IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadline

[Sidney Vianna]

From IATF 16949 Stakeholder Conference – Oberursel, Germany – 13 September 2017 – International Automotive Task Force

1. IATF Stakeholder Conference – VDA QMC Presentation
2. IATF Stakeholder Conference – FCA US LLC Presentation
3. IATF Stakeholder Conference – BMW Group Presentation
4. IATF Stakeholder Conference – Renault Presentation
5. IATF Stakeholder Conference – IAOB Presentation

One year before transition deadline...

Some really interesting information in these presentations, such as a chart with the top 10 major and minor NC's against the IATF 16949 Std, so far.

IATF Top NC

• Sidney Vianna
• Sep 12, 2017

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

These guys are living a lie.

Given the numbers of auditors and auditees its impossible. Good luck.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

Yep and 7.2.3 is internal auditor competency which we have gone around and around on.

Here are the other Majors:

8.5.1.5: Total Productive Maintenance
6.1.2.3: Contingency Plans
10.2.1: ISO -- nonconformity and corrective action
6.1.2.1: Risk Analysis - lessons learned
10.2.3: Problem solving
4.3.2: Customer specific requirements
8.5.1: ISO -- Control of production and service provision
4.4.1.2: Product Safety
9.3.2.1: Management review inputs

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

Here are the minors:

8.5.1.5: Total Productive Maintenance
8.5.1.1: Control Plan
8.5.1: ISO -- Control of production and service provision
6.1.2.3: Contingency Plans
8.3.5.2: Manufacturing Process Design Output
8.3.3.3: Special Characteristics
8.5.1.2: Standardised work -- operator instructions and visual standards
7.1.5.1.1: Measurement System Analysis
8.5.1.3: Verification of Job Setups
7.2.3: Internal auditor competency

Hope it helps someone.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

No problem at all. The closer we get to deadline, the better audit results we will achieve. There will be no time for corrective actions, so 0 NC will be default result.

One year transition period was unachievable from a start, but to make it more realistic they decreased requirements related to auditors non-auditing job period, prolonged auditors with expired permissions. Still not enough.

I am curious who are these 25 major suppliers and why IATF does not deploys on-line inquiry to get more wider feedback from other interested parties.

Sorry - no Annex A nonconformities? Ha! Ha!

I was no aware, that IATF 16949:2016 transition timing was determined by ISO 9001:2015 transition timing. Not so clever to keep the same deadline with 1 year delay at moment of start.

 

[howste]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

No problem at all. The closer we get to deadline, the better audit results we will achieve. There will be no time for corrective actions, so 0 NC will be default result.

I doubt it. If companies are not ready and they end up having no certificate for a time then the IATF won't lose any sleep.

When QS9000 was retired there was a six-year period to transition. There were still a bunch of companies that waited to the last minute to change their systems. The IATF didn't cut them any slack and the supply chain didn't collapse.

I did a TS 16949 readiness audit at one company a few months before QS9000 expired and I told them that they weren't ready for a certification audit. They committed to fix the issues quickly and we went ahead and scheduled the audit. They pulled out all the stops and about a month and a half later I did their certification audit. I didn't pull any punches and they ended up with only a few minor nonconformities. It's amazing what a company can do in a short time period when they're faced with losing their certificate.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

There will be no time for corrective actions, so 0 NC will be default result.

As the data (in the chart I posted on the first post of the tread) shows, around 1.7% of the audits performed so far resulted in 0 nonconformities. I doubt we would see a significant shift as we approach the deadline, just to "salvage certificates".

The "perfect storm" of simultaneous transition deadline for 9001:2015, 9100:2016 and IATF 16949:2016 must be creating havoc for the scheduling function of CB's around the world.

Without a question, we will see audits spilling onto weekends. Audit resources will be stretched thin during the next 52 weeks...But who could see that coming?
When organizations have demonstrated, transition after transition, that 85%+ of them will procrastinate their transition audits no matter what, why haven't the "leaders" of the industry devised better paths to transition? For example, had the IAQG and the IATF decoupled their QMS standards from ISO 9001, they wouldn't be forced to stick to the same deadline. On top of many other benefits that decision would have brought to stakeholders in their respective industries.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

Probably we wont get updated data when transition period is over and maybe "better" companies" are on the way to transition so 1,7% is and will remain relative.

Maybe someone have time to check previous transitions deadlines. Were there any differences between ISO and ISO/TS timings?

 

[Golfman25]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

Probably we wont get updated data when transition period is over and maybe "better" companies" are on the way to transition so 1,7% is and will remain relative.

Maybe someone have time to check previous transitions deadlines. Were there any differences between ISO and ISO/TS timings?

Regardless of procrastination, they rushed this thing out and implemented a transition timeline which is unworkable even under the best circumstances. IATF was issued a year after the ISO revision and you only had two years to transition. But it really is 1.5 years at best, because auditors/cbs etc. had to get up to speed. And that was only the auditors who stuck -- many "retired." Add the steroid enhanced requirements and you have a real cluster, imo.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: IATF bringing stakeholders together to ensure Transition by the 2018-09-14 deadli

Using Sidney's template.
From IATF 16949 Stakeholder Conference – London, UK – 7 March 2018 – International Automotive Task Force

1. London IATF Stakeholder Event - Introduction
2. London IATF Stakeholder Event - Transition Update
3. London IATF Stakeholder Event - BMW Group Update
4. London IATF Stakeholder Event - Systematic review Team process
5. London IATF Stakeholder Event - Transition Survey Feedback
6. Ford Letter - Reporting of IATF 16949 Transition Audit Status
7. FCA - Reminder Letter

Half year before transition deadline...
Good news, a lot of good news. Truth about our systems slowly protrudes public relation stuff.