Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Annex 4 - Eligibility - "No Autonomus" decision making

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by alltrees, Dec 5, 2016.

Tags:
  1. alltrees

    alltrees Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    How does the IAOB and/or IATF define what determines "No Autonomus" decision making at an extended site (in reference to 2nd bullet under eligibility in 5th Edition Rules, Annex 4)?

    Background for this question: I've had a COB explain that basically this means that there cannot be any "managers" that are located (their desk or office) at an extended site. So in a specific case I was discussing with the COB, because I had a "Material Manager" located at what was proposed to be an extended site, the IATF would not agree with this, even though the Org Chart clearly shows the "Materials Manager" reports directly to the top manager at the main site.
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It seems to me it's not a case of who is "autonomous" but rather in the title, "manager" which implies some degree of decision making goes with the job. Maybe, for the purposes of the QMS, the title should be "supervisor"?
     
  3. alltrees

    alltrees Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Perhaps, but then seems we are just playing games and having double sets of documentation that become hard to manage over time. Guess my real question is "Is this logic consistent with the IAOB practice in industry, or are there varying interpretations of how one COB may see this verse another COB.
     
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Do you mean Certification Body? I'm more used to CAB (Conformity Assessment Body). There may be less consistency between auditors...
     
  5. alltrees

    alltrees Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Sorry Andy, I meant CB (as in my 3rd party auditor). However I understand they need to get approval from the IAOB / IATF for granting the approval of Extended Sites, so trying to learn how the IAOB defines this.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    1,907
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Maybe task your CB with answering? They may need to seek clarification - through official channels?
     
  7. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    62
    I'll admit I am not entirely familiar with the new requirements, but with today's communication technology who gives a rats behind where someone is "located." I assume you need someone watching the store at the extended site.
     
  8. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes Received:
    872
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Aren't "rules" for the CBs to comply? CBs should not offer their services if they deemed an organization is not eligible for IATF 16949 certification. AND IATF or OEMs should refrain from requiring the supply chain certification to IATF 16949 if the supply chain were ruled by CBs as ineligible.
     

Share This Page