Restricting scope to one part number for one customer

[IanDM]

My business has been ISO9001 certified for many years and has a growth opportunity that requires IATF16949 accreditation. The opportunity is small yet impactful so I am looking to see if I can become certified for just one part number. Our current registrar has not been entirely convincing that this is possible. IATF16949 accreditation is not in our strategic plan and I do not want to rewrite our QMS and would rather bolt on the necessary processes that would cover only this one part. Has anyone been successful in accomplishing this feat without too much disruption to their existing QMS?

 

[Funboi]

Firstly IATF is just certification. The auditor is correct to be cautious. “Ring fencing” - a term for what you describe- isn’t allowed.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Has anyone been successful in accomplishing this feat without too much disruption to their existing QMS?

If any of the other part numbers (as you call it) are automotive related, you cannot exclude them of the certification process. The IATF , in its immense [sarcasm] wisdom [\sarcasm] ruled that any IATF-16949 registrant HAS TO apply the requirements and be externally audited for the whole of the automotive product lines, even those destined to auto customers who don’t give a rat’s ass to the standard, such as, e.g., Honda and Toyota. It is mind boggling how dumb that decision was. The scope of IATF 16949 certification should be limited to only the product lines of the subscribing automakers.

 

[John C. Abnet]

If any of the other part numbers (as you call it) are automotive related, you cannot exclude them of the certification process. The IATF , in its immense [sarcasm] wisdom [\sarcasm] ruled that any IATF-16949 registrant HAS TO apply the requirements and be externally audited for the whole of the automotive product lines, even those destined to auto customers who don’t give a rat’s ass to the standard, such as, e.g., Honda and Toyota. It is mind boggling how dumb that decision was. The scope of IATF 16949 certification should be limited to only the product lines of the subscribing automakers.

Well said @Sidney Vianna

 

[Ron Rompen]

From what you have written, you are (in essence) planning on having TWO quality systems - one for your 'usual' product, and another one for a single automotive product. If you choose to do this, you are setting yourself up for failure - it is MUCH easier to create one QMS which encompasses the requirements of all your customers and registrars, rather than try and segregate the two.
Also, as another point, who knows what the future will bring? You may expand your business into OTHER automotive parts which require TS16949, and you'd just have to repeat the exercise all over again. Much simpler (IMHO) to do it properly the first time.
And a revision of your QMS does NOT require a full rewrite of the system - do a gap analysis, determine what you are missing, and correct it.

 

[IanDM]

If any of the other part numbers (as you call it) are automotive related, you cannot exclude them of the certification process. The IATF , in its immense [sarcasm] wisdom [\sarcasm] ruled that any IATF-16949 registrant HAS TO apply the requirements and be externally audited for the whole of the automotive product lines, even those destined to auto customers who don’t give a rat’s ass to the standard, such as, e.g., Honda and Toyota. It is mind boggling how dumb that decision was. The scope of IATF 16949 certification should be limited to only the product lines of the subscribing automakers.

Thanks Sidney. Well, this is certainly the case for my business as we have several automotive applications with no IATF requirement. Given this info, we'd have to go full hog IATF16949 as I would not want two quality systems. Our gap analysis says we'd need to add about three people to our staff just to cover the administrative load. Might be wise to ultimately forego the opportunity.

 

[IanDM]

From what you have written, you are (in essence) planning on having TWO quality systems - one for your 'usual' product, and another one for a single automotive product. If you choose to do this, you are setting yourself up for failure - it is MUCH easier to create one QMS which encompasses the requirements of all your customers and registrars, rather than try and segregate the two.
Also, as another point, who knows what the future will bring? You may expand your business into OTHER automotive parts which require TS16949, and you'd just have to repeat the exercise all over again. Much simpler (IMHO) to do it properly the first time.
And a revision of your QMS does NOT require a full rewrite of the system - do a gap analysis, determine what you are missing, and correct it.

Thanks Ron. We were already pursuing AS9100 when this opportunity came up and thought we could get away with a very limited IATF scope to handle this one part number. Sounded simple enough but I am learning otherwise.