Who has had a Transition Audit from TS 16949 to IATF 16949

Elsmar Forum Sponsor

batteryguy

Starting to get Involved
We completed our stage 1 audit yesterday. We currently have ISO 9001:2015, and are going for IATF16949:2016. We didn't have any concerns raised during our stage 1 audit other than what I would deem "auditor preferences" which will only take a few minutes to change prior to our stage 2 audit. One of the OFI's he did identify was to replace all references in our QMS documentation such as "we conform to the requirements of IATF 16949:2016" to "we conform to the requirements of the latest IATF 16949 standard". We raised the concern that this could get us in trouble when a new version of the standard comes out, but he was adamant that we should change this.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
Good day @batteryguy .

Congratulations with your stage 1. It sounds as if your organization is well prepared.
Specific to your question:
I have consulted/assisted numerous companies with successful transitions. Please feel free to reach out if you have any specific questions.

Regarding the auditor's "adamant" OFI that you remove the version (year) designation from your IATF reference:
While I agree with the auditor's concern (i.e. this can cause problems when the standard updates in the future), there is absolutely NO requirement for you to change your current verbiage. Be sure (as you appear to be doing) to always ensure that any auditor "requests" are reflective of the standard and NOT the "auditor preference".

Hope this helps.
Be well.
 
We completed our stage 1 audit yesterday. We currently have ISO 9001:2015, and are going for IATF16949:2016. We didn't have any concerns raised during our stage 1 audit other than what I would deem "auditor preferences" which will only take a few minutes to change prior to our stage 2 audit. One of the OFI's he did identify was to replace all references in our QMS documentation such as "we conform to the requirements of IATF 16949:2016" to "we conform to the requirements of the latest IATF 16949 standard". We raised the concern that this could get us in trouble when a new version of the standard comes out, but he was adamant that we should change this.
Tell him to pack sand! It's a power play. If you acquiesce to these types of statements, he'll run over you. I'd lodge a complaint with his CB management to let them know he's making such comments - which are NOT his domain - and let him know to stay in his "lane". Trust me, he's not the only one stepping outside their remit to provide solid, objective audits... Time to push back.
 

batteryguy

Starting to get Involved
Thanks John,
The wealth of information and help available on this site has been the best resource for helping us prepare for IATF. Thanks to everyone that has contributed here and answered my questions along the way.

Andy, where is the balance between keeping an auditor happy by spending 15-20 minutes making this change, and potentially destroying that relationship? If they wrote an actual nonconformance for something like that in our stage 2 audit I wouldn't hesitate to dispute it.
 
Andy, where is the balance between keeping an auditor happy by spending 15-20 minutes making this change, and potentially destroying that relationship? If they wrote an actual nonconformance for something like that in our stage 2 audit I wouldn't hesitate to dispute it
I see this from a much broader perspective. As a support to many, many clients, this type of thing is a common event. You see it as simply affecting you and your organization. Multiply this by all his clients and you start to see a bigger issue. CBs often tout "value added audits", when the reality is that clients such as you see zero value and, as much as it's simple to "keep an auditor happy", you won't actually be doing that (long term) you'll be feeding a monster. It's the same with pets. The puppy learns it can get up on the couch/bed and the next thing is it's biting the owner when they want to sit on the coach/lie on the bed...

All I'm suggesting is that it's NOT the nature of the actual work, it's the behaviours of the auditor which need to change. It is NOT their job to even be thinking of such a comment as
One of the OFI's he did identify was to replace all references in our QMS documentation such as "we conform to the requirements of IATF 16949:2016" to "we conform to the requirements of the latest IATF 16949 standard
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Thanks John,
The wealth of information and help available on this site has been the best resource for helping us prepare for IATF. Thanks to everyone that has contributed here and answered my questions along the way.

Andy, where is the balance between keeping an auditor happy by spending 15-20 minutes making this change, and potentially destroying that relationship? If they wrote an actual nonconformance for something like that in our stage 2 audit I wouldn't hesitate to dispute it.
Actually it just a suggestion that any reasonable wordsmith would make. Not something to battle an auditor with. By using :2016 you'll need to go in and change every such reference the next time they update the standard -- a complete waste of time. But I also wouldn't use the word "latest" either, as there will be a time which the two versions overlap. I would say "we conform to the requirements of the applicable IATF 16949 standard." If you're working under 2016, that's applicable. If your working under 20XX, that will be applicable. Good luck.
 

