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

[Helmut Jilling]

Next loophole that needs closed:
99% of my product catalog is specified, designed and manufactured by us. We give drawings and specifications to the customer and ask, "Do you wish to buy?" The only thing we get from the customer is a PO with our part number on it.

Is this considered customer specified product?

Not really...sounds like you guys are the design party. Can you tell me what kind of product we are talking about? And, as I mentioned, I would discuss your situation with the Customer Mgr or Compliance Mgr at the CB before your audit, to see if there is a logical way to work this out.

 

[Icy Mountain]

Not really...sounds like you guys are the design party. Can you tell me what kind of product we are talking about? And, as I mentioned, I would discuss your situation with the Customer Mgr or Compliance Mgr at the CB before your audit, to see if there is a logical way to work this out.

For example, a large hybrid transmission manufacturer came to us and asked if we could create a solid-state, 8.5kW, 600VDC to 28.5VDC, converter to take power from their hybrid battery pack and provide power to replace the standard belt driven alternator.

While we certainly solicited and received input from our target customers, we received no formal specifications from the transmission company (not the purchasing customers), the vehicle manufacturers, nor the end customers. We created a design specification, a design validation plan and reporting structure and a followed our own APQP process. At then end, everyone agreed that the result represented what they wanted. The transmission guys gave approval to the vehicle manufacturer to integrate our product with their batteries without voiding the warranty. The vehicle guys signified approval with purchase orders for a part number. The end users purchased a more efficient and reliable hybrid and are delighted.

No one ever mentioned TS, Control Plans or PPAP. Although many things that bear a passing resemblance to these items occurred, they wouldn't stand up to a TS audit if I nailed 'em to a board.

While my CB would never recommend that I drop TS and remain ISO9001, gracious no, I get the distinct feeling that they are trying to save me the ordeal of a Major NC, terminated audit, canceled cert, useless documentation generation, re-cert audit, etc., etc., ad infinitum. At least someone still believes in real customer satisfaction, not mountains of paper masquerading as a quality system.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

For example, a large hybrid transmission manufacturer came to us and asked if we could create a solid-state, 8.5kW, 600VDC to 28.5VDC, converter to take power from their hybrid battery pack and provide power to replace the standard belt driven alternator.

While we certainly solicited and received input from our target customers, we received no formal specifications from the transmission company (not the purchasing customers), the vehicle manufacturers, nor the end customers. We created a design specification, a design validation plan and reporting structure and a followed our own APQP process. At then end, everyone agreed that the result represented what they wanted. The transmission guys gave approval to the vehicle manufacturer to integrate our product with their batteries without voiding the warranty. The vehicle guys signified approval with purchase orders for a part number. The end users purchased a more efficient and reliable hybrid and are delighted.

No one ever mentioned TS, Control Plans or PPAP. Although many things that bear a passing resemblance to these items occurred, they wouldn't stand up to a TS audit if I nailed 'em to a board.

While my CB would never recommend that I drop TS and remain ISO9001, gracious no, I get the distinct feeling that they are trying to save me the ordeal of a Major NC, terminated audit, canceled cert, useless documentation generation, re-cert audit, etc., etc., ad infinitum. At least someone still believes in real customer satisfaction, not mountains of paper masquerading as a quality system.

In this example is almost sounds like it is an aftermarket product. if that's the case then it is also exempt from the TS scope. Is this a production part it's installed on the assembly line? Or is it a dealer retrofit.

 

[Icy Mountain]

In this example is almost sounds like it is an aftermarket product. if that's the case then it is also exempt from the TS scope. Is this a production part it's installed on the assembly line? Or is it a dealer retrofit.

This part is installed by multiple bus manufacturers. They are the customers. It works in concert with the hybrid transmission. It eliminates the alternator and is the ONLY source of 24VDC for the vehicle. The transmission manufacturer is our design partner. They are not the customer.

Our first OEM for this product did not and does not require TS, PPAP or any other nonsense. They were provided with dozens of prototypes. When they were satisfied, their engineering signed off and we received a Purchase Order for production parts. Now, this is catalog part and can be ordered by anyone, subject to verification by my company and the transmission guys that the installation, wiring, software, etc. in their vehicle is per OUR standards, so that we do not suffer from unnecessary failures, damage, and the resulting customer dissatisfaction due to improper application of very sophisticated, and expensive, electronics and hybrid drive systems.

Unlike many supplier/customer relationships in the automotive industry, we are more knowledgeable about how our products function and the advantages they provide than our customers. In fact, we consider customer education and comprehensive product integration guidance as part of the total experience of doing business with us and one of our primary advantages.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

This part is installed by multiple bus manufacturers. They are the customers. It works in concert with the hybrid transmission. It eliminates the alternator and is the ONLY source of 24VDC for the vehicle. The transmission manufacturer is our design partner. They are not the customer.

Our first OEM for this product did not and does not require TS, PPAP or any other nonsense. They were provided with dozens of prototypes. When they were satisfied, their engineering signed off and we received a Purchase Order for production parts. Now, this is catalog part and can be ordered by anyone, subject to verification by my company and the transmission guys that the installation, wiring, software, etc. in their vehicle is per OUR standards, so that we do not suffer from unnecessary failures, damage, and the resulting customer dissatisfaction due to improper application of very sophisticated, and expensive, electronics and hybrid drive systems.

Unlike many supplier/customer relationships in the automotive industry, we are more knowledgeable about how our products function and the advantages they provide than our customers. In fact, we consider customer education and comprehensive product integration guidance as part of the total experience of doing business with us and one of our primary advantages.

Yeah, that does not sound like aftermarket. One of my clients supplies TBB, but the OEM holds design responsibility in that case.

1. I will stay with my first answer, that you have a semi-unique situation, and as such, you need to have an in-depth discussion with a decision-maker at your CB to see if there is a logical solution to this. We can give you opinions, but our opinions are not binding.

2. Your Engineers did a fair amount of design work, originally or in adapting existing designs. At that time, requirements (inputs) were discussed and understood, there were calculations, things and results (outputs) were written down, even if on napkins, designs were looked at (design reviews) to make sure they met requirements (verified)...at some point some prototype or prelaunch sample was tested (validation)...

They had to do most of thiis, just to get it done. You may have done more than you realize. The question is how much of this can you get your hands on now (control of records).

This seems more a discussion of Design Process (cl 7.3), than it is a discussion of PPAP.

 

[Icy Mountain]

You are certainly on the right track. We have a rigorous Product Development Control Process that exceeds ISO requirements but only invokes all of the cl 7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.2 requirements if they are specifically requested up front by what was formerly referred to as a "subscribing customer".

With this rule change, we now have TS requirements applied to every one of our product families based on the definition of "automotive" in the 4th Edition Rules. These requirements cannot be waived by our customers.

Also, from PPAP page 1, para 2, under Applicablity: An organization supply standard catalog production or service parts shall comply with PPAP unless formally waived by the authorized customer representative.

Would someone explain to me how the 99 and 44/100ths percent of my customer base is going to have their satisfaction improved by me requesting they waive PPAP when they think that PPAP is some kind of gynecological procedure?

Furthermore, while I have documentation that meets the intent of cl 7.3.3.2 for Manufacturing Process Design Output, the CB's TS auditors require that all of the bullet items in cl 7.3.3.2 be in a format acceptable to them. Do I have a control plan? You betcha! I just do not waste my time putting my control plan information into the exact format shown on the second page of the Control Plan Methodology Chapter (p 44) of the APQP manual as this document is not useful in my process. For the single customer and 2 products that require this nonsense, I generate the paper for the auditor. The customer has never seen this document nor have they requested it. Unfortunately, from experience, I know that not having a CP in this format generates a non-conformance.

BTW, I have only one documented Organization manufacturing feasibility study that meets cl 7.2.2.2. Why would I generate such a useless document when my Executive Staff signs off on a GO! early in the design process. Why would we even attempt to design a product that we cannot manufacture without a plan. That would be wasteful! Again, I have attempted to use a collection of Design Review Documents, approved by my Executive Staff, that meet the intent of the clause for any reasonable person. Result: non-conformance. Answer, generate a one page Team Feasibility Commitment form, check all the yes boxes, sign, date, conformance.

As of the first week of April, this thread is going to get really popular when the Major NC's start flying.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

You are certainly on the right track. We have a rigorous Product Development Control Process that exceeds ISO requirements but only invokes all of the cl 7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.2 requirements if they are specifically requested up front by what was formerly referred to as a "subscribing customer".

With this rule change, we now have TS requirements applied to every one of our product families based on the definition of "automotive" in the 4th Edition Rules. These requirements cannot be waived by our customers.

Also, from PPAP page 1, para 2, under Applicablity: An organization supply standard catalog production or service parts shall comply with PPAP unless formally waived by the authorized customer representative.

Would someone explain to me how the 99 and 44/100ths percent of my customer base is going to have their satisfaction improved by me requesting they waive PPAP when they think that PPAP is some kind of gynecological procedure?

Furthermore, while I have documentation that meets the intent of cl 7.3.3.2 for Manufacturing Process Design Output, the CB's TS auditors require that all of the bullet items in cl 7.3.3.2 be in a format acceptable to them. Do I have a control plan? You betcha! I just do not waste my time putting my control plan information into the exact format shown on the second page of the Control Plan Methodology Chapter (p 44) of the APQP manual as this document is not useful in my process. For the single customer and 2 products that require this nonsense, I generate the paper for the auditor. The customer has never seen this document nor have they requested it. Unfortunately, from experience, I know that not having a CP in this format generates a non-conformance.

BTW, I have only one documented Organization manufacturing feasibility study that meets cl 7.2.2.2. Why would I generate such a useless document when my Executive Staff signs off on a GO! early in the design process. Why would we even attempt to design a product that we cannot manufacture without a plan. That would be wasteful! Again, I have attempted to use a collection of Design Review Documents, approved by my Executive Staff, that meet the intent of the clause for any reasonable person. Result: non-conformance. Answer, generate a one page Team Feasibility Commitment form, check all the yes boxes, sign, date, conformance.

As of the first week of April, this thread is going to get really popular when the Major NC's start flying.

1. The AIAG formats are not TS requirements, unless a customer requires that format. So, it would seem you have a fair amount of room to manuver on that point. All the formats are customer optional. For example, your team is required to determine if it is feasible to meet the customer's request, but the record does not need to be in the AIAG Feasibility Committment Format.

2. My earlier discussion was that your Engineers would have had to develop a lot of the info in the sections 7.3.1 to 7.3.6, in whatever kind of format they felt was beneficial, just in order to get the product designed. I mean, they had to get it done. I would assume there would be some sort of drawing file, spec sheets, BOM, shop router, etc. They may not meet AIAG format, but they might not need to.

3. One big variable however, is if these are old designs, what records remain? You may have a lot of holes, regardless.

 

[Icy Mountain]

1. The AIAG formats are not TS requirements, unless a customer requires that format. So, it would seem you have a fair amount of room to manuver on that point. All the formats are customer optional. For example, your team is required to determine if it is feasible to meet the customer's request, but the record does not need to be in the AIAG Feasibility Committment Format.

While technically true, I failed to get a Control Plan that contained every requirement to pass muster because the auditor could not see past the AIAG format.

2. My earlier discussion was that your Engineers would have had to develop a lot of the info in the sections 7.3.1 to 7.3.6, in whatever kind of format they felt was beneficial, just in order to get the product designed. I mean, they had to get it done. I would assume there would be some sort of drawing file, spec sheets, BOM, shop router, etc. They may not meet AIAG format, but they might not need to.

See above. I'm not tilting at this windmill.

3. One big variable however, is if these are old designs, what records remain? You may have a lot of holes, regardless.

And I can't fill them in 12 months with no customer involvement, let alone in 60 days after a Major NC.

Congratulations, IATF message received, mission accomplished. We are dropping our certification and you will no longer get our money.

 

[LRE67]

We just received the new proposal from our certification body and because we have what was formally called a site extension, all our audit costs have doubled. You can imagine how that was received when I presented it to our Executive Management Team. The "fecal matter hit the impeller". I tried to explain to them that we can't fault our CB (although they are the ones who are benefiting from all of this). It's the IATF (the Audit Nazi's) who created this whole fiasco.

 

[Reg Morrison]

Congratulations, IATF message received, mission accomplished. We are dropping our certification and you will no longer get our money.

Hit'em where they feel it....but......does that mean.......the end of a diary?:mg: