Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition: 4th edition for ISO/TS 16949

[Icy Mountain]

Well, it looks like the Cossacks beat me to it.

Everyone who is registered to ISO/TS16949:2009 needs to read the document that rjkozak posted very carefully. Also, you should get a copy of Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS 16949, Rules for Achieving and Maintaining IATF Recognition, Fourth Edition.

Most especially, items 1 and 2 in the 4th Edition Top Impacts and What They Mean to Your Organization that rjkozak posted.

1) Existing site extensions will need to transition into single certified sites between April 1, 2014 and April 1, 2015 according to the process described in the IATF Certification Body Communiqu? #2013-006 (available from the IATF website). This adds significant audit days to convert a site extension to a site , contact your CB for specifics.

As has been discussed previously, this is a huge hassle and makes for Byzantine interpretation of what goes where. Expect that registration bodies will take full advantage of this. If you are not prepared for this change when they show up, you are going to end up with a terminated audit, a cancelled cert and expensive followup audit and more frequent surveillance$$$$$$$$$$$$

2) Clause 1.0 Eligibility- Manufacturing sites where production and/or service parts are manufactured and supplied to Automotive customers are eligible for TS certification. The term ?subscribing customer? has been removed and eligible quality management systems must support all automotive customers (requiring TS or not). Expect additional workload to suppliers ; for review of supplier quality manuals , control plans, FMEA?s , MSA, and other core tools that may have not been required with term TS subscribing customer.

THIS IS HUGE AND EVERYONE IS MISSING THIS BECAUSE IT IS NOT PLAIN. Here's what this means: The registration bodes are going to require a full application of the Core Tools to every single product that you ship to any customer that builds something on wheels. Bus manufacturers, ambulance manufacturers, scooter manufacturers, you name it.

We have sectioned off our products that do not ship to TS "subscribers" for years. No FMEA for that product? No problem, not required. No MSA for that 8-32VDC input USB charging port? It doesn't matter, we only ship it to an ambulance manufacturer that doesn't even require ISO9001.

Alas, no more. They're going to want to see objective evidence for the application of the Core Tools to every product that ships to anyone in the new, loosely defined, "automotive" market. Whether the customer requests it or not. When you don't have it when they show up, you are going to end up with a terminated audit, a cancelled cert, an expensive followup re-cert audit and more frequent surveillance$$$$$$$$$$$$

There is no way that a company like mine could accomplish this across our entire product catalog in six months. I suspect a change to ISO9001-registered-TS16949-compliant-but-not-registered in our future.

I don't mind applying the Core Tools when the customer requests, the customer pays for the time and effort of doing all the work and generating all the documents, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, there's a reason for it. Can anyone here really defend the need to generate a full PPAP, with the 19 points of light documentation package, for a $25 dual port USB charger?

This whole thing is worse than the Frank-Dodd Act and even less efficacious.

 

[Icy Mountain]

Having thought about this for 24 hours: I wonder if a statement from a couple of dozen of my top "automotive" customers to the effect that "Full PPAP and core tools application is not required unless specifically requested, in writing, as part of the Purchase Order requirements for [Supplier] product," would be enough to stop this madness.

Certification body representatives feel free to chime in here.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Read

I am not sure why they changed the concept of CB auditors focusing on subscribing customers:

The term “subscribing customer” has been removed and eligible quality management systems must support all automotive customers (requiring TS or not).

In my opinion, this is a HUGE mistake. CB Auditors should FOCUS the audit sample on issues, product lines, contracts, etc. related to customers that have invoked TS-16949 certification. They are the reason behind the registrants seeking certification. In my mind, it makes NO SENSE whatsoever to dilute the audit efforts looking at processes, products, etc for customers that don't value/require the certificate.

Even in the ISO 9001, AS9100, etc certification world... I would hope that ISO 17021 would adopt the concept of subscribing customers. I am surprised with this IATF change of direction.

