IATF 16949 - Customer Authorization for Concession or Deviation Permit

[tongxiaozhi]

It states in IATF16949 that:

The organization shall obtain customer concession or deviation permit prior to futher processing whenever the product or manufacuring process is different from that what is currently approved.

The organization shall obtain customer authorization prior to further processing for " use as it" and rework disposition of nonconforming product. If sub-components are reused in the manufacturing process, that sub-component reuse shall be clearly communicated to the customer in the concession or deviation permit.

The organization shall maintain a record of the expiration date or quantity authorized under concession . The organizaiton shall also ensure compliance with the original or superseding specification and requirements when the authorization expires. Materil shipped under concession shall be properly identified on each shipping container.

Here, I have three question:

(1) We don't submit our process parameters to customer, if it is changed, do we need to obtain approval from the customer.
(2) What is sub-component?
(3) Identification on each container means each box or each pallet?​

thank you very much for your reply.

 

[Sebastian]

From general to details.
8.7.1.1 is part of 8.7. It means Control of nonconforming outputs, so focus on nonconforming product.
8.7.1.1 is related to usage of nonconforming product in further manufacturing process. According to 8.7.1 we shall prevent their unintended use.
Some persons here probably make false assumption, that only possible rework is limited to repeating manufacturing process with a currently approved parameters and this time product would be ok. No, rework can be also performed by changing currently approved manufacturing process to fit it to nonconforming product used, to make them totally ok. So if approved process is changed, customer concession or deviation permit is required.

Rework activities have to be specified and documented. I met one customer representative who asked whether we perform rework. If we want to perform rework or reuse sub-component it is ok for him, as long we include it in manufacturing flow chart, PFMEA and control plan. This will be evidence that we know, what we are doing.

Coming back to your questions.
1. I do not know your customer, its approval procedure, whether it requires submission of control plan and how do you comply to requirement Annex A, A.2 Process control a).
2. Semi-product used as input to next step of your manufacturing process.
3. What packaging is used to bring your parts at customer's manufacturing station? Box or pallet? I guess box, so box has to by identified.

 

[tongxiaozhi]

Thank you very much for your reply.

(1) During the PPAP submission, we submit our control plan to our customer, which references the process parameter form, but we don't submit process parameter form to customer.

(2) Normally, we deliver pallets which contains many boxes to customer.

 

[tongxiaozhi]

Thank you all very much for your help. I have one more question regarding nonconformity handling

(1) In 8.7,1.1, it states that" The organization shall obtain customer authorization prior to furter processing for "Use as is" and rework dispositions of nonconforming product. But, in 8.7.1.4, it states that" If required by the customer, the organization shall obtain approval from the customer prior to commencing rework of the product.

Are the two in conflict with each other? one is " Shall" and the other one is" if required by the customer"

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The "USE-AS-IS" disposition clearly has to be authorized by customers.

The rework disposition customer approval requirement might be waived, on a case by case or a blanket approval.

 

[Golfman25]

Thank you all very much for your help. I have one more question regarding nonconformity handling

(1) In 8.7,1.1, it states that" The organization shall obtain customer authorization prior to furter processing for "Use as is" and rework dispositions of nonconforming product. But, in 8.7.1.4, it states that" If required by the customer, the organization shall obtain approval from the customer prior to commencing rework of the product.

Are the two in conflict with each other? one is " Shall" and the other one is" if required by the customer"

Typical IATF stuff. IMHO they rushed this thing thru. If you read the standard they are bouncing back and forth all over the place. It's nuts. Good luck.

 

[morteza]

The "USE-AS-IS" disposition clearly has to be authorized by customers.

The rework disposition customer approval requirement might be waived, on a case by case or a blanket approval.

Hi Sidney,

According to clause 8.7.1.1, it seems that IATF 16949 has clearly required to obtain customer authorization for "rework disposition". It states:

The organization shall obtain customer authorization prior to further processing for "use as is" and rework dispositions of nonconforming product

So, I believe that there is a conflict between clause 8.7.1.1 and 8.7.1.4.

