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.

Special Status Notification

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by John C. Abnet, Jul 23, 2021.

?

Do you find it odd that the requirement for Special Status notification to the CB is not in 16949?

  1. YES

    2 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. NO

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Good day QFO family...
    I find it odd that IATF chose to put a "client" (i.e. organization) requirement in Rules 5th edition (which most organizations do not possess) and not place that requirement directly in the body of the IATF 16949 standard.

    I am curious as to other's thoughts on this ...and experiences related to this.

    Thanks 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"
    I tend to lump that issue in with the fact there's a bunch of inaccuracies of understanding about the basic ISO 9001 requirements (which date back to QS9000 days) and since the writers are not the usual suspects like TC 176 folks are (and, as a result the process isn't similar), these types of errors and omissions are perpetuated. Take as another example, the requirements relating to the risk management process addressing warranty etc - when ISO 9001 doesn't actually require such a thing as a (formal) risk management process.
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.

Share This Page