Having thought about this for 24 hours: I wonder if a statement from a couple of dozen of my top "automotive" customers to the effect that "Full PPAP and core tools application is not required unless specifically requested, in writing, as part of the Purchase Order requirements for [Supplier] product," would be enough to stop this madness.

Certification body representatives feel free to chime in here.

I don't think this whole thing was well thought out. PPAP requires the customer support to review the submission, in my understanding. What's a supplier to do when they submit a PPAP to a customer that did not request one and will provide no feedback?

As for your question if CB's could disregard a requirement from a QMS standard if the registrant's customers are on the record stating that they don't require compliance to that specific requirement could turn into a potential loophole and bureaucratic nightmare to track who wants PPAP or not... Personally, if a customer provides blanket waivers for specific requirements, as a CB auditor, I would not insist on adherence to the requirement for that customer/product line, as it would not add any value to any interested party.

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

 

[Icy Mountain]

As for your question if CB's could disregard a requirement from a QMS standard if the registrant's customers are on the record stating that they don't require compliance to that specific requirement could turn into a potential loophole and bureaucratic nightmare to track who wants PPAP or not...

But that's the point, up until April 1, my CB wasn't applying TS requirements to any customers other than the single entity that required us to get certified.

I have customers that require a PSW; they don't invoke PPAP, they just want a PSW. They really don't know why and don't have anyone to review a full PPAP anyway. I include "PPAP documentation limited to this PSW" in the comment section on the PSW. They sign.

I have several customers that request PSW's like they request Certificates of Conformance. They simply will not sign them and return them. "They're just like Certificates of Conformance," they say, "We're not signing them and returning a copy!" I print these emails and put them with the PSWCoC, just to satisfy third party auditors.
:truce:

 

[Stijloor]

It gives this entire IATF certification scheme a very bad name...

 

[Reg Morrison]

The IATF document now leaves no room for ambiguity: consultants can NOT BE physically present at the site, during a CB audit.

Will anyone sue the IATF for restriction of trade? What about the constitutional amendment of freedom to assemble? Unchecked powers surely corrupts....

 

[Icy Mountain]

The IATF document now leaves no room for ambiguity: consultants can NOT BE physically present at the site, during a CB audit.

I have a gentleman that does all of my auditing, with the exception of auditing the audit process. This takes him approximately 5 days per year. I audit the audit process.

He also fills the Quality Manager role at another small company. This takes him about 20 days per year.

In both cases, he is listed as a Contract Employee. He is most certainly not a consultant. Never let a third party auditor define terms for you.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I have a gentleman that does all of my auditing, with the exception of auditing the audit process. This takes him approximately 5 days per year. I audit the audit process.

He also fills the Quality Manager role at another small company. This takes him about 20 days per year.

In both cases, he is listed as a Contract Employee. He is most certainly not a consultant. Never let a third party auditor define terms for you.

I partially agree with you, doing the audits should be a nonissue. Not so sure about the second example....would have to look further... The contract employee issue may not be an issue...how they pay the guy should be immaterial.... But, they would have to demonstrate how 20 days a year makes him a meaningful "member of management." The intent is not a title, but a meaningful position with authority and responsibility. A part time contract employee? ...maybe.... 20 days a year....would really have to look into that.....

 

[Reg Morrison]

I partially agree with you, doing the audits should be a nonissue. Not so sure about the second example....would have to look further... The contract employee issue may not be an issue...how they pay the guy should be immaterial.... But, they would have to demonstrate how 20 days a year makes him a meaningful "member of management." The intent is not a title, but a meaningful position with authority and responsibility. A part time contract employee? ...maybe.... 20 days a year....would really have to look into that.....

??? Not sure what you are talking about. Nobody mentioned the guy as the management rep for Icy's organization.

Are you confused?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

??? Not sure what you are talking about. Nobody mentioned the guy as the management rep for Icy's organization.

Are you confused?

Fair point..I thought Icy inferred that from his comment...but it is possible I inferred something not intended. The same question could be implied however, a Quality "MANAGER" who only works 20 days a year? I would definitely follow it as an audit trail...