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.

IATF 16949, clause 7.1.5.2.1 - letter g) and i)

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Samuel Burle, Apr 19, 2021.

  1. Samuel Burle

    Samuel Burle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2021
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hello,

    I am new to this forum though I have used it for reference couple times in the past.

    My question is related to the Calibration / verification records, specifically the requiremets under letters:

    g) verification that the software version used for product and process control is as specified;

    i) production-related software verification used for product and process control (including software installed on employee-owned, customer-owned equipment, on on-site supplier-owned equipment).

    The "g" first. If I understand it correctly, does the verification of the software means measuring a master sample and comparing with master results? For example, if I use 3D measurement machine (Kayence), then the verification is by measuring a sample that was also measured elsewhere (e.g. calibrated by external lab)? But what about the "version" part? If I use Kayence as a reference, it would mean that I have to always ensure up-to-date software regardless of how efficient the current version is and/or how applicable?

    Second, the "i". This gets me more confused. Lets use two examples.
    1) Part of the production automatic line is camera control that measures and/or compares with limit data.
    2) Production machine (e.g. injection moulding like Bruderer) has a built-in software that regulates pressures etc.

    In the first instance, would the verification be enough by setting a "dummy" part as a way of verification that the camera system passes only ok parts? Here where I get it mixed with the "g" because it seems very similar if not the same, to me.

    In the second instance, if I control the parts that come out of the injection process, I indirectly control the machine's parameters, is that not? I mean, if the pressure is not correct, the part will not be ok. During the product/process release at the beginning of every shift, we control that the parameters are set correctly according the working instructions. Is that enough?

    We don't have any findings from CB for this, but we are going through IATF to properly address some issues.

    Sorry for the very long post, I wanted to describe everything as best as I could.

    Any advice, thought and suggestion is welcome. Thank you in advance.
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Welcome, glad to have you here and posting!

    Software is a document. Like work instructions for people, but - as we know - for a machine instead. Treat software in exactly the same way as you would a work instruction for a people performing an assembly task, for example. Ensure it's valid and make certain it's the correct version for the work being done. If you can run parts and the process is under control - makes good parts, to spec, BINGO!

    For some reason, the IATF folks seem to think it needs to go under this clause of the standard, for some reason, hence making it seems waaaay more complex than it really needs to be.
     
  3. Samuel Burle

    Samuel Burle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2021
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. :)
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    An example which comes to mind, by way of illustration, is the story of a lot of parts being made out of spec. A technician had been doing some maintenance on a machining center during a weekend. There were 2 versions of the cutter path on the controller and the technician loaded one just to prove that the machine was still functioning before the was done with his job of maintenance. Monday morning, the Operator comes in, doesn't know they need to check WHICH program is loaded and running and pushes the "Start" button. Result? Parts not made to the current version of the cutter path and therefore, not to spec.
     
  5. Samuel Burle

    Samuel Burle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2021
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I see. So it's more about checking the verion of the program than the software that actually runs the program. That makes more sense. Thank you.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,192
    Likes Received:
    2,109
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Validation that the software does the correct job, is the first step. Version control becomes the subsequent step(s)
     

Share This Page