutdown

[Johnny Quality]

John,

You made a good point.

Perhaps it's best that the standard is vague as I'm sure how sensitive your processes are to planned or unplanned shutdowns depends on the processes and parts you are manufacturing. However, you would need a good auditor experienced in those processes to ensure you are meeting the intent of the clause in relation to the context of the organization.

Perhaps it would be better to have time constraints in the AIAG CQI Special Process Assessments or something similar that customers or the IATF pushed on their suppliers?

 

[Sebastian]

It depends on process and organizational experience -> knowledge -> risk analysis.
So "identical" process in two different organizations, can have different time limits defined, when brake is / is not treated as shutdown.
Definition is properly "imprecise" in this matter, in my opinion.

 

[Johnny Quality]

Sebastian,

I wholly agree that it depends on the process, organization experience, knowledge and risk. I have a customer who does the same processes as we do that re-performs first off validation if the process is down longer than 5 minutes where we only re-perform first off validation once the process has changed or the tool has left the machine.

However, looking back at the IATF 16949:2016 definition I believe clarity is needed, specifically after the the semicolon. The statement "time span may be a few hours to a few months" I believe is too vague to be used as a description for a definition.

As IATF 16949:2016 uses the verbal forms from ISO 9001:2015 the word "may" means "a permission. So it's permissible for the downtime to be a few hours to a few months? "Few" has the definition of "more than one". So is one hour of the process not running not permissible to be classed as production downtime?

Am I overthinking this?

 

[John C. Abnet]

Am I overthinking this?

I appreciate everyone's input into this and fully agree that RISK should be the consideration. I also agree that risk should be the determining factor and that the standard should not prescribe a specific time frame. This would all be accomplished without confusion if the IATF gods had simply not tried to define "shutdown" in the terms and abbreviations.

Be well.

 

[Sebastian]

Johnny, you are absolutely right. Someone forget to put word "Note" before "time span".
Because per section 0.1 ""may" indicates a permission" while "Information marked as "NOTE" is for guidance in understanding or clarifying the associated requirement".
I can't promise I will correct it, but maybe very significant followers of this forum will manage it.

 

[Johnny Quality]

Frankly I think it'd be best to ditch the last part of the sentence. Production shutdown defined as "condition where manufacturing processes are idle" sounds sufficient to me.

 

[Sebastian]

I won't do this, because it will narrow interpretations to e.g. summer timing, when some OEM lines are idled.
"Yes, we have two weeks summer vacation and then we will implement 8.5.1.4.
Yes we have plastic injection and there was no nigh shift. So what?
Shutdown? 8.5.1.4? No way."

I saw process controls where there was no difference between Monday morning inspection scope, when line started after weekend break and Monday afternoon where there was shift changeover and machines were running continuously over this time. 8.5.1.4? No way men.

 

[Johnny Quality]

8.5.1.4 states that the organization will define and implement what's necessary. I am interpreting the standard and clause that while the definition of production shutdown applies to whenever production is idle the organization defines and chooses what to do depending on the reason, scope of its activities, risk, processes AND time.