IATF 16949 - Customer Authorization for Concession or Deviation Permit

[Sidney Vianna]

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

Have you seen the new Sanctioned Interpretation I discussed in this post?

 

[Pieht]

Hello Everyone,
this is my very first post here and I have a question regarding chapter 8.7.1.1 that is quite unclear to me right now.

As states here a few times already, I need "a customer concession or deviation permit prior to further processing whenever [a] the product [...] is different from from that which ist currently approved".

What is the focus of "further processing"?
a) Do I need "whatever" from my customer if I mean to further process "the deviating product" itself?
b) Do I need to get a permit to continue with the manufacture of new products of the same kind with the unchanged and released process (which, for me, is "further processing" as well)?

If 1b) is correct, then we would stop our production an await permits every day, no? Because each time our process puts out "a product" that is not ok, we need to stop everything and ask the customer?

Or Do I just throw it away (as seems logic) and get on with my production?

Sorry, if the question seems silly, but neither the english version, nor the one in my native language is precise in respect to what is meant here.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Leonora]

Hello All,
I know the discussion is a bit old, and probably you all have developed your acting in such cases, but I'm still not sure how should we act in some situations.

Example: If the supplier send components which have a deviation, suppose the deviation does not affect functionality of the final product, is not visible in case of a surface defect. The final product goes to the client -OEM. Would you need deviation permit from the client?

Thank you!

 

[John C. Abnet]

Hello All,
Would you need deviation permit from the client?

Good day Leonora;
The short answer is "yes".

I assume by "deviation" you mean that your supplier has provided product that is outside of the required specifications (nonconforming).

I assume that product is identified on your control plan or by other means "agreed to" by your organization and your customer/client (OEM).

If my assumptions above are correct, then your organization would be sending nonconforming product to your customer/client.

Clause 8.7.1.1
"...SHALL obtain a customer ....deviation permit..."
"...SHALL obtain customer authorization....for 'use as is' ..."

Remember, your customer/client wants the OPPORTUNITY to determine that the product condition will have no impact on the,
ship to location; DFA; end user; DFR, etc..etc..etc..etc..

It is also likely (you mention OEM) that your customer has Customer Specific Requirements, and/or has issued your organization a supplier handbook, which details their requirements and likely even provides the proper form to use for deviation request submission.

Hopefully your organization has a good close relationship with your customer/client (very important) and a correct and pragmatic resolution can be achieved quickly.

Hope this helps.

Be well.

 

[Sebastian]

It depends on specification of your product.
Deviation may be related to:
1. "pass through" characteristics not defined on drawing approved by your customer, so you can't ask for approval of deviation against characteristic not recognized by your customer.
2. "pass through" characteristics defined on drawing approved by your customer, you have to ask for approval of deviation
3. characteristic, which you are processing and resulting product meets requirements specified by drawing approved by your customer, no action until standard process is used, as defined by control plan approved as part of PPAP process
4. characteristic, which you are processing and resulting product does not meet requirements specified by drawing approved by your customer,
you have to ask for approval of deviation
Drawing is a contract, so first check what is there.

 

[Leonora]

It depends on specification of your product.
Deviation may be related to:
1. "pass through" characteristics not defined on drawing approved by your customer, so you can't ask for approval of deviation against characteristic not recognized by your customer.
2. "pass through" characteristics defined on drawing approved by your customer, you have to ask for approval of deviation
3. characteristic, which you are processing and resulting product meets requirements specified by drawing approved by your customer, no action until standard process is used, as defined by control plan approved as part of PPAP process
4. characteristic, which you are processing and resulting product does not meet requirements specified by drawing approved by your customer,
you have to ask for approval of deviation
Drawing is a contract, so first check what is there.

Thank you Sebastian, what you said, quite well works and makes logic to me! This will help a lot!
Stay safe and healthy all of you.

 

[reunalla]

Hi,

I have a similar question.
The situation:
The supplier received from the customer a tool for aluminum part casting and the part drawing.
The part drawing specifies one dimension as SC.
The tooling is worn out (already used by the previous supplier). The customer knows this.
The SC parameter is out of tolerance. (Capability is <1,33, ~0,8)
Supplier submitted PPAP to the customer with out of tolerance SC parameter marked red and cpk=0,8. (Customer CSR states that cpk<1,33 not acceptable)
The customer approved it as is: out of tolerance SC parameter and 0,8 capability.

They are a small company so the "internal" system audit was done by a contractor.
The "internal" auditor said that they need to have a deviation approval from the customer for the above-mentioned deviation and need to have the customer change the drawing to match the actual measurement. They also asked a 3rd party auditor about this: his advice was to get a deviation approval from the customer and renew it every year and get the customer to change the drawing otherwise this will be a major nonconformity on the IATFcertification audit since the cpk is below 1,33 and the customer not approved the deviation.

