MAQMSR

DariusPlumdon

Involved In Discussions
Could MAQMSR help us?

We are a remote location based in Europe, when have some in-house manufacturing in the far east (nothing in Europe), but the vast majority is now outsourced to TSMC (Taiwan), additionally we have several other divisions worldwide, these other divisions are named as separate remote locations on the IATF certification; we have many key well known large customers based in Europe.

Until 2023 the scope of our IATF16949 certificate included several elements as we completed key elements of design that ended up on the Automotive chip. Our company evolves and we do important work, but nothing we design now ends up on the chip, so after good honest and open discussions with our certification body it was agreed that the scope of our remote location must be reduced, so it no longer included Design/Development. The re-certification audit in 2023 went very well.

The reality is our internal processes are unchanged and we work the same way. The 'problem' we now have it that some of 'Automotive' customers in Europe we continue to supplier SW for & they are now concerned as the are no longer IATF16949 (for Design/Development).

As more than one of our customers have a MAQMSR published (see Customer Specific Requirements – International Automotive Task Force) I wondered if this could be a possible solution, but as we have never gone down this route before I would appreciate guidance on this, OR any other ideas as to how we can proceed with our customers.

Thanks in advance.
 

DariusPlumdon

Involved In Discussions
Hi 'Golfman', Thanks for replying, yes I was aware of the SI to the clause, the information I was looking for was/is slightly different, I will try to explain again.

If we assume 'Ford' are a customer of ours (they are not but that does not matter) on the IATF website you can see their MAQMSR requirements ((broken link removed) what I want to understand further is how implementation works in reality.

Is it up to Ford to come to us as say 'OK we now you can no longer quality to be in the scope of IATF certification given the change to your work, but we need you to meet these MAQMSR requirements, or should we be driving this in some way?

(Re)reading the clause and the SI to me it seems like the Customer is responsible & should be driving this?

To stress again we still follow the same processes as we did before when did did quality to be in scope for the IATF16949 certification, we have not reduced are quality levels, in fact we continue to enhance them.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Hi 'Golfman', Thanks for replying, yes I was aware of the SI to the clause, the information I was looking for was/is slightly different, I will try to explain again.

If we assume 'Ford' are a customer of ours (they are not but that does not matter) on the IATF website you can see their MAQMSR requirements ((broken link removed) what I want to understand further is how implementation works in reality.

Is it up to Ford to come to us as say 'OK we now you can no longer quality to be in the scope of IATF certification given the change to your work, but we need you to meet these MAQMSR requirements, or should we be driving this in some way?

(Re)reading the clause and the SI to me it seems like the Customer is responsible & should be driving this?

To stress again we still follow the same processes as we did before when did did quality to be in scope for the IATF16949 certification, we have not reduced are quality levels, in fact we continue to enhance them.
Let the customer drive it. They will figure out what they need.
 

malasuerte

Quite Involved in Discussions
Could MAQMSR help us?

We are a remote location based in Europe, when have some in-house manufacturing in the far east (nothing in Europe), but the vast majority is now outsourced to TSMC (Taiwan), additionally we have several other divisions worldwide, these other divisions are named as separate remote locations on the IATF certification; we have many key well known large customers based in Europe.

Until 2023 the scope of our IATF16949 certificate included several elements as we completed key elements of design that ended up on the Automotive chip. Our company evolves and we do important work, but nothing we design now ends up on the chip, so after good honest and open discussions with our certification body it was agreed that the scope of our remote location must be reduced, so it no longer included Design/Development. The re-certification audit in 2023 went very well.

The reality is our internal processes are unchanged and we work the same way. The 'problem' we now have it that some of 'Automotive' customers in Europe we continue to supplier SW for & they are now concerned as the are no longer IATF16949 (for Design/Development).

As more than one of our customers have a MAQMSR published (see Customer Specific Requirements – International Automotive Task Force) I wondered if this could be a possible solution, but as we have never gone down this route before I would appreciate guidance on this, OR any other ideas as to how we can proceed with our customers.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry - to clarify: You were perviously (recently) IATF certified? You removed the scope of the activities because the design activity no longer is relevant to the product?

So your organization, just suddenly abandoned the QMS you implemented as part of certification??? I am confused!!

If your QMS was certified, you removed the scope, so that group/org/etc is not part of the certification - but you should still have a QMS which meets the requirements of IATF???

MAQMSR is a backwards step in the process!!

ASSSUMING, you did not abandon the QMS, you should be telling your customers that you are IATF "conforming". You do need the organization to ensure they are still meeting all the requirements of IATF. It's just an internal declaration and you can welcome them to come audit you or see evidence (if that is in your process).
 

DariusPlumdon

Involved In Discussions
Thank you. You are correct we have NOT abandoned our QMS, so the approach you suggest sounds a very sensible.

Just one further question, why do you say 'MAQMSR is a backwards step in the process!!'? I am not disagreeing with you, just curious as to how you would answer this :)
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
Take a look at sanctioned interpretation 8. It has the various stages laid out. MAQMSR is one stage. So is IATF compliance with second party audits.
Should an ISO 9001 supplier certified comply with all requirements of MAQMSR o only in part? Sometimes this requirement of IATF related to Supplier QMS development is very difficult to be implemented versus supplier. However at the end of the note the minimum development is ISO 9001 and second party audit, if agreed with customer. However consider that is very difficult to plan supplier audit for all critical supplier. Clearly you shall demonstrate if risk is evaluated also with a long term audit plan.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Should an ISO 9001 supplier certified comply with all requirements of MAQMSR o only in part? Sometimes this requirement of IATF related to Supplier QMS development is very difficult to be implemented versus supplier. However at the end of the note the minimum development is ISO 9001 and second party audit, if agreed with customer. However consider that is very difficult to plan supplier audit for all critical supplier. Clearly you shall demonstrate if risk is evaluated also with a long term audit plan.
I think you go as far as your customer wants you to go.
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
I think you go as far as your customer wants you to go.
Agree, but sometimes this requirement appears to be difficult to manage. It is almost impossible to cover all supplier audits, also taking into account delocalization business.
 
Top Bottom