TS 16949 Clause 5.6.2.1 - Review of Potential Field Failures

[Helmut Jilling]

We include this statement in our MR meeting minutes: *No End User Field Failures, Product Recalls or Warranty Issues were reported*. 3 different auditors have all had positive comments...

I would have no issues with that, assuming it is a true statement, and was actually mention din the meeting....

 

[boxerjoe]

Yes. It is mentioned. ALSO if we have an actual FF PR or Warranty issue, we discuss.

 

[bobdoering]

The key is this: do you get any returns of the product you manufacture that have made it to the customer? If not, state no returns yet, no analysis available. If so, did you look at the product to see if it was your problem? If not, report the finding...done. If so, what was the root cause and did your resolve the issue? That is the process you need to have to meet the requirement.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

You are fine. It is your auditor that needs enlightenment.

Appeal the NC. I don't have the TS document with me now, but I am sure there must be an "as applicable" or an "as appropriate" somewhere.

5.6.2.1 Review input - supplemental
Input to management review SHALL include an analysis of actual and potential field-failures and their impact on quality, safety or environment.

We include this as an agenda and just say we do not have any field failures that had impact on customer quality, safety or environment. The auditor then moves on. Thank you.

 

[thenson]

Here is how I see this discussion...

In order to demonstrate customer focus and that you are meeting customer expectation, how can you NOT know what the end use is for the product you are supplying?

But, if you have zero responsibility for field failures then I agree with the suggestion above, where you put a line in your "Management Review Checklist" that states, no field failures report and no action necessary.

Having a management review checklist is a simple thing to do and shows documented evidence that you have addressed all the required inputs and outputs.

just my humble opinion,
thenson

 

[hogheavenfarm]

In some applications the actual function and use may be confidential. We manufacture parts for military applications. I am not even supplied a dimensioned print (I have asked). They supply us with a dxf, and we make the part. I do not know what it is or how it is used. I am given a width and a tolerance, thats all. (I had to fight to get that). We are responsible to make the part within the tolerance, and thats all we know. There have been times (before I was given the width) when we had returns. We are not told why the parts are returned, just that they are 'not usable'.
We meet our customers expectation as best we know how, and although I would like to know the function and design of the part, thats not possible.
So there are times when you dont know this stuff.

 

[howste]

In some applications the actual function and use may be confidential. We manufacture parts for military applications. I am not even supplied a dimensioned print (I have asked). They supply us with a dxf, and we make the part. I do not know what it is or how it is used. I am given a width and a tolerance, thats all. (I had to fight to get that). We are responsible to make the part within the tolerance, and thats all we know. There have been times (before I was given the width) when we had returns. We are not told why the parts are returned, just that they are 'not usable'.
We meet our customers expectation as best we know how, and although I would like to know the function and design of the part, thats not possible.
So there are times when you dont know this stuff.

Wouldn't that be outside the scope of TS 16949? Unless it's OEM automotive, it wouldn't be included.