Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory

TS16949 Annex A versus Toyota MQC's

D

dadofeleven

#1
I had a confusing conversation with our TS16949 auditor today. He said that although Toyota does not require TS, that the auditor must still ensure that the TS requirements are met by ALL automotive customers, including Toyota.

The problem is with the control plans. Toyota requires MQC's, which are equivalent to control plans but do not contain all of the information required in the Annex A of TS16949. Annex A is listed as a "normative" reference, whatever that means. Does that mean it's a standard that must be used for Toyota? He said that customers cannot overrule TS requirements, so if Annex A is required and Toyota's MQC forms do not contain all of the Annex A information, then we will need to create control plans in addition to the MQC's. This seems like a waste of time and has no value to the customer. Is this correct?
 
#2
Welcome to Totally Stupid. While technically correct, it is an overbroad and unnecessary reading of the standard. I'd do what your customer wants. I'd fight it. I had some luck with pushback on that part of the standard. Good luck.
 

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#3
Definition of "Normative Reference"

I am posting this because in the first post dadofeleven is not sure what "normative" means in this context.

Here is one definition of "normative" in this context. It would be good for others here to give their interpretation. Sidney should be able to explain.

"Definition

ISO/IEC Directives, Part two, Section 6.2.2, defines the inclusion of a normative reference as, “This conditional element shall give a list of the referenced documents… in such a way as to make them indispensable for the application of the document.” In other words, by citing ISO 9000:2015 as a normative reference, it is therefore considered as indispensable to the application of ISO 9001. The ISO 9001:2015 DIS revision makes this crystal clear with additional text citing the “indispensable” relationship between these standards."

Also see: What does the term "Normative reference" mean?
 
Last edited:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#4
I had a confusing conversation with our TS16949 auditor today.
This is the first and most telling indication that the auditor is not sure about this, either. Otherwise, s/he should have been able to show you, in no time, the requirement your system does not comply with.

Realizing that the (TS 16949) standard is intended to boost confidence in the automotive supply chain, if a supplier had to end up with valueless busy work, which is not required by anyone, other than a CB auditor's tortuous interpretation, we would be living in Wikipedia reference-linkBizarro World. We must not lose sight of the big picture and the end game for TS16949.

So, most definitely, appeal of this NC to the CB. You can not afford to let a misguided interpretation create silly bureaucracy in your system. In my opinion, TS16949 audits should be bound, by scope, to parts of the system touching deliveries to subscribing TS16949 customers. As Toyota (and Honda) do not subscribe to the IATF and the TS16949, anything related to their product lines should be out of bounds (out of scope) during a TS audit.

Please, do yourself (and all of us who want to keep the sanity of management system audits in place) a favor and appeal this nonsensical nonconformity.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#5
I had a confusing conversation with our TS16949 auditor today. He said that although Toyota does not require TS, that the auditor must still ensure that the TS requirements are met by ALL automotive customers, including Toyota.
I totally agree with Sidney. The "...must ensure that the TS requirements are met by ALL automotive customers..." is simply wrong. Here you have an auditor who lacks basic knowledge of his mission.
 
#6
I totally agree with Sidney. The "...must ensure that the TS requirements are met by ALL automotive customers..." is simply wrong. Here you have an auditor who lacks basic knowledge of his mission.
While I agree with Jim and Sidney, the 4th Ed. rules really messed all this up. As I understand it, the subscribing customer language was replaced with "automotive customer" and thus the applicability to all things automotive. TS is now just a nightmare for most.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#7
While I agree with Jim and Sidney, the 4th Ed. rules really messed all this up. As I understand it, the subscribing customer language was replaced with "automotive customer" and thus the applicability to all things automotive. TS is now just a nightmare for most.
The material available @ http://www.slideshare.net/ULDQSInc/isots-16949-rules-4th-edition-training supports what you are saying, which makes it officially nonsensical. For an industry that constantly seeks cost reduction in the supply chain, forcing suppliers to implement non-value added bureaucracy goes against it's own interests. :bonk:

Further, despite the fact that the auditor is following what the IATF is mandating, apparently, I would still question why would the CB auditor involve him/herself with a Toyota product line, knowing full well that Toyota does not require TS16949 certification from it's suppliers. From a risk-based perspective, the auditor should focus on the issues near and dear to the customers which demand such certification.
 
Last edited:

LUV-d-4UM

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
Absolutely!! If you have Toyota as a customer and you are using the AIAG Control Plan, that should be OK. Toyota is one of our many Automotive Customers who do not even subscribe to TS but have their own forms.
 
#9
I work for one of Toyota suppliers and totally agree with auditor's finding.
It's supplier's responsibility to find solution how to prepare control plan according to Toyota and Annex A requirements. Otherwise we set Toyota as opponent to ISO/TS 16949.

Toyota is not subscribed to the IATF, but they profit from their work and definitely they do not want someone to get nonconformities because of their requirements defined in Supplier Quality Assurance Manual.

You can put additional information in MQC to align it with Annex A requirements, emailing in advance your Toyota engineering that you have to do that, because of TS requirements. If engineer is not dumb enough to reject it, you have TS-compliant MQC. If not you have his e-mail requesting you to remove it and then auditor must accept it.

OR
Alternative MQC Format
The Supplier may use an alternative MQC format if:-
· It contains all the information specified in the Toyota MQC format (this is a minimum requirement).
· This has been previously discussed and approved with the responsible Toyota QA/QC Engineer.
Next time, show you effort - making "gap analysis", trying to close it, as "seating, waiting and blaming Toyota" is not a clever strategy.

Further, despite the fact that the auditor is following what the IATF is mandating, apparently, I would still question why would the CB auditor involve him/herself with a Toyota product line, knowing full well that Toyota does not require TS16949 certification from it's suppliers. From a risk-based perspective, the auditor should focus on the issues near and dear to the customers which demand such certification.
E.g. you are Tier-1, 65% parts for OEM Toyota, 15% other Toyota related Tier-1, 0 IATF subscribed customers, so how auditor should spend time during audits? :cool:
 
Last edited:

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#10
Please can you give me the example of where the MQC does not comply with annex a
From what I have seen there is no problem
Annex A does not say it must be AIAG compliant
 
Top Bottom