R
Re: Waiver for ISO/TS16949
I have seen waivers issued to product design groups in similar situations to which you are describing. It is my understanding that the IATF may be issuing an SI in the coming months to address this issue.
Essentially the scenario is that a product group may be performing design activities in response to general market demand for 'catalog' parts. These parts will then be sold to a range of industries (this is particularly prevalent in the electronics industry) including automotive. The parts supplier is not in this scenario considered 'design' responsible since they are not aware of, or are designing a part for any specific automotive application. Consequently the design verification and validation activities are the responsibility of the purchaser (be it an OEM or tier one) as they must ensure that the part is fit for the application to which it is being applied, (this brings up a whole second series of much debated points as to the definition of design responsibility, but for now lets just discuss the applicability of the waiver).
Technically since the interpretation of the CB is that their approach is meeting the requirements of the Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition, no waiver as such is required. But in all likelihood since currently this is a 'hot' issue with the IATF, the CB probably approached their Oversight office and got an agreement to proceed with this course of action.
However the organisation being certified would not be able to exclude product design from an ISO 9001 audit activity, interestingly this activity would incorporate any and all customer requirements which could include the application of APQP and other automotive specific tools, but only if the organisation being audited has identified any specific external customers as part of the design process.
As a final note a signed PSW does not in itself constitute a waiver of a TS requirement. Customers cannot dilute the requirements of the specification, they can waive their own customer specific requirements if they see fit, but not the requirements of the specification.
I have seen waivers issued to product design groups in similar situations to which you are describing. It is my understanding that the IATF may be issuing an SI in the coming months to address this issue.
Essentially the scenario is that a product group may be performing design activities in response to general market demand for 'catalog' parts. These parts will then be sold to a range of industries (this is particularly prevalent in the electronics industry) including automotive. The parts supplier is not in this scenario considered 'design' responsible since they are not aware of, or are designing a part for any specific automotive application. Consequently the design verification and validation activities are the responsibility of the purchaser (be it an OEM or tier one) as they must ensure that the part is fit for the application to which it is being applied, (this brings up a whole second series of much debated points as to the definition of design responsibility, but for now lets just discuss the applicability of the waiver).
Technically since the interpretation of the CB is that their approach is meeting the requirements of the Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition, no waiver as such is required. But in all likelihood since currently this is a 'hot' issue with the IATF, the CB probably approached their Oversight office and got an agreement to proceed with this course of action.
However the organisation being certified would not be able to exclude product design from an ISO 9001 audit activity, interestingly this activity would incorporate any and all customer requirements which could include the application of APQP and other automotive specific tools, but only if the organisation being audited has identified any specific external customers as part of the design process.
As a final note a signed PSW does not in itself constitute a waiver of a TS requirement. Customers cannot dilute the requirements of the specification, they can waive their own customer specific requirements if they see fit, but not the requirements of the specification.
