IATF 16949 News IATF News - Top 10 IATF 16949 nonconformities and more.....

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
27 October 2022

The IATF has developed a brochure to highlight “The Value Add of Successful IATF 16949 Implementation” which has been published on this IATF Global Oversight web page.
The brochure is available through the icon link on this page and through the following link IATF16949 Value Add Brochure.

IATF has approved Stakeholder Communique SC-2022-10 describing the monthly publication of the following:

  • Top 10 major nonconformities from certification body audits globally Top Ten NCs Major
  • Top 10 minor nonconformities from certification body audits globally Top Ten NCs Minor
  • IATF certificate distribution map showing the total number of IATF 16949 certificates for countries with greater than 500 certificates and by region globally Global Cert Distribution
 

Sebastian

Trusted Information Resource
If I heard, that OEMs complaint about deteriorating quality level of product, I would expect 8.3... as "numero uno" in Top 10.
No, it reached only 3rd position.

Some auditors are not good at auditing this section.
Maybe due to not enough knowledge of AIAG manuals or lacking personal experience, working in process designing team for tier suppliers.

Btw. I expect identification of period of time for presented results.
Every company president would point it out during internal meeting.
 

Johnnymo62

Haste Makes Waste
I don't understand the "cost of good quality". It's like the they are implying companies can make good parts all the time without using the different prevention and appraisal tools they list.
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
One of the reasons that corrective action is so large is that if your previous minor implementation is ineffective you get an automatic major as well for non conformity management
In general globally this is one of the most underperforming process, the stages are not properly defined and actions are not effective.
This is clear in companies responses to CB non conformances, root cause analysis is weak and verification is not understood

The contingency plan is high in both charts as at the behest of the customers (IATF) we are to focus on this and it is bein changed requlary


Many findings are due to companies not following the SIs IATF 16949:2016 Sanctioned Interpretations (SIs) – International Automotive Task Force

The files are called \2022-08_TopTenNCs_12Month-MD-MajorEN.pdf and 2022-08_TopTenNCs_12Month-MD-MinorEN.pdf
so I think that the date is 08-2021----08-2022
 

Funboi

On Holiday
It’s a paradox. The auditors are reporting the symptoms of failure and not then auditing the planning and prevention which avoids the need for problem solving or control of non-conformance. #provemewrong
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
If I heard, that OEMs complaint about deteriorating quality level of product, I would expect 8.3... as "numero uno" in Top 10.
No, it reached only 3rd position.
Over the years, when I see this type of data, Pareto breakdown of top 10 sources for NC, I always remind people to take that with a grain of salt because it might not reflect the real issues but the issues auditors feel “comfortable” reporting on. Auditors have their comfort zone and tend not to stray away from it. If we are to believe Deming’s assertion about management being the root cause of poor quality, we should expect a much higher percentage of NC’s related to that, but writing up failure of top management dealing with their quality related responsibility takes some fortitude.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Leader
Super Moderator
I don't understand the "cost of good quality". It's like the they are implying companies can make good parts all the time without using the different prevention and appraisal tools they list.

Good point @Johnnymo62 ;
What concerns me about this is the (recent?) change from "cost of quality" to "cost of GOOD quality". This tends to normalize the term.

The automotive industry in particular has been leaning this direction for many years now. Contrary to "Deming" (simply good/best practices), which emphasize first time through-put and ensuring the value added process produces good quality, the OEM,s continue to recognize and in some cases REQUIRE "cost of good quality" activity. This , (while SOMEtimes a short term necessary evil), is not a best practice nor the intent of process design.

Remember, "cost of good quality' is NOT value added. In other words, unless we try to disguise it as SG&A, etc...,
the customer is not willing to pay for it (and organizations should not be willing to make it permanent action).

Be well.
 

UncleFester

Involved In Discussions
I'm interested in areas where N/Cs are not featured in the top 10 lists - nothing in section 5. Is this because there are few requirements for documented information for auditors to pour over, or have top management not been sufficiently audited, considering 'Top management shall...' appears nine times out of the twelve times in the whole standard?
 
Top Bottom