IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unusable

[EmillyWilson]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Thanks so much! This was very helpful

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Thanks so much! This was very helpful

Good luck. I would have assumed your auditor would be familiar with the FAQ. We are stampers like you and are trying to punt this stupid thing just for reasons like that. Stupid is as stupid does. What a waste.

 

[Scanton]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

I have been involved in a similar discussion to this late last year.

We are a small manufacturer of components some of which we make for a few automotive customers.

Our argument at audit was that we make “components” not “products” as nothing we produce is:
1.) easily recognisable
2.) in readily usable condition without our customers manufacturing process,
3.) able to be stolen from our waste stream and sold to our customer as they have strict rules about approved suppliers, PPAP’s etc. and
4.) the components are of a bespoke design that are only of use to a single manufacturer (our customer).

Our waste is held securely in bins (by material type to aid recycling and to get the best price) and competently destroyed and disposed of by our waste contractor.

This argument was successful during our transition audit and we now have a IATF 16949 certificate from a UKAS certified (globally known) certification body to prove it.

There was quite a bit of backlash from fellow covers at my resistance to adhere to this requirement however from a business standpoint, it adds no value whatsoever and from a risk standpoint, the chance of one of our scrap parts making it into a car is absolute zero and the chances of one of our employees hurting themselves undertaking such an act would be greatly increased. So all things considered it was the best argument and solution for us.

I can of course understand how this would not be the best solution or an easy argument for the majority of companies.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

I understand tier-n indignation, but according to FAQ#11 it deserves issuing NC. Auditor took other decision, but please be not surprised if other one would find it nonconforming.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

I have been involved in a similar discussion to this late last year.

We are a small manufacturer of components some of which we make for a few automotive customers.

Our argument at audit was that we make “components” not “products” as nothing we produce is:
1.) easily recognisable
2.) in readily usable condition without our customers manufacturing process,
3.) able to be stolen from our waste stream and sold to our customer as they have strict rules about approved suppliers, PPAP’s etc. and
4.) the components are of a bespoke design that are only of use to a single manufacturer (our customer).

Our waste is held securely in bins (by material type to aid recycling and to get the best price) and competently destroyed and disposed of by our waste contractor.

This argument was successful during our transition audit and we now have a IATF 16949 certificate from a UKAS certified (globally known) certification body to prove it.

There was quite a bit of backlash from fellow covers at my resistance to adhere to this requirement however from a business standpoint, it adds no value whatsoever and from a risk standpoint, the chance of one of our scrap parts making it into a car is absolute zero and the chances of one of our employees hurting themselves undertaking such an act would be greatly increased. So all things considered it was the best argument and solution for us.

I can of course understand how this would not be the best solution or an easy argument for the majority of companies.

While I agree and think you're right and creative, the problem is the standard's definition of product is broader than what you describe. Therefore, it is in fact a technical non-conformance. Until the FAQs where released, which allows your scrap company to take care of disposition provided you do some monitoring and review.

 

[Johnnymo62]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Unintended use of components may become a liability to your company and the tiers of customers.

"Johnny's Hard To Find Component" Ebay site may be a liability, also.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

Unintended use of components may become a liability to your company and the tiers of customers.

"Johnny's Hard To Find Component" Ebay site may be a liability, also.

Not when you're talking about components that go into an assembly. I can guarantee I can show you parts you would have no idea what they where for. The problem with the requirement is they treated every problem the same -- there really isn't any risk analysis involved.

 

[Scanton]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

This is also true, If you stole one of the components we manufacture out of the scrap bin, not only would you have great difficulty understanding what it was and were it was used, you would also have to have that exact engine it is used on (as it is only used on one specific type), you would also have to have the specialist skills to weld it where it goes, and believe me if you were to attempt this, safety would not be one of your core concerns.

Humans as in nature and physics, generally take the path of least resistance.

No one is ever going to steal one of the components, and use it them selves or sell it on e-bay to someone who will then use it to replace the part in their cars engine when there are so many other cheaper, easier and safer routes to accomplishing this task.

It would be the equivalent of trying to replace the metal banding in your cars tyre, it is never going to happen.

I suppose the argument boils down to "What is the value is using resource and increasing the chances that an employee would hurt themselves to make something unusable, more unusable?".

 

[Sebastian]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

I wouldn't suggest others arguing with auditor, when my system does not meet requirement because I found it stupid. I am too responsible for that.

 

[Scanton]

Re: IATF 16949 Clause 8.7.1.7 Nonconforming Product Disposition - Scrap Rendered Unus

I wouldn't suggest others arguing with auditor, when my system does not meet requirement because I found it stupid. I am too responsible for that.

Sebastian, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of auditors that I have come into contact with don't have your black and white view of the standards, and tend to adopt a real world approach when reviewing their application during audit.

The conclusion of my risk analysis was that whatever system we implemented to try and make the unusable components more unusable, would significantly increase risk to our customer and our employees. It did not conclude that the requirement was “Stupid”.

Standards are not finite, their application is open to interpretation and not every circumstance for their application can be considered by the committee that writes them.