1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
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.

CSRs vs. Customer Requirements (4.3.2 and 7.5.1.1)

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Wreckertrash, Jun 21, 2018.

  1. Wreckertrash

    Wreckertrash New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    In the definitions section of the standard, "Customer Specific Requirements" (CSRs) and "Customer Requirements" are listed separately. Of course, a "Customer Requirement" is specific to a customer, so the two terms appear to mean the same thing.
    Based on how CSR is used in the standard, it seems like a bad translation for "Customer-specific IATF Supplemental Requirement". The definition per the standard is "interpretations of or supplemental requirements linked to a specific clause of this standard".

    So, for example, if a customer has a quality manual that contains regular requirements and some requirements that they link to a specific clause, that would appear to be the line between CSRs vs. CRs.
    They all matter, but some are IATF linked.
    I have one customer in mind that has 40+ pages of requirements, then 5 pages of tables at the end that say "(customer)-specific IATF requirements" where they list the clause, what it says, and what they add.

    Many use a matrix to map CSRs to the standard and their own procedures to meet 4.3.2 and 7.5.1.1.
    Based on that difference in definition, should this matrix only include the CSRs? As in the table provided by the customer referenced above, and not their entire manual?
     
  2. Wreckertrash

    Wreckertrash New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    To clarify the last paragraph, I'm with a supplier, and I know other suppliers use a matrix to map the CSRs.
     
  3. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    42
    We only use the Customer Specific requirements on our matrix which lines them up with a specific IATF clause. Everything else, such as shipment instructions, is handled by the specific department.
     
  4. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Good day @Wreckertrash ;
    You raise a good and oft debated point. I likewise refer to the definitions within the standard to support my position (and I agree with you that the standard uses verbiage not always consistent with its own definitions) .

    Not all agree with my position on this, but I believe in a "court of law" my position is correct because it is based on the standard/objectivity and not opinion or conjecture. I have previously stated my position on this (again, not based on opinion, but on the standard itself) on other forums and have copied here below for your consideration....



    Good day all;
    It is important to remember that all requirements specific to a customer are not necessarily CSR (Customer Specific Requirements). In this case the verbiage/terms used are much more than semantics .

    Per (jane doe's) original post, she specifically used the term CSR (to indicate Customer Specific Requirements). Please note section 3.1 (Terms and definitions....) of the IATF 16949 standard. Note the following two terms and definitions...
    * customer requirements:
    All requirements specified by the customer....

    * customer-specific requirements (CSR):
    Interpretations of or supplemental requirements LINKED to specific clause(s) of this Automotive QMS Standard.

    I therefore, respectfully disagree with (john doe's) statement ...
    "...customer specific requirements, even if they have not aligned them with the clauses of IATF 16949".

    As you can see by the definitions applied by the standard, ONLY those requirements "...linked to specific clause(s) are CSR.

    What say the rest of you....?
     
  5. Serious Man

    Serious Man Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Let's take two significant examples - VW and Ford.
    VW has created own manuals and internal standards for suppliers.
    For ISO/TS 16949 there was not separate document referencing them and showing how they are linked to standard's clauses.
    But definitely there were QMS related requirements.
    For IATF 16949 there was created separate document referencing them and showing how they are linked to standard's clauses.

    Ford has created (cooperated in) own manuals and internal standards for suppliers.
    For QS 9000, ISO/TS 16949 and IATF 16949 there were always separate documents referencing manuals, internal standards and their links to standards' clauses.

    Sometimes customers link own requirements to IATF 16949 clauses and present it as ready to use input for implementing 7.5.1.1 d).
    Sometimes customers share own manuals, standards with their suppliers and suppliers have to read it, determine links to IATF 16949 and create own input for implementing 7.5.1.1 d).

    Presented above example of customer requirement related to shipping preparation process is also CSR, e.g. 8.5.4.1
     
    judegu likes this.

Share This Page