May any one explain more on the consistency between these two requirements? One requires customer authorization for rework without any reference to customer specific requirement (clause 8.7.1.1) and another refers to CSR for customer authorization for rework disposition (clause 8.7.1.4)

thanks all

 

[Sebastian]

Few months ago I agreed, that there is a conflict, but meanwhile I grew up and tried to find a logic in it. Now I don't see conflict, but maybe I am wrong.

Rework - action on a nonconforming product or service to make it conform to the requirements.

I see there two scenarios. First, implement action to return nonconforming products to state of conformity and then use them. Second, implement action to "get along" with nonconforming products (accept them as they are) and get fully conforming products.

Rework in 8.7.1.4 - Organization puts again nonconforming products through standard process (status approved by customer) which initially failed, but this time it gets conforming products.
Flow: Process 1 -> Nonconformity -> Process 1 -> Conformity -> Process 2 -> Conformity

Rework in 8.7.1.1 - Organization puts nonconforming products through process following process which failed, but specially for nonconforming products standard process is changed (status not approved by customer yet) and gets conforming products.
Flow: Process 1 -> Nonconformity -> (Altered) Process 2 -> Conformity

Three options are available - IATF made mistake, I am right or better look in current of new CSR for clarification, as there are other examples where IATF 16949 profited from them.

 

[morteza]

Few months ago I agreed, that there is a conflict, but meanwhile I grew up and tried to find a logic in it. Now I don't see conflict, but maybe I am wrong.

I see there two scenarios. First, implement action to return nonconforming products to state of conformity and then use them. Second, implement action to "get along" with nonconforming products (accept them as they are) and get fully conforming products.

Rework in 8.7.1.4 - Organization puts again nonconforming products through standard process (status approved by customer) which initially failed, but this time it gets conforming products.
Flow: Process 1 -> Nonconformity -> Process 1 -> Conformity -> Process 2 -> Conformity

Rework in 8.7.1.1 - Organization puts nonconforming products through process following process which failed, but specially for nonconforming products standard process is changed (status not approved by customer yet) and gets conforming products.
Flow: Process 1 -> Nonconformity -> (Altered) Process 2 -> Conformity

Three options are available - IATF made mistake, I am right or better look in current of new CSR for clarification, as there are other examples where IATF 16949 profited from them.

Hi Sebastian,

I think your definition for rework is different from that stated in ISO 9000:2015. ISO 9000:2015 says:

rework - Action on a nonconforming (3.6.9) product (3.7.6) or service (3.7.7) to make it conform to the requirements (3.6.4)
Note 1 to entry: Rework can affect or change parts of the nonconforming product or service.

As you see there no emphasis on the process used for making a nonconforming product to conform to the requirements (standard process or altered process which you mentioned). The emphasis is on converting to conforming product, whether you use the same process or a different process. Also, I searched through some CSRs and they have no other definitions for rework than ISO 9000:2015 stated.

Again, I believe that there is a conflict between clause 8.7.1.1 and 8.7.1.4.

 

[Sebastian]

Dear morteza, I did not put ISO 9000:2015 section numbers for used definitions (e.g. 3.6.9) and Note 1 in my definition, but it did not change its meaning. It is ISO definition and we are talking about IATF requirement, so no surprises it does not mention process.

During APQP we design among others manufacturing process to materialize product design specification. This process together with its output - product is approved by customer through PPAP procedure. This process has own specification with one condition - components/sub-products who are inputs have to be conform to requirements. Using components/sub-products who are not conform to requirements require altering approved by customer process to get conform outputs. Altering process specification already approved by customer through PPAP procedure requires its approval.

This is how I try "to excuse" IATF 16949 and thank you for searching CSRs for further clarification. IATF shall take position on this matter.