7.5.1.1 d - How to document customer-specific requirements in a matrix

Hello everyone, as according to 7.5.1.1 d), the organisation should evidence that a document was created to cross reference coverage of applicable customer specific requirements within QMS.

How would you suggest this is done in a practical manner?

What I`m doing is creating a spreadsheet with a tab for every single supplier and listing their requirements individually so I can than, relate each requirement to an internal document number to relate how we are addressing them.

Is that correct or way too much? How would you do it instead?

Thanks in advance!

 

Sorry, when I said "...for every single supplier...", I meant "...every single customer..."

 

What I did was put the standard clauses down the first column. Then each customer has a column. I then note where their requirements supplement the standard.

 

Thanks Golfman25! Was that accepted during the external audit?

 

Yes for our last TS audit. Should still work for IATF I think.

 

how many customers was that for? my company is struggling to find a way to do this. we have roughly 2500 customers so a matrix like the one describe would be a huge task. just trying to find an easier solution

 

You have 2500 customers subject to IATF/TS? That seems like a lot. Are they all separate or divisions of the same large company? Do they all have published "supplier manuals?" Yes it would be a huge undertaking, but with a lot of customers how else can you keep it all straight. The good news is, most simply regurgitate the standard and don't make material changes or add requirements. The way we did it, you would have 2500 columns -- one for each customer. But you may only have a handful of entries in the matrix highlighting the different requirements.

 

Most customer requirements are in their manual and based on the standards. A few have specific requirements different (in addition to) the standard. For example we have a customer that requires special labels. This customer would go on the matrix. We review if there are specific requirements at launch. If there aren't any different than what is typical then it does not need to go on the matrix. Any thoughts on this approach? Or would you add the customer with an N/A behind it?

 

That is one way of doing it.

 

That would depend on your auditor. In my world it would be perfectly reasonable and acceptable. However, every so often you get a real $%^&* as an auditor. We had one you would require exactly that -- each customer on the matrix with an NA to "prove" that you reviewed their requirements. Suffice it to say, we fired that auditor and his CB.

 

I suppose I will find out on Monday as we begin our Transition/Recertification Audit!

 

Good day Quality Kari;
Please let me be presumptuous as result of your post and jog a reminder to each of us.

Based on the "...requires special labels" statement, I can't help but wonder if this is does indeed come from a CSR or is simply a unique requirement by one of your customers.

Reminder to all... "CSR" (Customer Specific Requirements) is a very specific cardinal term as prescribed by IATF 16949.

For example, Honda has specific requirements unique to Honda. While these CAN be included in an internal organizational matrix/document, they are not "Customer Specific Requirements" as defined by the IATF 16949 standard. There are two reasons for this....
1- Honda (as an example) is not an IATF participant.
2- The definition per IATF 16949 = "Interpretations of or supplemental requirements linked to a specific clause(s) of this Automotive QMS Standard".

Again, including a customer unique requirement in an internal "CSR" list is not necessarily wrong if it assists you as an organization, however, it is important to note that only "Customer Specific Requirements" as documented by each participating OEM are indeed CSR per the standard. A list of all can be obtained @ ...http://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/oem-requirements/customer-specific-requirements/

Hope this helps.

 

A couple of things beg the question. First, while I agree with the definition of customer specific requirements, who does the "linking" to a clause? Sure several OEMs have published requirements which mirror the standard. Unfortunately, many more simply have the old "supplier quality requirements" manual and the linkages may be less clear.

Second, while Honda is not an IATF participant, the shall be included as an automotive customer. Thus, I wonder how their "customer specific requirements" may be handled.

 

Don't forget to reference your matrix in 4.3.2 and your scope.

 

Funny, I got hit on this as well for a customer that does is not part of IATF but I was told to read there quality manual and find any customer requirements for example it may be customer A: calls purchasing 1.2.3 but the standard shows it as 8.4, on the left we have the standard and our document and under this customer we would put 1.2.3 that shows our document of 8.4 meet the requirement.
Not sure we can get out of it.

 

In IATF there is a requirement to implement customer specific requirements into your QMS. I assume "not part of IATF" is a non subscribing auto related customer. If not auto related, then yes the auditor should pound sand.

 

Well what the auditor said was an easy way to cross reference the customers requirements. That's what we do.

 

Let me share a matrix with you...Still not complete ut it may help. so far this what I have.
Cheers!