What is the order of priority, Standard, Customer Specific Requirements or QMS Documents?

[DariusPlumdon]

Darius: To (hopefully) answer your question, the customer has the right to waive any requirements they choose. However, the onus is still on you/your company to have a process in place to deal with the requirement (Customer Communication in this case) that can be audited. If you have only one customer, then you will not be able to demonstrate the effectiveness and implementation of the process, but as long as you can produce the customer waiver, that shouldn't pose an insurmountable hurdle.

Hope this is of some help.

Thank you, this confirms my current thoughts

 

[DariusPlumdon]

So why don't you just say that in your procedure? Something to the effect "that any revisions need to be discussed and agreed with the auditor." Don't over complicate it.

I am not trying to over complicate it. Of course I would love to do as you suggest, but the reality is we have acquired a company and staff who have their own way of working ... in this case a lousy one. But we are in the real world were sadly people towards the top do not want to directly tell newly acquired employees that they are wrong ... however you sugar the pill. Hence the only way forward that is acceptable to people high enough up the food chain to is to write an new top level document that applies/overrides all existing documents. Thanks all the same, you reply is appreciated

 

[DariusPlumdon]

Who do you make your money off of?

Debate should be settled now unless you and others have no idea about economics and business finance.

'Who do you make your money off of?' - I am a full time employee
If you mean the company I work for many well known companies are large customers (think fruit with a core for one of them!)

'Debate should be settled now unless you and others have no idea about economics and business finance.'
Please do not take that tone, this is a good forum I am proud to be a contributor to it & learn from and help others. I have a solid 'idea about economics and business finance', it is not my fault that 1 or 2 members of the company I work for do not & I have to find a way around this to meet IATF16949

 

[DariusPlumdon]

re: what is essentially an order of precedence (order of priority) question....first place to look is at you contract documents, this is a good first step...hope this helps

optomist1

Thank you I agree. I have done this ... but wanted to check my understanding in relation to the standard, as different auditors have different interpretations. Thankfully some of the other answers have now confirmed my understanding & given me pointers

 

[Jean_B]

Not automotive, so at a more abstract level:

Regulatory requirements: if applicable, cannot be waived or conceded. There are however frameworks for dealing with ambiguity, out-of-scope. This includes technical certification.
Standard requirements: preference should be to not waive or concede, however the accreditation/certification body ultimately decides. Absence of a decision is not permission. Absence of planned monitoring on an item is not a decision.
QMS requirements: Top management decides the responsibilities and authorities of personnel, including the quality manager. If they say a role can, it can. Little that can be done. This does not mean it is bad per se. Sometimes having 'admin' rights to skip/force stuff keeps the company working till the system catches up.

As for customer approved deviation waiver; I think it is a good option to have. But its risks should be managed. Not just the risks at the standard and the requirement level mentioned above.
Also assess whether such a waiver could result in reputation damage. Because one customer might find certain things acceptable/permissible doesn't mean others will. And others won't see the waiver, or necessarily the labeling that shows it is a custom deal. They will only see an in-market issue as problematic from their eyes.

 

[DariusPlumdon]

Not automotive, so at a more abstract level:

Regulatory requirements: if applicable, cannot be waived or conceded. There are however frameworks for dealing with ambiguity, out-of-scope. This includes technical certification.
Standard requirements: preference should be to not waive or concede, however the accreditation/certification body ultimately decides. Absence of a decision is not permission. Absence of planned monitoring on an item is not a decision.
QMS requirements: Top management decides the responsibilities and authorities of personnel, including the quality manager. If they say a role can, it can. Little that can be done. This does not mean it is bad per se. Sometimes having 'admin' rights to skip/force stuff keeps the company working till the system catches up.

As for customer approved deviation waiver; I think it is a good option to have. But its risks should be managed. Not just the risks at the standard and the requirement level mentioned above.
Also assess whether such a waiver could result in reputation damage. Because one customer might find certain things acceptable/permissible doesn't mean others will. And others won't see the waiver, or necessarily the labeling that shows it is a custom deal. They will only see an in-market issue as problematic from their eyes.

Thank you, I fundamentally agree with what you say

 

[Golfman25]

I am not trying to over complicate it. Of course I would love to do as you suggest, but the reality is we have acquired a company and staff who have their own way of working ... in this case a lousy one. But we are in the real world were sadly people towards the top do not want to directly tell newly acquired employees that they are wrong ... however you sugar the pill. Hence the only way forward that is acceptable to people high enough up the food chain to is to write an new top level document that applies/overrides all existing documents. Thanks all the same, you reply is appreciated

Well that sounds convoluted and silly, but if that is your company's direction so be it. I am going to guess you won't achieve the desired results. I would prefer a more straight forward approach. Good luck.

 

[Jean_B]

 

[DariusPlumdon]

View attachment 31195

What is the source of this image?
I ask as I today had a conversation with an auditor from our IATF Global Oversight Office and they said something very different.
To summarise in my words ''audit evidence is based on what you see & hear in the audit; if you do not attend the audit you do not know what is said, so if anyone senior be that a Quality Manager or a technical observer wants to be involved in writing up or signing off an audit they need to attend it. They are however free to raise any concerns/inputs they want separately into the company improvement program (log), but this is outside the audit, even if it is based on something they believe was part of the audit.''
So as they our from a IATF Global Oversight Office I am going to go with what they said, as they also sent we a couple of screenshot from there current training that supports this

 

[DariusPlumdon]

Well that sounds convoluted and silly, but if that is your company's direction so be it. I am going to guess you won't achieve the desired results. I would prefer a more straight forward approach. Good luck.

Silly & convoluted... absolutely, but one of the 'joys' of working for a MNC is that at times those in senior positions are happy to give praise & do the popular thing, but will not do the opposite, so you have to find a workaround until the next restructure. It is not the first time & I doubt it will be the last. Short term I want to do effective audits & drive improvement (I am a simple soul!), longer term we will get back to our current excellent audit approach ... which we received a noteworthy for in our external audit this year. Thank you for your pragmatic answer to this chain, appreciated; you seem to appreciate the real world realities of quality in companies, it is not a theoretical IATf panacea!