Timely Review of Engineering Specifications - 4.2.3.1 - Two Weeks?

[Hermann - 2011]

Has anybody else noticed that 16949 § 4.2.3.1 requires review of changes within 2 weeks.
This is new in as much as we normally define how quickly we review specs. It can take longer (depends on complexity).

 

[Dave.C]

I think the intent of this clause is to ensure the organisation at least does a quick feasibility review when receiving new specs, so that major changes, potential delays or problems are flagged up in a timely manner, or am I on the wrong track here?

Dave.C

 

[BobD]

Dave C...

I agree with you that it means a quick review and not actual implementation. The key phrase in 4.2.3.1 is "based on customer required schedule".

In our case, we are a ductile iron foundry supplying parts to the B3. The receipt of an engineering change may mean extensive tooling modifications or maybe all new tooling. This alone can take 3-6 weeks. Then we have to proto-type and sample the customer for their approval. Depending upon how fast the customer moves on it, final approval can take 6-weeks to 6-months.

 

[rsalinger - 2007]

I think the two weeks time frame is very similar to what QS-9000 said on this subject...reviews should be done in days, not weeks or months(4.5.2.1). They just got more specific.

 

[qsmso]

What should two weeks mean?

Dear friends,
My question doen't mean anything except I really want to know what is the general interprettion of "TWO WEEKS"

Last QS audit, my auditor issued deviation to us for stating to review within 10 business days. The auditor said that timely review must be one week or five working days.

Any comment?

QSMSO

 

[Dave.C]

qsmso,

I would disagree with your auditor, in that if you think 10 business days is timely for your business to conduct a review, who is he to dictate to you how you should run your business!!!!

Seems to me that TS may be trying to clear up the argument over what is a timely review.

Dave.C

 

[Sam]

The inteny,IMO, is to review the changes to determine a course of actionn, not to have a completed changerd product/process within the two weeks.
IMO, customer requests for changes should br "reviewed" for impact the minute they are received.
First, for the effective date of the change; you may need to stop production,
second, the nature of the change; a quick review will enable you to provide a timeline for initiating the change.

 

[db]

Days

Last QS audit, my auditor issued deviation to us for stating to review within 10 business days. The auditor said that timely review must be one week or five working days.

I think the auditor is referencing 4.5.2.1 "e.g. business "days", not weeks..."

In a strict interpretation, we could conclude anything over one business week would then be falling into the category of "weeks", not "days".

TS gives a little more leeway in that it gives two weeks. However, I could see a case for arguing that the two weeks also include the distribution and implementation. I do think that this is a stretch and agree with the other posts in that the requirement is for the review only.

 

[Don Wood - 2011]

Two Weeks

The requirement applies ONLY to the review, not implementation.

Two weeks means two working weeks from reciept of the documents/data from the customer. Ten business days is not an unreasonable way to define this.

Don Wood
Deosil Management
Licensed Plexus Service Provider/Registrar Auditor Master Trainer
(I'm one of the folks that certifies the CB auditors)

 

[Douglas E. Purdy]

Who Trained whom?

Don,

Who trained qsmso's Auditor? Apparently qsmso has grounds to repeal that nonconformance - Yes?