NOT a csr

All-

I recently fielded a question, wherein, an organization had been given a major nonconformance because their customer supplier manual had a document called "packaging spec form". The organization has been providing that product and the associated packaging to their customer under an approved PPAP.

The question....
Is it a valid non-conformance.

My reply was as follows...

This raises the following point of contention and frustration for me and others), i.e. WHAT IS a CSR?

The IATF 16949:2016 standard CLEARLY defines a CSR in section "3.1 Terms and Definitions" as follows...
- Customer-specific requirements (CSR,s)
Interpretations of or supplemental requirements LINKED to a SPECIFIC CLAUSE(s) of this Automotive QMS Standard.

In other words unless there is a customer requirement linked to a clause in the standard, it is
NOT a CSR.

e.g.
* For example, GM has a document titled "Customer Specific Requirements". Within that document is an index of each IATF 16949 clause. Those which have additional GM CSR, are stated (linked) within the stated clause. These are clearly GM CSR,s.

* GM has a SEPARATE document titled Packaging Standards and Requirements. By the IATF supplied definition (and implied by GM considering they are NOT in the GM CSR manual?) the GM Packaging Standards and Requirements requirements are NOT CSR but simply "Customer Requirements" which is ALSO defined specifically by IATF section 3.1...to include CSR but also "all requirements specified by the customer (e.g. technical, commercial, product and manufacturing, process-requirements, general terms and conditions, ....."
It seems extremely clear that (unless your packaging requirements are linked to an IATF clause, which I doubt), that the packaging requirement is, by IATF definition, a Customer Requirement but
NOT a Customer-Specific Requirement. This would be reason to appeal the nonconformance.


However, to complicate things more, IATF has issued FAQ that address this topic. In FAQ 8, if the customer is "non-IATF or other automotive customer, the IATF renege on the definition they provide in the standard and simply state "...if...customers do NOT clearly link to IATF 16949 clauses in their customer specific requirement, ...a way to identify if CSR exist, is to COMPARE sections of the IATF 16949 standard where the term "if required by customer" ...and verify if ....are related to a requirement in the IATF 16949 standard.

Summary:
By IATF definition, if the packaging requirement is NOT linked to an IATF clause and the customer IS an IATF participating OEM, then the packaging requirement is NOT A CSR and there is no basis (per IATF 16949's own definitions) for the nonconformance and your organization should appeal it.



What say all of you in regard to this example?

 

John: I was following/involved in the thread you mentioned, and I will repeat my thoughts here.

Although this is not a violation of CSR's (you are correct in that) it is still a nonconformance since the supplier did not comply with the customer requirements which were clearly stated in the Supplier Quality Manual.

Whether or not this would rank as a 'major' nonconformance is a different question, but I don't think there is much disagreement that this is a nonconforming situation.

 

Thats a very good point Andy, and no, that was never discussed in the original post.