Are they right? Is this a nonconformity?

My take is that the PPAP is approval for the serial production process, it clearly states that they are out of tolerance. The customer approved it. (not just blindly signed, they discussed it previously)
I do not think they need any other deviation approval and the drawing change is not the responsibility of the supplier (they have evidence that they suggested it via e-mail).

What is your opinion? If this is a nonconformity what is the requirement which is not fulfilled?

Thank you,

 

[John C. Abnet]

The customer approved it as is: out of tolerance SC parameter and 0,8 capability.

Good day @reunalla ;
Ultimately, the standard and your organization are designed to satisfy the customer.
In fact, the scope of the foundation (ISO 9001:2015) sates the specific requirements for the QMS as.....
a) ...demonstrate...ability to consistently provide products and services that meet the customer ....requirements.

The approved PPAP obviously indicates that your product "meet customer requirement".

However, that does not diminish the fact that the product (a %) are likely "nonconforming" in both potentiality/statistical assumption (capability) and that the CSR is not being met as required by the customer. One can (should) reasonably argue that fulfillment of CSR is an "output". For these reasons, I agree with the council you have already received and suggest that your organization receive a "authorization for accepting under concession" and have on your product file in case there is a changing of the guard at the customer and the next on watch is not in agreement with the low processes capability.
NOTE: Obviously the tool will continue to wear and it is likely process capability will continue to degrade. Not only should this be addressed in any approved concession from the customer, but the REAL responsibility lies with your Sales Department. Often the commercial team is unaware of how simply "getting the business" without consideration of technical aspects can lead to costly problems later on. In most organizations, there is a clause within the contract governing tooling responsibility including end of life and rebuild/repair. Commercial teams frequently are unaware or AVOID addressing this responsibility at time of contract.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

[Golfman25]

Hi,

I have a similar question.
The situation:
The supplier received from the customer a tool for aluminum part casting and the part drawing.
The part drawing specifies one dimension as SC.
The tooling is worn out (already used by the previous supplier). The customer knows this.
The SC parameter is out of tolerance. (Capability is <1,33, ~0,8)
Supplier submitted PPAP to the customer with out of tolerance SC parameter marked red and cpk=0,8. (Customer CSR states that cpk<1,33 not acceptable)
The customer approved it as is: out of tolerance SC parameter and 0,8 capability.

They are a small company so the "internal" system audit was done by a contractor.
The "internal" auditor said that they need to have a deviation approval from the customer for the above-mentioned deviation and need to have the customer change the drawing to match the actual measurement. They also asked a 3rd party auditor about this: his advice was to get a deviation approval from the customer and renew it every year and get the customer to change the drawing otherwise this will be a major nonconformity on the IATFcertification audit since the cpk is below 1,33 and the customer not approved the deviation.

Are they right? Is this a nonconformity?

My take is that the PPAP is approval for the serial production process, it clearly states that they are out of tolerance. The customer approved it. (not just blindly signed, they discussed it previously)
I do not think they need any other deviation approval and the drawing change is not the responsibility of the supplier (they have evidence that they suggested it via e-mail).

What is your opinion? If this is a nonconformity what is the requirement which is not fulfilled?

Thank you,

Ideal world that auditors and quality gurus live in: Tool is repaired and/or print is changed and/or permanent engineering deviation.

Real world for the rest of us: The PPAP is approved and we are good to go.

You can only do what your customer is willing to do. Print changes can take years (don't ask how I know). Send a note to your customer requesting the print change or guidance. Keep it to show the auditors. Good luck.

 

[reunalla]

Thank you both

"Ideal world that auditors and quality gurus live in: Tool is repaired and/or print is changed and/or permanent engineering deviation."

Funny thing I am an auditor (mainly process audits) too.

I work for the company the "internal" auditor works for (not a certification body).
And this came up on our internal lessons learned meeting. (And I know the supplier as well.)
I am not an IATF auditor and I just could not find any IATF clause to back up the claim of them needing to jump additional hoops to get deviation approval and get the customer to change the drawing.
For me personally some proof that they were completely open with the customer and not "made the dimensional numbers look good" but told the truth in the PPAP and discussed with the customer of the tooling issue and the suggestion to change the drawing would be enough if they have some type of control to keep the product in the range they PPAP-ed it even if that is out of tolerance according to the drawing. But again I am a process auditor so maybe I see things from a completely different view or maybe its the fact that I previously worked as a manufacturing engineer.