"IATF-Compliant" IATF 16949:2016 certification? What does this mean?

[Leetster]

Good morning everyone!

So going through our certification process my co-workers and I have heard a phrase a few times we aren't really sure how to completely define. We have some suppliers that claim they are ISO 9001:2015 certified but are compliant to IATF 16949:2016. What does this mean? If we are having another company manufacture a part that we finish that is supposed to adhere to the IATF standard must they be IATF, or will ISO certification and them supplying a PPAP be enough? Thank you in advance, and please feel free to ask for clarification of any sort as my brain is fried from double-checking everything and I'm sure I'm missing something

 

[Golfman25]

It simply means that they have an ISO cert, and are audited by a 3rd party. The IATF "compliant" means they have implemented an IATF based system but don't have it 3rd party audited. Their level of compliance my be subject to debate, so it's probably something you want to audit yourself. As for your supplier, according to IATF, ISO cert. will be good enough for now.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

We have some suppliers that claim they are ISO 9001:2015 certified but are compliant to IATF 16949:2016. What does this mean?

It likely means that the supplier is NOT ELIGIBLE for certification to the IATF 16949 standard, but they claim they are in compliance with it.

 

[ScottK]

When company claims that they are "compliant" they are generally saying that they follow the standard in question and meet the requirements but have not gotten certification or registration from a third party.
Whether that's enough or not is up to your company to determine.
If you have a requirement of IATF 16949 registration for suppliers then a company saying "we're compliant" isn't enough.

 

[Mikey324]

Like Golfman said, that may be a good time for a 2nd party audit. Just to confirm you agree that they are IATF compliant. IATF is pretty tough, so its easy to say, but takes some work to do.

 

[Leetster]

Thank you everyone! I was hoping the answer wouldn't be second party audits but I had an inkling it might turn out to be so.

 

[Golfman25]

Thank you everyone! I was hoping the answer wouldn't be second party audits but I had an inkling it might turn out to be so.

It would only need it, if you need it. Take a look at the risk and if ISO is sufficient you'll be good.

 

[Pjservan]

It is very easy to say "We are compliant." So you probably must, "Trust but verify."

 

[Mikey324]

It will depend on what you say. If they are meeting all you quality and delivery metrics, you may be able to justify not doing a 3rd part audit based on continued compliance with your requirements. For example, we wouldn't do an annual 2nd party audit unless the customer failed to meet requirements for X consecutive months. That's what we state in our contracts and Internal Audit procedure.
A lot will depend on how you have it all written up in your procedures (from a 3rd party audit standpoint).

 

[dwperron]

Good morning everyone!

So going through our certification process my co-workers and I have heard a phrase a few times we aren't really sure how to completely define. We have some suppliers that claim they are ISO 9001:2015 certified but are compliant to IATF 16949:2016. What does this mean? If we are having another company manufacture a part that we finish that is supposed to adhere to the IATF standard must they be IATF, or will ISO certification and them supplying a PPAP be enough? Thank you in advance, and please feel free to ask for clarification of any sort as my brain is fried from double-checking everything and I'm sure I'm missing something

16949 accredited means that they have proven that they meet the standard.
16949 compliant means that they say they meet the standard, but it is now up to you to prove to your auditor that you have evidence that they are acceptable to you, that they really do meet the standard.
It shifts the burden of proof onto your organization.