MSAs are now required on every feature of the control plan - IATF 16949

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
MSA - did you guys catch that MSAs are now required on every feature of the control plan, not just the special characteristics? The key words here are "each type" so don't forget your visuals! I think I missed it in our gap analysis based on denial LOL 7.1.5.1.1

.

What do you mean by feature
This was always required for all equipment in the control plan and is still so.
The word feature is not present
 

KimGr

Involved In Discussions
Re: How many of you are Certified to IATF 16949

What do you mean by feature
This was always required for all equipment in the control plan and is still so.
The word feature is not present
Agreed on the equipment. If it was a part specific requirement in the past then we were never caught (our auditors have been great but automotive is a small percentage of our business). We have always worked with our customers on which measurements we would perform the R&Rs on.

Sorry that I wasn't clear by feature, what I mean is every item inspected on the Control Plan including attribute. A couple examples (we are stampers) visual check for burrs or scrapmarks, measuring shear and break using a microscope. These are processing conditions for us pre-tumble, not critical to the customer.

The standard says "each type of inspection, measurement, and test equipment system identified on the control plan". The inspection and measurement part of this is why we were written up because we only had special characteristics on this part and rest of the equipment at the lab scope level, not on these part features.

I am by no means an expert on MSA. I'll take all the help I can get but my auditor was very firm about this.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Re: How many of you are Certified to IATF 16949

Agreed on the equipment. If it was a part specific requirement in the past then we were never caught (our auditors have been great but automotive is a small percentage of our business). We have always worked with our customers on which measurements we would perform the R&Rs on.

Sorry that I wasn't clear by feature, what I mean is every item inspected on the Control Plan including attribute. A couple examples (we are stampers) visual check for burrs or scrapmarks, measuring shear and break using a microscope. These are processing conditions for us pre-tumble, not critical to the customer.

The standard says "each type of inspection, measurement, and test equipment system identified on the control plan". The inspection and measurement part of this is why we were written up because we only had special characteristics on this part and rest of the equipment at the lab scope level, not on these part features.

I am by no means an expert on MSA. I'll take all the help I can get but my auditor was very firm about this.

Your auditor is right with respect to the literal language of the standard but 100% wrong with respect to your process and the usefulness of the control plan docs.

We have the same problems. Burrs was a "big one" last time. We are required to meet our customer expectations which specifically allows burrs not detrimental to safe handling. So we had a "feel" check for burrs. But no MSA, which was a complete waste given the burr requirement. We ended up reworking some docs to put things like visual checks in notes so they technically wouldn't show up as a "measurement." For stamped components a lot of what they ask for is way overbroad. Good luck.
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
Re: How many of you are Certified to IATF 16949

A MSA on visual is in my mind needed.
This is one of the differences between Europe and the US.
In the US invariably you don't check eyes, even for using a fork lift in some states!
In most industries the visual issues are those that cause complaints and the MSA process is one way of showing competency in visual inspection.
How do you verify the competence of a visual inspector, which is most places is every associate.

This does not need to be on a specific product, you can save a "test kit" and use this over and over .
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Re: How many of you are Certified to IATF 16949

A MSA on visual is in my mind needed.
This is one of the differences between Europe and the US.
In the US invariably you don't check eyes, even for using a fork lift in some states!
In most industries the visual issues are those that cause complaints and the MSA process is one way of showing competency in visual inspection.
How do you verify the competence of a visual inspector, which is most places is every associate.

This does not need to be on a specific product, you can save a "test kit" and use this over and over .

That entirely depends on what you're looking for. If I am looking for obvious damage of packaging on received materials how is an MSA value added? It isn't. You can demonstrate competency by training people what to look for and having them demonstrate their ability to do it.
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
Re: How many of you are Certified to IATF 16949

That entirely depends on what you're looking for. If I am looking for obvious damage of packaging on received materials how is an MSA value added? It isn't. You can demonstrate competency by training people what to look for and having them demonstrate their ability to do it.

How do you know that after "training" all people observing defects come to the same conclusion? My experience is that they often do not. Hence an attribute (Kappa) study may be in order.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Re: How many of you are Certified to IATF 16949

How do you know that after "training" all people observing defects come to the same conclusion? My experience is that they often do not. Hence an attribute (Kappa) study may be in order.

If the material comes in and the packaging is destroyed and things are bashed up, it's pretty obvious. If they can't figure it out then they need a different job.
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
Re: How many of you are Certified to IATF 16949

If the material comes in and the packaging is destroyed and things are bashed up, it's pretty obvious. If they can't figure it out then they need a different job.

I wasn’t referring to damaged packaging. As you already correctly stated; it depends on what you’re looking for. When you rely on people doing visual product inspections, that can be risky business.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Top Bottom