Insights into the 2016 Version of TS16949 (IATF 16949)

[gstewart]

Re: Any Insight to 2016 Version of TS16949 (IATF 16949)?

Ford have now released their customer specifics for IATF 16949.

Where they should have the scope of their own document listed ( Section 1 ), they list the customer specific requirements for suppliers.

Where they should list the customer specific requirements for suppliers ( 4.3 ) they list the scope of their own documents.

When they are dictating an incredibly rigid and inflexible quality system to us, I can't use the language that pops in my head when they review their own requirements so poorly.

 

[howste]

Re: Any Insight to 2016 Version of TS16949 (IATF 16949)?

Ford have now released their customer specifics for IATF 16949.

Where they should have the scope of their own document listed ( Section 1 ), they list the customer specific requirements for suppliers.

Where they should list the customer specific requirements for suppliers ( 4.3 ) they list the scope of their own documents.

When they are dictating an incredibly rigid and inflexible quality system to us, I can't use the language that pops in my head when they review their own requirements so poorly.

Read clauses 1.1 and 4.3 of ISO 9001:2015. 1.1 states who the document applies to and what requirements of the standard apply to them. So does the Ford CSR. 4.3 identifies things that the organization shall consider when determining their QMS scope, including external issues/requirements and products and services being provided. The Ford CSR identifies their issues/requirements that need to be included and provides guidance on other external parties (sub-tier suppliers). If you try you can see that the Ford CSR is written with the same spirit in mind for each of these clauses.

Also keep in mind that the Ford CSR is their requirements document. They can put anything they want anywhere they want. There is no obligation for them to put anything in specific locations. For the convenience of their suppliers they use the section numbering of IATF 16949. Be thankful that they did that for you. Other customers have requirements that are nowhere close to convenient in aligning with the standard.

 

[gstewart]

Re: Any Insight to 2016 Version of TS16949 (IATF 16949)?

If i was to rigidly adhere to the Ford document.
I do not have to comply with the requirements of section 1.1 It is information and explanation.
Similarly there is no requirement included in section 4.3.

It is clearly a mistake, representing quality control that they would not tolerate from a supplier.

 

[Kiran Walimbe]

Re: Any Insight to 2016 Version of TS16949

In a cursory review, it appears that the new IATF 16949 is largely influenced by the VDA 6.3 (2016). Some of the requirements of IATF 16949 like 6.1.2 & 8.4.2.4 Risk based & performance focused audits or 8.4.1.2 Added requirements for supplier’s selection process or 8.7.1 Controls on non-conforming products or 10.2.5 Warranty management process & NTF processes seem straight out of the VDA’s Red Book. A detailed exercise for co-relating the two would be interesting.

 

[jack770214]

Our audit checklists cite both as well as our internal standards. We found more specifics in the VDA but all requirements correlated to some section VDA 6.3

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk