1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
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.

Clause 8.2.3.1 and Contract Review

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Lobster Johnson, Aug 22, 2023.

  1. Lobster Johnson

    Lobster Johnson New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2023
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hey all. I'm running into some pushback from my customer service manager on contract review. We were reviewing a PO that does not list requirements line by line and instead references a finishing specification. The spec was reviewed to obtain key requirements, but several requirements stated "for part type X only" - she was not aware of whether this applied, so she simply did not flow it down to production.

    In my mind this is a failure on our part, and we should have communicated with the customer if we needed clarification. In her mind, if the customer does not explicitly say on the PO it is part type X, we can consider it irrelevant. What do you guys think of this situation?



    The organization shall ensure that it has the ability to meet the requirements for products and services to be offered to customers. The organization shall conduct a review before committing to supply products and services to a customer, to include:
    a) requirements specified by the customer, including the requirements for delivery and postdelivery activities;
    b) requirements not stated by the customer, but necessary for the specified or intended use, when known;
    c) requirements specified by the organization;
    d) statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the products and services;
    e) contract or order requirements differing from those previously expressed.​
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Seems to me, from what’s posted that an assumption was made…
     
  3. Lobster Johnson

    Lobster Johnson New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2023
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I agree, and the reasoning I was given is that if the customer doesn't explicitly say it's that part type, it's on them if we assume it doesn't apply.
     
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Hmmm, that wouldn’t be “customer focused”…
     
  5. Lobster Johnson

    Lobster Johnson New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2023
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    You're telling me. I mean this clearly wouldn't conform to the standard, right?

    Unfortunately we have mostly green managers who are not familiar with ISO/IATF and see it as an obstacle more than anything else.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    2,562
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I’d suggest that is more about the strength of the messaging from leadership, than them understanding an obtuse standard they are “forced” to comply with.
     
  7. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Frankly, this has nothing to do with ISO/IATF. It’s just a good business practice to know and/or confirm what your customer wants. If there is any question, we have multiple ways of communicating theses days. I’d keep the standard out of the discussion and approach it as how are we going to confirm what we need to do for the customer.