Relation between 5.1.1.3 and 5.3

Hello, everyone. I`d like to get some insights from you guys towards the following question.

In the Section 5 Leadership,
there is a sub cl. 5.1.1.3 Process owner added into the original 5.1.1 General, where it states the requirement for the process owner identification by the Top management. And there is also a specific clause 5.3 Organizational roles, responsibilities and authorities where the ISO 9001 has already required the assignment of the roles, responsibilities and authorities.

Here, I understand that the IATF wants the emphasis on the process ownership. However I would like to know the reason why the the requirement for the process ownership is added in the 5.1.1 instead of 5.3. What is the thinking behind this arrangement. After all there are two additional requirements added in 5.3, 5.3.1,5.3.2.

 

Good day @judegu;
You will notice that it is not uncommon for the ISO and IATF teams to redundantly place "same"/similar requirements throughout the standards (control of "change" is a good example...7.5.3.2; 8.2.4; 8.5.6).

This (your reference) is no exception, however, it is important to understand who the authors are and their intent. 5.1.1.3 (as you know) is an IATF addition beyond the ISO requirement of 5.3. The intent of the IATF team no doubt comes from the OEM's continued challenges through the supply chain and the OEM's belief (sometimes warranted) that supply chain leadership has not established ownership (and the key word COMPETENT ownership) specific to the process identified as result of 4.4 resulting in a breakdown of control of those processes.

I do agree with what I infer your understanding to be, i.e. that 5.3-b (ensuring processes meet their intended output) is quite clear and should suffice without IATF adding 5.1.1.3. Alas, if the IATF couldn't add 110 additional shalls beyond ISO 9001 then perhaps they'd have nothing better to do!

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

When we read the ISO 9001:2015 requirements, you will notice that the main requirements for the processes are already specified in Clause 4.4. Then there are supporting requirements which provide the details in fulfilling the main requirement. For example: 4.4.1e requires the organization to "assign the responsibilities and authorities for these processes" while the supplemental requirements are provided in:

• 5.3 - Organizational roles, responsibilities and authorities;
• 6.2.2c - responsible for planning how to achieve the quality objectives;
• 6.3d - allocation and reallocation of responsibilities and authorities;
• 8.3.2d - responsibilities and authorities in the design and development process;
• 8.3.6c and 8.5.6 - person/s authorizing the change;
• 8.6b - person/s authorizing the release of product;
• 8.7.2d - authority deciding the action on nonconformity resulting to nonconforming output;
• 9.2.2a - responsibilities in internal audit;

ISO 9001 requires the top management in clause 5.1.1d to demonstrate leadership and commitment by "promoting the use of the process approach". Since there are expected controls for an effective process - as specified in clause 4.4, IMHO, this is the reason why IATF 16949:2016 inserted the requirements on process owners under 5.1.1.

Besides, IATF 16949:2016 has automotive-specific requirements that supplement the requirements of ISO 9001 with regard to assigning responsibilities and authorities.

 

@tony s

WoW, a brilliant explanation.