So the first question is what do you currently do? You have a supplier certified to plain old ISO 9001. Do you have any steps or plan to "encourage" them to get to IATF? To those of us in the real world, I think you need a window dressing exercise to have a "plan" for these suppliers to achieve IATF. Whether they eventually do will be anyone's guess. You are right -- you can't force a supplier to become IATF. So you just have to keep kicking the can down the road to satisfy the auditor. Good luck.
MAQMSR
- Thread starter DariusPlumdon
- Start date
Ashland78
Quite Involved in Discussions
Nooooo, IATF is much more than ISO 9001. You have to provide more evidence of conformity. The big 3 started this, it helps reputation.
IATF some say is a way for registrar's to get $$$$ but it gives credibility to your organization, one cannot be IATF anymore by paying to be IATF, the organization has to have evidence that your org is compliant.
I have seen some companies deceive many. IATF is getting better every 3 years - only my opinion though.
IATF some say is a way for registrar's to get $$$$ but it gives credibility to your organization, one cannot be IATF anymore by paying to be IATF, the organization has to have evidence that your org is compliant.
I have seen some companies deceive many. IATF is getting better every 3 years - only my opinion though.
Then why does my current new car suck so bad?
Ashland78
Quite Involved in Discussions
Is it one of the big 3?Then why does my current new car suck so bad?
Yep.
Do you have a requirement from Ford or Stellantis? You should have evidence of a plan to develop your crtical supplier versus the certification IATF. You should demonstrate that you help them to use process flow, fmea, control plan , spc , mad , problem solving etc peculiar to IATF requirments. Besides, during you audit versus them you could assess those topics.
You can also use quality self-assessment questionnaire with ad hoc questions and have it filled by them and evaluate.
DariusPlumdon
Involved In Discussions
In addition to the responses so far I would suggest that when responding to the auditor/certification body you must keep it simple and directly address what they ask for:
1) Your auditor wrote they were missing 'evidence of a plan per supplier' - So create a SIMPLE realistic plan
2) You were not 'utilizing a risk assessment' - So implement a risk assessment in a way that helps YOU determine the suppliers to focus on. As this is IATF auditors tend to love FMEA, bu that is not mandatory
3) I do not have the same customers as you, but as is finding is 'MAQMSR document as required by FORD and Stellantis' - State to the auditor how you address the specific points in the finding.
As earlier mentioned you can't make a supplier become IATF 16949 & there will be a certain amount of 'lip service' so try to focus on the few suppliers where you know/think there are issues & use this to drive improvement to help YOUR company; this may not end up with them being IATF, but you may get something that actually helps you.
1) Your auditor wrote they were missing 'evidence of a plan per supplier' - So create a SIMPLE realistic plan
2) You were not 'utilizing a risk assessment' - So implement a risk assessment in a way that helps YOU determine the suppliers to focus on. As this is IATF auditors tend to love FMEA, bu that is not mandatory
3) I do not have the same customers as you, but as is finding is 'MAQMSR document as required by FORD and Stellantis' - State to the auditor how you address the specific points in the finding.
As earlier mentioned you can't make a supplier become IATF 16949 & there will be a certain amount of 'lip service' so try to focus on the few suppliers where you know/think there are issues & use this to drive improvement to help YOUR company; this may not end up with them being IATF, but you may get something that actually helps you.
Ashland78
Quite Involved in Discussions
I think it would be advantageous to have a pre-written letter that gets c sent to all your suppliers every 3 years, or whatever you decide saying that if they are not IATF before such and such date your org will look to obtain a valid supplier. That shows you are communicating that.
Really though, all mnfg really should be IATF by now as it shows credibility. I would not want anything coming from a supplier that doesn't invest in a qms system that was regularly monitored.
Really though, all mnfg really should be IATF by now as it shows credibility. I would not want anything coming from a supplier that doesn't invest in a qms system that was regularly monitored.
You can have a darn good QMS without the excesses contained in IATF. The whole push down to the lowest common denominator is a joke.
Similar threads
