TS 16949 Certification Exclusions - Automotive vs. 'Other' Parts and their processes

[PPAPtastic]

My company just gained certification to TS

Here's my confusion...The auditor made it seem as though we just barely squeaked by as we did not include some of our business units in the scope of the audit. We, the quality dept, feel that he is misinterpreting the TS requirement

The only permitted exclusions for this TS relate to 7.3 where the organization is not responsible for product design and development

Because some of our products are related to the automotive industry and some are not (in any way), shouldn't we only be allowed by IAOB to register those manufacturing processes (including design, manufacturing, etc) which do actually go into the automotive value chain? Shouldn't those products which are irrelevant to the automotive industry be excluded?

 

[ralphsulser]

Support remote sites should be included in the your scope for the automotive part of your business. Example: We have a Sales office in Detroit which handles RFQs and contributes to Contract Review. They were included in our scope, and had to be audited for their involvement. They are also listed on our TS certification as a remote site. Only was a 1 day audit and went well. So, these are not exclusions,but support sites which may or may not need top be in your scope, depending direct involvement with the automotive portion of the business. Hope this helps

 

[PPAPtastic]

The Business Units and Product lines that I am talking about which we feel should be excluded are not remote sites, they are processed in the same buildings as our other products. The differences are the design teams, production teams, etc. They, the products and teams, do not follow the same processes as our products intended for automotive use.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The Business Units and Product lines that I am talking about which we feel should be excluded are not remote sites, they are processed in the same buildings as our other products. The differences are the design teams, production teams, etc. They, the products and teams, do not follow the same processes as our products intended for automotive use.

Just because they are in the same building doesn't mean that the business isn't essentially different. I worked for a company in similar circumstances, although the registration was to QS-9000 and not 16949. We had our automotive business, and another product line that was wholly unrelated to the automotive work. In that situation, because QS-9000 included ISO-9002 registration, both ends of the business were included in the overall system, although there were obviously automotive requirements (PPAP, e.g.) that didn't apply to the other products. In the case of TS-16949, the intent is to focus exclusively on automotive requirements, so other non-overlapping products, methods and systems should not be considered by registrars in determining fitness for registration.
On the other hand, it makes good sense to have some kind of documented system for the other stuff, and it's possible to hold both TS and ISO registrations simultaneously.

 

[ralphsulser]

We too have non automotive business in the same building. They were excluded from TS16949 because the TS16949 Rules state that non-automotive products for off-road vehicles cannot be certified to TS16949, plus the fact that the customers for these businesses do not require any QMS certification. However, we do apply the same type of systems as used in our TS16949 automotive products. Just not as detailed.

 

[PPAPtastic]

Okay...I think we are in agreement then that you don't have to certify everything in the company to the same Standard just because they are produced in the same building, regardless of what they will be used for. Maybe our auditor was smoking crack when he did our audit, cause he thinks it all should be certified.

 

[Icy Mountain]

Yes!

There you have it. We just registered to ISO9001 & TS16949. Currently, we have only one production line that makes one product for our automotive customer. While many of the procedures for contract review, calibration, etc. are the same for both systems, we made sure that the auditors understood up front that they would only be able to see APQP, PPAP, MSA, etc. on one product on one line, not on every product on every line.

 

[Jan C]

All Oem?

But it does have to be the entire OEM product line that is manufactured at that site whether you are Tier 1, 2, or 3, correct? We cannot just pick, say the GM parts manfactured, but exclude the parts where we are Tier 2 and the customer we sell to does not require TS? Where could I find documentation for this that I can use to prove my point with management?

 

[ralphsulser]

But it does have to be the entire OEM product line that is manufactured at that site whether you are Tier 1, 2, or 3, correct? We cannot just pick, say the GM parts manfactured, but exclude the parts where we are Tier 2 and the customer we sell to does not require TS? Where could I find documentation for this that I can use to prove my point with management?

Go to the IAOB web site for a detailed explanation of what is included for automotive regardless of Tier level

 

[Jan C]

Thanks, that is exactly what I needed!