Initial Impressions of Newly Released IATF 16949 Standard

[Marc]

.... Welcome to TS - totally stupid. ....

So was QS-9000. What is now Elsmar.com started out as QS9000.com in Jan 1996. It was stupid then, and I said so back then and many times afterwards. Automotive companies should have stuck with their customer specific requirements. The "intended" purpose was never achieved.

 

[dubrizo]

Has anyone seen a GAP Analysis done to the new standard yet?

I've gone through and completed a cursory analysis, but I'm curious to see if anyone has come across a comprehensive assessment or been provided something by their CB.

Thanks!

 

[al40]

I think this is going to drive the small companies out of the automotive industry to some degree.

Al40

 

[Peters]

I think this is going to drive the small companies out of the automotive industry to some degree.

I think so.

 

[Golfman25]

I think this is going to drive the small companies out of the automotive industry to some degree.

Al40

It will depend on what their customer base will ultimately require. They have a 5 step process from compliance with 9001 to certification to IATF.

 

[howste]

It will depend on what their customer base will ultimately require. They have a 5 step process from compliance with 9001 to certification to IATF.

Only 5 steps? I thought we'd need a 12-step approach...

Step 1: We admitted that we were powerless — that our lives had become unmanageable...

 

[xfngrs]

Hi all,

I thought it would be good to kick off a conversation where we can talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly with the release of the IATF standard.

I almost always derive value from hearing/listening to insight from others and often feel more informed based on opinions, suggestions, and generalized thoughts.

To start things off; my initial impressions:
-Risk is emphasized far greater than it is in the ISO 9001:2015 standard
-Top management's role has expanded explicitly to several more areas
-ISO 9001:2015 did away with required QM and procedures, but IATF has said nope to that (7.5.1.1), and have taken the total opposite approach... see below
-Far more required documented procedures, processes, and policies (cursory review puts the number to at least 23). Please take the below list with a large grain of salt as I compiled it during 1 pass through of the standard.

Product Safety (4.4.1.2)
Corporate responsibility (5.1.1.1)
Contingency plans (6.1.2.3)
Calibration/verification records (7.1.5.2.1)
Training (7.2.1)
Internal auditor competency (7.2.3)
Employee motivation and empowerment (7.3.2)
Quality management system documentation (7.5.1.1)
Record Retention (7.5.3.2.1)
Engineering specifications (7.5.3.2.2)
Design and development of products and services (8.3.1.1)
Supplier selection process (8.4.1.2)
Type and extent of control (8.4.2.1)
Supplier monitoring (8.4.2.4)
Total productive maintenance (8.5.1.5)
Management of production tooling and manufacturing, test, inspection, tooling and equipment (8.5.1.6)
Control of changes (8.5.6.1)
Nonconforming product disposition (8.7.1.7)
Internal audit program (9.2.2.1)
Error-proofing (10.2.4)
Continual improvement(10.3.1)
5.1.1.1 Organization shall define and implement, at minimum, the following policies:
1. Anti-bribery policy
2. Ethics escalation policy (“whistle-blowing policy”)
*Work instructions shall include rules for operator safety (8.5.1.2)


Added:

Control of reworked product (8.7.1.4)
Control of repaired product (8.7.1.5)
Problem solving (10.2.3)

I see everyone went on to discuss if certification will be to ISO 9001 and IATF 16949, but no one said anything about these additional "required" procedures. Did anyone else read it that way? I certainly did not. We've always had to have policies or processes, but not necessarily procedures. I only saw 1 or 2 places I thought we might need to add specific documents. Did I miss it?

 

[xfngrs]

Well I've gone through the standard looking at the sections you noted. It seems to me that they started using "documented", "Documented data" and "Documented information" to mean having records. In the instances you list, we have documented "processes" and "systems" that still do not require "documented procedures". Unless I missed a new definition somewhere.

 

[risk_experts]

Re: IATF 16949

Second revision of Transition Strategy from ISO/TS 16949 to IATF 16949 was published on November 21, 2016 on the IATF Global Oversight website

 

[howste]

Re: IATF 16949

Second revision of Transition Strategy from ISO/TS 16949 to IATF 16949 was published on November 21, 2016 on the IATF Global Oversight website

Thanks for the heads-up. Here's the direct link: (broken link removed)