Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory
Social Distancing - It's not just YOUR life - It's ALL of OUR lives!
Me <——————— 6 Feet ———————-> You

IATF 16949 - Mandatory Corporate Documents

#1
Hi all,

My company is starting to implement IATF across all of our locations - 3 manufacturing plants and 1 design center. Our corporate management group and remote sites (purchasing, HR, etc) are spread across all locations. We will have a Corporate manual, policy, objectives and processes. The plants will then have their own manual, policy, objectives and processes related to their specific manufacturing business.

My question is this: is the corporate umbrella required to have all of the mandatory documented processes (20) and records? Or should the corporate umbrella just have the manual, policy, objectives and some processes we want to standardize across the company? I see the plants referencing the corporate processes, policies, procedures and then having the remaining mandatory items related to their specific business. I do not want to double the documentation.

I could be making this more difficult than it need to be but haven't been able to get a straight answer. Thank you for your help. This site has been an amazing resource thus far.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher,Sensei,Kennari
#2
Good day @New2IATF ;
If I understand your description correctly, your organization intends to maintain a single certificate to IATF 16949, and apply it across all of your sites. If that is correct, then the short answer is, no. You should therefore choose whatever best serves your organization.

Often I find it is best to allow documented process [i.e. "procedure" (what we used to call "level 2" documents in the old days) ], to be created and exist specific to local sites. These documents often describe WHO does WHAT and WHEN (macro level with very limited content).

Top level manual and policy type documents are generally positions that the corporation wishes to maintain across all of their sites, so you may consider keeping those at the corporate level (be careful to also keep this very limited and not redundant to the information created and maintained elsewhere).

(However, IF you intend to maintain a unique certificate at each site, then each site will be judged on its own and will be required to control the requisite documentation)

Hope this helps.
Be well.
 
Last edited:

BMcCalla

Starting to get Involved
#4
This has been a struggle for a lot of companies. In ISO/TS 16949, the requirement was to have a Quality Manual and procedures for Document Control, Control of Records, Internal Audits, Corrective Actions, Preventive Actions, Control of Nonconforming Product from the ISO 9001:2008 standard with TS adding Training to this list. You have to keep in mind that the more compliant the process is expected to be, the more a procedure or work instruction is to be expected. For example, take document control...what leeway can anyone take with Document Control? None. Follow the procedure exactly and you will be compliant. Also, the difference between the activities listed above and processes is that the above documented activities do not require evidence of continual improvement. You document the methodology and follow it to the letter (compliance). Processes you identify outside of the compliant activities within your QMS will require processes documented in an interaction map (in the quality manual) with process measures that show variable indicators of improvement, so as an example Quality Assurance may be a process that may not require a procedure, but the Internal Audits and Corrective Action activities within that process will require procedures. You can measure IA's and CARs activities for compliance, e.g. for internal audits; audits on schedule, timely corrective actions, use of trained auditors, but the QA process itself will have the process improvement measures, which should be indicated as the contribution to external customer satisfaction, e.g. lower ppm, 100% On time delivery, or internal customer satisfaction, e.g. lower scrap, better FTQ, less rework. Since most QMS systems are a mix of processes and these documented activities, all documented equally as processes, as long as you monitor, measure and analyze the process (which may include compliance measures or continual improvement measures), you should be OK on your IATF audits.
 

BMcCalla

Starting to get Involved
#6
It sounds controversial, but think about it. What measure could you claim is showing continual improvement for control of records, for doc control, even corrective actions? Do not mistake measures within the activity as a continual improvement measure of the actvity itself (e.g. number of documents processed, number of records disposed, number of audit findings). You are not expected to improve the CAR activity by inventing a 9D next year and a 10D the year after.You define your methodology in a procedure and stick to it. If it not effective, you replace it or change it. If it not efficient, you lessen the resources consumed in the activity (time, people, machine use, etc.), but the fact you are still obligated to monitor, measure or analyze the activity for effectiveness doesn't necessarily mean you are improving it. The one size fits all approach use of processes (through turtle diagrams or other means) to describe the QMS is not perfect, because you will be expected to describe how you measure the mix of processes and activities, with the auditors' expectation that the measure will show a positive trend over time (continual improvement) to justify it is effective, when all you may have for an activity is a series of compliance measures, mostly regarding doing the activity correctly or in a timely fashion.
 
Last edited:
#7
It sounds controversial, but think about it. What measure could you claim is showing continual improvement for control of records, for doc control, even corrective actions? Do not mistake measures within the activity as a continual improvement measure of the actvity itself (e.g. number of documents processed, number of records disposed, number of audit findings). You are not expected to improve the CAR activity by inventing a 9D next year and a 10D the year after.You define your methodology in a procedure and stick to it. If it not effective, you replace it or change it. If it not efficient, you lessen the resources consumed in the activity (time, people, machine use, etc.), but the fact you are still obligated to monitor, measure or analyze the activity for effectiveness doesn't necessarily mean you are improving it. The one size fits all approach use of processes (through turtle diagrams or other means) to describe the QMS is not perfect, because you will be expected to describe how you measure the mix of processes and activities, with the auditors' expectation that the measure will show a positive trend over time (continual improvement) to justify it is effective, when all you may have for an activity is a series of compliance measures, mostly regarding doing the activity correctly or in a timely fashion.
Wow. "Sounds controversial"? I'd describe it in another way, but your opinion is yours...
 
Top Bottom