IATF Definitions - Reworked product (8.7.1.4) vs Repaired product (8.7.1.5)

[Peters]

Important difference between 8.7.1.4 and 8.7.1.5
8.7.1.4 (rework) - shall obtain approval from the customer, if required by the customer
8.7.1.5 (repair) - shall obtain approval from the customer
So, correct qualification of the operation to the group of "rework" or "repair" may be important.

 

[p_tww]

Hi,

My opinion is, both reworked and repaired parts are refer to the parts which would be delivered to customer for assembly. IATF 16949 is designed for the control of parts in the mass production.

 

[maggylu168]

Important difference between 8.7.1.4 and 8.7.1.5
8.7.1.4 (rework) - shall obtain approval from the customer, if required by the customer
8.7.1.5 (repair) - shall obtain approval from the customer
So, correct qualification of the operation to the group of "rework" or "repair" may be important.

Agree with Peter that it's better to distinguish the difference by comparing with 8.7.1.4 and 8.7.1.5. Repair also remove the words of "verify compliance to original specifications" in the second paragraph and obtain a documented customer authorization is a must.
I guess the concept is similar to have an EDC form, engineering deviation and concession, for production. It just becomes the organization needs to proactively get it from the customer and do the relative activities.

 

[tyreguy]

IATF 16949: Difference between rework and repair.

Unlike the old standard the new standard makes a clear distinction between "Repair" and "Rework".

We're having an internal discussion here how we should define these. We've referred to several of our customers' SQE and they are also clueless.

For your convenience this is what the new standard states

8.7.1.4 Control of reworked product

The organization shall utilize risk analysis (such as FMEA) methodology to assess risks in the rework process prior to a decision to rework the product. If required by the customer, the organization shall obtain approval from the customer prior to commencing rework of the product.
The organization shall have a documented process for rework conformation in accordance with the control plan or other relevant documented information to verify compliance with original specifications.
Instruction for disassembly or rework, including re-inspection and traceability requirements, shall be accessible to and utilized by the appropriate personnel.
The organization shall retain documented information on the disposition of reworked product including quantity, disposition, disposition date and applicable traceability information.

8.7.1.5 Control of repaired product

The organization shall utilize risk analysis (such as FMEA) methodology to assess risks in the repair process prior to a decision to repair the product. The organization shall obtain approval from the customer before commencing repair of the product.
The organization shall have a documented process for repair conformation in accordance with the control plan or other relevant documented information.
Instruction for disassembly or repair, including re-inspection and traceability requirements, shall be accessible to and utilized by the appropriate personnel.
The organization shall obtain a documented customer authorization for concession for the product to be repaired.
The organization shall retain documented information on the disposition of repaired product including quantity, disposition, disposition date and applicable traceability information.


My argument is that rework is done using IN-PROCESS methods. I.e. going back a step (or several) in the production process and re-processing the part or sub-component. Rework on the other hand is using OUT-PROCESS methods. I.e. taking the part of sub-component out of flow and bringing it to standard using an out of standard method.

How would you interpret/define repair/rework?

 

[howste]

Re: IATF 16949: Difference between rework and repair.

How would you interpret/define repair/rework?

I merged your thread with a recent (very similar) thread to keep the discussion all in one place. I hope that the responses above will provide some clarity.

 

[Peters]

8.7.1.1
[…]
The organization shall obtain customer authorization prior to further processing for “use as is” and rework disposition of nonconforming product.
[…]

8.7.1.4
[…]
If required by the customer, the organization shall obtain approval from the customer prior to commencing rework of the product.
[…]

Isn't it a mistake?

 

[Sebastian]

Yes, it is.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The definitions in ISO 9000 are the ones that apply to IATF 16949, so any other definitions you find on the Internet are only going to muddy the waters.

From the ISO definitions posted, you could summarize them to say this:

Rework brings the product into full conformity with all original specifications.

Repair makes the product functional, but it does not meet all original specifications.

8.7.1.1
[…]
The organization shall obtain customer authorization prior to further processing for “use as is” and rework disposition of nonconforming product.
[…]

8.7.1.4
[…]
If required by the customer, the organization shall obtain approval from the customer prior to commencing rework of the product.
[…]

Isn't it a mistake?

Yes, it seems to be a mistake, as it does NOT make any sense to ask for customer concessions if you are reworking the product to product specifications. Actually, it would be counterproductive to stop your production processes to ask for an external approval for something that will fully comply with the approved design.

It looks like someone goofed up when developing this section of the standard. The important question now is: will they use the fact that the IATF has full authority over the IATF 16949 document and issue an errata ASAP?

 

[maggylu168]

Yes, it seems to be a mistake, as it does NOT make any sense to ask for customer concessions if you are reworking the product to product specifications. Actually, it would be counterproductive to stop your production processes to ask for an external approval for something that will fully comply with the approved design.

It looks like someone goofed up when developing this section of the standard. The important question now is: will they use the fact that the IATF has full authority over the IATF 16949 document and issue an errata ASAP?

I have a different opinion for this comment. In 8.7.1.1, it talks about the waiver process at the stage of materials incoming inspection. The customer's authorization/approval prior to the disposition of "use as it", " rework", "sub-components reuse" for non-conformance materials, like components, is a must because the materials have been approved by the customer before.

For 8.7.1.4, it talks about the organization value-added process, such as "assembly". As long as the finished goods can be reworked to meet the agreed spec., the customer approval depends on the contracts. So it use "if....".

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I have a different opinion for this comment. In 8.7.1.1, it talks about the waiver process at the stage of materials incoming inspection. The customer's authorization/approval prior to the disposition of "use as it", " rework", "sub-components reuse" for non-conformance materials, like components, is a must because the materials have been approved by the customer before.

For 8.7.1.4, it talks about the organization value-added process, such as "assembly". As long as the finished goods can be reworked to meet the agreed spec., the customer approval depends on the contracts. So it use "if....".

Unless I am missing something that is not obvious, I still contend that it makes ZERO sense for suppliers to request waivers/concessions for reworking nonconforming products.

Example: supplier makes 2,000 door hinges and realize that the holes are 1/8" undersized. They can EASILY re-drill the holes, in 4 hours. But, according to what you are saying, they will have to segregate this batch of 2,000 hinges, communicate with the customer to approve this re-work, while losing time in the process and running the risk (based thinking) of having a late delivery.

Is this the madness we want?