Category

IATF

Home / IATF
""/
IATF

Know the standard from your heart! (?)

  • Have you already read the standard from the first page till the end? – asked me the manager who was responsible for the Quality Management System.
  • Well…not all pages…- I admitted.
  • Then go away and come back when you did! -he replied. – I will not talk to you before.

Wow, what a rude guy -I thought, but I did not express my feelings.

I recently joined the company as a customer quality engineer and got a list of managers I need to talk as part of my onboarding process.

The” standard” he meant was the ISO/TS16949; now, it is replaced by IATF16949.

I thought he was impolite, and he could be more helpful to a new guy, but anyway, I followed his advice and read through the standard.

For many years I thought he was right – rude, but right. He was sick of explaining everything many times.

Ten years later, I found myself in the same position, responsible for the Quality Management System (QMS).

As it was a greenfield project, the task was also to build the QMS from scratch.

When we worked on the onboarding system, I remembered this unpleasant memory again.

Is it really a fair expectation that an engineer who talks to customers is familiar with the whole IATF 16949? Is it a requirement?

It definitely makes sense, and it is an advantage for sure.

But was this the right answer from the manager?

I doubt it.

His answer just proved that there were some rooms for the QMS improvement.

Why?

  1. Roles and responsibilities – competence issue

What were the requirements for my position, were they appropriately defined? Was the ISO/TS16949 described as a must?

  • Lack of assessment of my competence against the requirement and appropriate action plan.

If the position required that knowledge, why was then not a lack of competence identified and relevant actions defined?

Who should be an expert on the standard? Should all engineers read the norm at home when they can not feel asleep? (They will probably fall asleep in 3 minutes.)

How will they know which part of it relevant’s their job? How can they apply what they learned in their daily work?

There is a better answer.

Engineers do not need to be an expert on the IATF16949. They do not need to know that from their heart.

It is our (who are responsible for the QMS) duty to make sure that the internal procedures are aligned with the standard requirements.

Our duty is that the onboarding system is robust enough and includes all internal procedures (documented processes) necessary to perform the specific job. This is what we should focus on.

Do not expect that everyone knows the standard from their heart.

Have robust QMS, which ensures that our daily work is aligned with the expectations from the norm.

As always, think in system with Pro Automotive.

If you are interested in reading articles about automotive quality management topics, best practices, case studies, follow Pro Automotive.

"Start
IATF

Before the FIRE starts – Control Plan with additional referenced parameter lists

  • What is the revision date of this CP? – I asked the process engineer when I was performing a VDA 6.3 process audit at an automotive supplier.
  • Almost one year ago – the engineer replied and showed me the revision date of the document.
  • Was there any change in the process in the meantime? – I asked him again.
  • Nope – he replied immediately.
  • How about this machine parameter list? Which version is this? – I turned to him again.
  • Last update happened one week ago – the engineer said and proudly showed the revision list of the parameter list.

Finally it turns out that there were some changes in the process, but the CP has not been revised as “only” the referenced documents were updated. “Certainly” there was no change management activity, customer was not involved and by the way, the currently set parameters were not aligned with the defined parameters.

Typical solution at the automotive suppliers that there is a nice CP, several pages, contains mainly only product characteristics.

If someone takes a closer look, it is very difficult to find any process parameters in the document, but there are some reference documents linked to some machines, which are called as parameter lists.

These describes list of process parameters which need to be set to achieve the desired result: the product characteristics.

  • Is it the right thing to do?

From auditor point of view, I can not state that this is against the described requirements within the APQP/CP booklet or against any of the customer requirements as long as these referenced documents are part of the documentation system and protected and handled properly.

  • So why would this cause any issue?

Based on my experience, this is a method or the cause for the organizations to hide or make (without even recognizing) process parameter changes.

  • Oh, that is not always bad… Customer will not ask unpleasant questions, will not request unwanted documentations, samplings… who could wish more?

Not really:

  • It encourages line technicians, maintenance guys, process engineers to change process parameters without proper risk analysis whenever there is some problem in the process or with the products. Instead of proper root cause analysis, the process might be changed to the NOK parts.
    • The CP revision history will not even include such changes as only referenced documents has been revised.
    • Unauthorized process change could lead to escalation at the customer.
    • Great risk for customer quality claim, impact on lifetime.
  • Why is it a problem of changing some process parameters when the significant characteristics of the parts are checked anyway 100%? We are sure that the parts fulfill its dimension specification.

I was faced several times with similar questions in the past.

The reason is that the process parameters have been verified and approved by the organization and by the customer within the PPAP activity.

It has been stated and proved that the described controls (process and product characteristics) are appropriate to produce parts which meet the customer requirements.

If any of these parameters are changed (out of the specified range), risk analysis regarding the impact of the change needs to be performed according to the customer requirements.

Within change management process, supplier needs to demonstrate that the modified process will also produce OK parts, customer notification or approval might be needed in prior the change is implemented.

I would encourage all quality managers and the quality engineers to review the CPs and verify if the process parameters are listed properly. It is better to list all process parameters directly in the CP.

As always, think in system with Pro Automotive.

If you are interested reading articles about automotive quality management topics, best practices, case studies, follow Pro Automotive.

Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Youtube
Consent to display content from Youtube
Vimeo
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google
Spotify
Consent to display content from Spotify
Sound Cloud
Consent to display content from Sound