Timely Review of Engineering Specifications - 4.2.3.1 - Two Weeks?

H

Hermann - 2011

#1
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).
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
D

Dave.C

#2
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?:rolleyes:

Dave.C
 
B
#3
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.
 
R

rsalinger - 2007

#4
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.
 
Q

qsmso

#5
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
 
D

Dave.C

#6
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!!!! :eek:

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

Dave.C :bigwave:
 
S
#7
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.
 
#8
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.
 
D

Don Wood - 2011

#9
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)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S TS 16949 Requirements for Timely Review of Engineering Specifications IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
T TS 16949 - 4.2.3.1 Engineering Specifications - Process to assure timely review, etc. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
S TS 16949 Clause 4.2.3.1 - Process to assure timely review - Two weeks IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
D Customer Specifications - Timely review (e.g. business ?days?, not weeks or months) Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 14
K FAA Audit - Major nonconformity for lack of timely calibration of two devices EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 5
T Timely Closure and "Ongoing" Corrective Action Nonconformance and Corrective Action 20
J Specific Actions where Timely and/or Effective Actions are not Achieved Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
M Definition Timely - Definition of "timely" in AS9100 Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 9
M Benchmarking - Timely Closure of Corrective Actions Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
Mikishots How to handle CAR (Corrective Action Request) Scope vs. Timely Response Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
E C/A (Corrective Action) not closed in a timely manner Nonconformance and Corrective Action 26
P Convincing Suppliers to Send 8D Reports and React to Complaints in a Timely Manner Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 24
R AS9100 Revision A - Timely and effective corrective actions not achieved AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 8
M Timely Response for Preventive Actions - How can we assure a timely response? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
J Periodic review of Documents during management review Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 24
I Section 8.2.3.1 Order Review ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
J Old procedure review and training requirements Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
D Increasing efficiency - Capt. Proj. Document Review Matrix Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
M Is complete testing required as per ISO 10993 for materials used in orthopedic implants or is literature review route possible Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
S Scope of management review ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
M Are we getting scammed by our Notified Body? They are asking to review all changes to determine if they are Significant CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 4
M Review of work - independent review? or can it be the same person ? ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
H Management review IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
C Bulk Record Retention Review Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 4
FRA 2 FDA Product NCRs- Quality Review Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
J How to evaluate the effectiveness of management review? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
S Customer audit report review and approval ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D 62304 code review, unit test, integration test example IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
P Product Quality Review API-GMP Manufacturing and Related Processes 0
R Quality policy review document IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
Q Management Review ISO 9001-2015 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 36
M ISO27001 18.2.1 - Internal Independent review IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 1
M CER Review EU Medical Device Regulations 2
JoCam Non CE marked device for customer review Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
D Control chart selection of multiple batches review Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
F Need help in IMS management review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 3
M Resume Review Request - Quality Assurance Career and Occupation Discussions 11
T Using Review articles from Pubmed for CER CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 8
M Management Review Inputs ISO9001 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
D Timelines for COVID-19 desktop review UK Medical Device Regulations 0
D Key Performance Indicators / KPI Review IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
B ETO Annual review ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
J How many hours for a NB to review Technical Documentation? EU Medical Device Regulations 6
M Origin of Material Review Board AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 8
J NCR- Failure of contract review process - NADCAP audit AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 6
H Has anyone undergone MDR FQA review yet? EU Medical Device Regulations 10
A MDR - Legacy Device Review Timeframe and Requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 3
A Complaint review as part of the complaint handling process? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A Document Review and Document Approval --- 2 Signatures needed acc. §820.40? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6
Y Procedures on Contract Review Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom