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.

Risk analysis 7.2.2.2

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Mukesh Sharma, Jul 5, 2016.

Tags:
  1. Mukesh Sharma

    Mukesh Sharma Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2015
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    India
    hello

    can anyone elaborate me about the risk analysis in 7.2.2.2, which components we have to discussed in it.
    In the current surveillance audit this NC is raised by our CB.
     
  2. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I believe this issue was raised due to the onset of the RBT (risk-based thinking) concept of the 2015 version of ISO 9001. Auditors are on the hunt for RBT evidences. Anyway, the intent of 7.2.2.2 is for an organization to review first whether manufacturing the required product is feasible or not. When evaluating for the manufacturing feasibility, risks are already determined if you have negative answers for feasibility questions like:
    • can the product be manufactured to tolerances specified in the drawing?
    • can we produce the product as per the required material?
    • do we have the suitable equipment to manufacture the product?
    • do we have the suitable measuring equipment to check conformance with engineering specifications?
    • is there adequate capacity to produce the product?
    • can we manufacture the product within the required production rate?;...
    ...and other critical questions that you need to consider to establish the manufacturing feasibility. Documenting the results of this evaluation including the decisions and actions for those questions with negative or unsatisfactory answers can demonstrate evidence that risks were analyzed.
     
    David Gilbert likes this.
  3. David Gilbert

    David Gilbert New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Through my research there appear to be two main definitions of risk and risk based thinking, one involves the idea of 'enterprise risk' and the other is more based on the 'engineering risk' (there are a few YouTube videos that explain the overall concepts of risk). Please if you have time can you help me by taking my 5-10 min survey http://goo.gl/forms/lNp76KKSDUli8k6c2

    I hope to share all these lessons learned in my final thesis - please let me know if your interested.
     
  4. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    62
    While I agree with you, this probably will be insufficient to cover "risk" analysis. It's one of the areas that they modified the TS standard but didn't update the aiag feasibility form. It's a non-value added finding in most cases. Basically you need to update your feasibility documents to cover risk how you define it. So we added a colum to the above questions yes, no, risk - high, med, low. Got us thru. Good luck.
     
  5. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    ISO stands for International Organization for Standardization.:)
     

Share This Page