John C. Abnet

Teacher, sensei, kennari
@Golfman25 is spot on. However, if we’re going to discuss wordsmithing options, let’s take this one step further. Considering the organization may have in the future (or currently has) full or partial integration of one or more standards (e.g. 16949 and 14001), then ANY direct reference to a given standard is not scaleable. For this reason I council organizations to consider more generic verbiage, such as “governing international standards”. This verbiage is applicable regardless of current or future registrations.
 

batteryguy

Starting to get Involved
Thanks guys. Like Golfman mentioned, my biggest problem was that his wording would be inaccurate in the time period prior to our transition after a new version of the standard is released. The ironic thing about the whole situation is that 2 years ago our ISO 9001 auditor suggested that we specify the version of the standard in our documentation, which gets back to Andy's original point.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T Has anyone completed the AS9100D Quality Manual transition? Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 1
BeaBea ISO 9001 Customer Feedback Methods - What has worked for your company? Service Industry Specific Topics 16
S Has anybody done IMS - Management Review Meeting ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 7
M Has anyone has been through an MDR audit? (3/2020) EU Medical Device Regulations 1
M Has anyone heard of Run at Risk? Manufacturing and Related Processes 14
B ASA Aviation Supply Association - Has anyone heard of ASA? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
B Has anyone done an IEC 60601-1 gap analysis to IEC 60335? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 4
Z 510(k) usage - Company has 2 physically similar products Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
D Has anyone had sudden challenges from Korea-MFDS? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
Sidney Vianna IAQG News IAQG has a new website - December 2019 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
Richard Regalado ISO 22301:2019 has been published - Nov 2019 Business Continuity & Resiliency Planning (BCRP) 0
S FAIR - If we have not produced a part in over 2 years, but nothing has changed AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 5
Nicole Desouza Who has to be compliant with REACH Declarations? REACH and RoHS Conversations 10
CycleMike GD&T - Hole pattern - Print (attached) has a single Datum Reference Frame Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
A Would an MRP system that has been in use for over 10 years require validation? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
W Informational VDI 2017 - Medical Grade Plastics - German VDI has published a "Richtlinie" Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
D FDA Biomarker Qualification Program - Has anyone prepared an application? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
U Hand-Held dosing device has no PATIENT - Interpretation of the PATIENT definition IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
L Has anyone heard of the 2 pan system? Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
N Technical File Reviewer has requested more testing to ISO 10993 Other Medical Device Related Standards 10
I Who has had to move from ISO 9001:2015 to ISO 13485 and what were the challenges? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M Informational Health Canada has launched an e-Learning tool to aid in understanding the premarket regulatory requirements for medical devices in Canada Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Has anyone here assessed the latest Abbreviated 510(K) guidance document? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
M Does anyone has a good verification and validation plan template? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
Sidney Vianna Informational UTC ASQR Rev.11 has a mistake; certification of distributors to IATF 16949 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
lilybef FDA and Biocompatability Testing - Reviewer has requested implantation testing Other Medical Device Related Standards 11
D Has anyone undergone a BARDA (HHS) audit as part of their grant process? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
Sidney Vianna LinkedIn bug - Anyone has any idea of how to fix this? Posts not showing for me in a Group feed. Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
M FDA News FDA Report - FDA Has Taken Steps to Strengthen The 510(k) Program Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
C Has an amended version of IEC 60601-1-6 TRF been released for use in conjunction with IEC62366-1:2015? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 0
planB ISO 10993-1:2018 has just been published Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
S ISO 13485 Consultant Question - The company has 5 part time employees ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
K Has anyone used QAI for training? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 7
Q MHRA has released a new guidance document related to 'GXP' Data Integrity EU Medical Device Regulations 3
B FDA Philippines has no check or balance outside the health department Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 3
S Doubts about SPC taken in Machining - Part has +-0.01 Tolerance Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
D Has anyone here had any experience with PQ-FMEA software? FMEA and Control Plans 1
P NPR Metric - What if Customer has relaxed measure? TL 9000 Telecommunications Standard and QuEST 1
D EU Harmonized Standards to which a company has declared compliance EU Medical Device Regulations 13
N Customer Survey Question Has Me Stumped - Compliance with Laws and Regulations Customer and Company Specific Requirements 4
B Records Destroyed - Hurricane Harvey has likely destroyed our Quality Systems Records Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 10
S Has anyone completed IATF 16949 Certification - Share your Audit Experience? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
B Procedure Pack - KIT - Each has its own CE Mark CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 6
E Print only has Reference Dimensions Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
S Has anyone created a Turtle Diagram reflecting the new ISO 9001:2015 Structure? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
M Has anyone done a Gage R&R for Spectrophotometer? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 10
M Remote Office only has Invoice Function - Audit Needed? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
W CPU BIST IEC 62304 - Embedded code has CPU instruction tests IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
D Has anyone taken the AS9100 Delta course / exam? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 37
howste AS9110 Rev C has been released and is available for purchase - November 2016 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom