TS 16949 Clause 7.4 - Purchasing Process - Notes 1 and 2 - Mergers and acquisitions

[The Taz!]

Mergers and acquisitions

Here's one for the Q-Gang Brainiacs

Beneath section 7.4, Purchasing Process (TS-16949) are 2 notes;

Note 1: Purchased product above includes all products and services that effect customer requirements bla bla bla. . . Informative Reference

Note 2: When there are mergers, acquisitions or affiliations associated with suppliers, the organization should verify the continuity of the supplier's quality management system and it's effectiveness. Stealth requirement????

I see the value in this, but is note 2 really a requirement that the standard says doesn't need to be met? I think the word "should" is the key there.

Should the "should" be interpreted in this case as a "you'd better"?

It does make sense. Will an uditor use it?? Why put it there to start with?

 

[Valeri]

It is my understanding (and that is questionable!) that anything marked note is for guidance to understand or clarify the requirement.

 

[The Taz!]

It is my understanding (and that is questionable!) that anything marked note is for guidance to understand or clarify the requirement.

I agree with your statement (questionable or not), but Note 2 is not "guidance or clarification" to me. Guidance as a stretch. . .

 

[Valeri]

I never said they made sense. I ignore them & pray they go away!

 

[The Taz!]

I never said they made sense. I ignore them & pray they go away!

I guess that makes us Soul Mates. . .LOL

 

[db]

Here's one for the Q-Gang Brainiacs

Beneath section 7.4, Purchasing Process (TS-16949) are 2 notes;

Note 1: Purchased product above includes all products and services that effect customer requirements bla bla bla. . . Informative Reference

Note 2: When there are mergers, acquisitions or affiliations associated with suppliers, the organization should verify the continuity of the supplier's quality management system and it's effectiveness. Stealth requirement????

I see the value in this, but is note 2 really a requirement that the standard says doesn't need to be met? I think the word "should" is the key there.

Should the "should" be interpreted in this case as a "you'd better"?

It does make sense. Will an uditor use it?? Why put it there to start with?

I'm not so certain that this is a "stealth requirement". But from a common sense point of view, it makes sense to find out how a merger, acquisition, or affiliation will affect your supplier's ability to meet your requirements. I could argue that this note is mandated in the "evaluation, and re-evaluation" part of 7.4.1. Also, 7.4.1.2 could be severly impacted, if the change results in the supplier abandoning, or losing their registration. I think the note is just pointing out what the rest of 7.4.1 is saying.

Hope that helps.

 

[The Taz!]

Thank you Dave. . . I've already drafted the letter to all suppliers for this issue as well as other Customer Specific requirements that are not addressed in the standard boilerplate Terms and Conditions of Purchase orders.

I agree that it IS relevant, and what I consider "Good Practice"

No CAR was issued to the Purchasing Manager, but the letter will go out as a :ca:

 

[Howard Atkins]

What is a note

Here is the offical definition

In this Technical Specification, the word “shall” indicates a requirement. The word “should” indicates a recommendation. Paragraphs marked “NOTE” are for guidance in understanding or clarifying the associated requirement.

Does this help!