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

[maggylu168]

Customer approval requirements and the risk analysis are interrelated. IATF increased the control of rework by adding customer approval, risk assessment, rework process confirmation,...etc. As your example, it is indeed a simple rework and was probably regarded as no risk by your viewpoints before. I think the new extra control are from many cases similar to yours and the customers suffered some unexpected outcome. The automotive customers took their lesson learns, and I don't think it bad to involve the customer for the risk evaluation, including the possible late delivery. After all, better safe than sorry.
Or another way is to set an agreement for permitted rework types with corresponding approval requirements in advance. That's how we did with our automotive customers before.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Customer approval requirements and the risk analysis are interrelated. IATF increased the control of rework by adding customer approval, risk assessment, rework process confirmation,...etc. As your example, it is indeed a simple rework and was probably regarded as no risk by your viewpoints before. I think the new extra control are from many cases similar to yours and the customers suffered some unexpected outcome. The automotive customers took their lesson learns, and I don't think it bad to involve the customer for the risk evaluation, including the possible late delivery. After all, better safe than sorry.
Or another way is to set an agreement for permitted rework types with corresponding approval requirements in advance. That's how we did with our automotive customers before.

Exactly because rework represents very little risk in terms of product conformity and integrity, the concept of a customer micromanaging a supplier and demanding their involvement with the rework process doesn't make much sense. The concept of differentiating dispositions between rework and repair serves the purpose of identifying the difference of residual risk at the end of the two processes.

Even in the aerospace sector (where product integrity issues represent huge risks) customers do not require such involvement to approve rework, while they make it abundantly clear (via AS9100) that the design-responsible organization has to be involved with UAI and repair dispositions. I find very telling that the writers of the IATF standard apparently believe suppliers cannot be trusted even with the simplest operations. I still contend this is a very ineffective and dysfunctional cultural problem.

Imagine if automotive suppliers start doing this non-sense with customers that don't subscribe to the IATF Standard and will now be bothered by suppliers asking for approval of trivial rework operations when they don't want to micromanage their supplier base.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

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?

Well, I was right (as always ). And the IATF correction came in the form of the Sanctioned Interpretation document which contains the following text:

The organization shall obtain a customer concession or deviation permit prior to further processing whenever the product or manufacturing process is different from that which is currently approved.

The organization shall obtain customer authorization prior to further processing for “use as is” and rework for repair (see 8.7.1.5) dispositions of nonconforming product. If subcomponents are reused in the manufacturing process, that sub-component reuse shall be clearly communicated to the customer in the concession or deviation permit.

Rationale for change:
Clarify requirements and eliminate contradiction in relation to customer approval associated with rework.

You are welcome, IATF.

 

[howste]

Well, I was right (as always ).

As were Sebastian and Peters

 

[Golfman25]

Well, I was right (as always ). And the IATF correction came in the form of the Sanctioned Interpretation document which contains the following text:



You are welcome, IATF.

It must be nice that they can just "change" the standard. Can we ask them for a root cause analysis?

 

[howste]

It must be nice that they can just "change" the standard. Can we ask them for a root cause analysis?

I won't stop you from asking them.

 

[alaslistas]

Rework is mainly a New production term. You can tear down a new aircraft or one with little hours and change a part that interferes and its rework. Done in a production environment or PRO. Using new production specifications. Repair is after it has some hours on the part and the new part standards are not used anymore. They can reference the new standards but most give more leeway to Overhaul and repair criteria. (CMM) You can rework an individual part area of a part that you are overhauling or repairing but not major assemblies after it has hours.

 

[howste]

Hi Alaslistas, and welcome to the forums.

Rework is mainly a New production term. You can tear down a new aircraft or one with little hours and change a part that interferes and its rework. Done in a production environment or PRO. Using new production specifications. Repair is after it has some hours on the part and the new part standards are not used anymore. They can reference the new standards but most give more leeway to Overhaul and repair criteria. (CMM) You can rework an individual part area of a part that you are overhauling or repairing but not major assemblies after it has hours.

FYI this thread is in the IATF 16949 forum and is about automotive applications. What you say is true, but you're talking about aerospace applications more suited to AS9100.

 

[AndyN]

Rework is mainly a New production term. You can tear down a new aircraft or one with little hours and change a part that interferes and its rework. Done in a production environment or PRO. Using new production specifications. Repair is after it has some hours on the part and the new part standards are not used anymore. They can reference the new standards but most give more leeway to Overhaul and repair criteria. (CMM) You can rework an individual part area of a part that you are overhauling or repairing but not major assemblies after it has hours.

I wouldn't agree entirely with your description(s).

For example, if you consider the manufacture of circuit boards, if the plating thickness isn't to specification, the boards can be reworked to add or strip off the plating and re-plate to spec. A repair would mean, for example, adding a conductor - a length of wire - where a track had become etched too thin and would burn out if in use. That repair is done on a board which hasn't spent any time in service, but would definitely need customer approval, compare to the reworked plating.

 

[alaslistas]

I like the Led Zepplin parody. Lets give the example of a circuit board. To know if its bad or good you test it. If a technician gets mixed up and cant remember which ones are good or bad he tests them all. The ones that wherre tested twice are rework. When it goes into the field and is sent back to the supplier on suspicion its bad (after running for a while) and tests good it is then considered a repair even though nothing was changed