What changes do you expect for ISO/TS 16949:2016?

Product Audits should be part of the manufacturing process audit-not separate. Auditors seem to look for separate audit plans, criteria, scope and methodology for how to conduct a product audit. They should see that built in the manufacturing process audit.

 

It make

s the audit preparation a bit tedious but we've been doing it. I was just thinking of the simplification of the auditing process considering the time limitation. Thanks.

 

Another change I would like to see in the new TS16949 is in section 7.6.1 Measurement Systems Analysis. According to the AIAG PPAP manual page 46, MSA studies are not required where standardized tests are used however it is still important to understand the measurement component of variation in the test methods used. We do IMR charting with pre-determined limits using the ASTM R&R requirements.

 

08 February 2016
The IATF has approved the first draft of the new automotive quality standard to include additional stakeholder feedback. The revision work team is preparing for an April 2016 conference to obtain further stakeholder input. The IATF intends to release the transition strategy from ISO/TS 16949:2009 to the new automotive quality standard in April 2016.
Pilot gap assessments will be conducted May through June 2016 worldwide. Feedback from gap assessments will be used to further refine the new automotive quality standard and the associated Rules for achieving and maintaining IATF recognition. The target date for completion of the new automotive quality standard is December 2016.
Some of the new enhancements to the automotive quality standard to address recent issues in the automotive industry include the following:

• Requirements for safety-related parts and processes
• Enhanced product traceability requirements to support latest regulatory changes
• Requirements for products with embedded software
• Warranty management process including addressing NTF (no trouble found) and use of automotive industry guidance
• Clarification of sub-tier supplier management and development requirements
• Addition of corporate responsibility requirements

 

So when this thing finally comes out, we'll have about 1.75 years to review and implement it before the old standard expires. Genius.

 

Get rid of Quality Manuals - after they are written and approved, no one ever sees them again. Get rid of internal auditing as a requirement because we pay thousands of dollars every year to get audited to keep our cert so why should we have to waste more company time and money auditing ourselves?

 

Basic thing is delete word "quality" from its content.
I expect to see below "boxed text" following note: NOTE The words in boxed text are BS and shall not apply.
Risk based thinking is risky. "We do not follow this requirement, as our risk analysis clearly shows, that there is some profit in not following this requirement."

 

OH, I soooo agree!

We have all our sites under the same umbrella cert which covers both the ISO and TS plants. And our certification audits are always Oct-Nov of each year. Which means we'll have to upgrade our TS cert to the newer standard in 2017 since the last date to upgrade to ISO 9001:2015 is Sept 2018.

Which gives us barely any time to transition the TS part since it will officially come out Dec 2016. Maybe. Oh joy.

 

Quality manuals will never go away the reason is that they are the guidance for your quality management system, and the implementation strategy for your internal management review; as well as laying out standard metrics per the standard.
You must also have your own metrics and measure of effectiveness. If you cannot demonstrate effectiveness this tends to be a real problem.

Just a little insight about various kinds and types of audits..

Third party audits by the registrar: Make no mistake third-party audits tend to be a joke they can either be serious and properly done, with good feedback coming from the audit team, or they can be a revenue stream audit, that is mostly to provide revenue stream for the registrar. And typically in these revenue stream audits they write little to nothing, or only give nebulous information and in regard to findings in this is because they do not want to be pinned down. So typically you'll get a short laundry list of findings that are poorly referenced against the standard. IE: Here is a short laundry list fix them now, and don't forget to make sure the check is in the mail.

Second party audit's: Typically a second party audit is being done for one reason on earth, and the reasons can be anywhere from my internal requirements, by the second party and their QMS. These typically are based upon risk assessment,and looking at various different metrics that are gauging customer satisfaction, and corrective action effectiveness.

Or it can be a SQA type that is driven off of the VDA 6.3 standard and that is a process based risk assessment that looks at document and system compliance meeting that it is taking a document at level I and chasing it through the system to assure that the level II and three documents are in compliance and are properly updated.

Internal audits:The reason listed above is why it's important to have good internal layered audits that are process based and look at the document control and system effectiveness constantly. While it sounds like a pain, if properly implemented will keep your backside out of the barbecue. So is important to constantly look at the effectiveness of your entire QMS and make it a focus for management and management review.

One last bit of insight:Third-party auditors have typically been poorly managed by the registrars until recently, meaning that they were never really forced to dig into systemic issues; or look at your QMS seriously until version 4, when the IAOB, cracked down and began holding registrars more accountable for the conduct of the supply base after the great recession.

 

Is it to be written to get rid of the need for customer specific requirements? I don't think its a standard if its not standard.

 

The new ISO/TS 16949 should do away with prescriptive requirements such as:

• "Timely review should be as soon as possible, and shall not exceed two working weeks" - Clause 4.2.3.1;
  
• "Top management shall define quality objectives and measurements that shall be included in the business plan..." - Clause 5.4.1.1;
  
• "The organization shall establish and maintain documented procedures for identifying training needs..." - Clause 6.2.2.2;
  
• "For attribute data sampling, the acceptance level shall be zero defects" - Clause 7.1.2;
  
• "Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2008 by an accredited third-party certification body" - Clause 7.4.1.2;
• "These instructions shall be accessible for use at the work station" - Clause 7.5.1.2;
  
• "Work instructions shall be available for set-up personnel" - Clause 7.5.1.3;
  
• "Auditors shall not audit their own work" - Clause 8.2.2;
  
• "Internal audits shall cover all quality management related processes,...and shall be scheduled according to an annual plan" - Clause 8.2.2.4;

Since ISO 9001:2015 is going to be used as the base standard, IATF should give weight on its Annex A.4 which says that "The risk-based thinking applied in this International Standard has enabled some reduction in prescriptive requirements and their replacement by performance-based requirements."

 

I suggest that for the section on 8.2.1.1 Customer Satisfaction, there should be exemption for clients not manufacturing hard parts. The score cards issued by FIAT and GM were not accurate. We have to invite our Key Account Manager to answer questions regarding the score cards. It turned out that our fluids are not part of their BOM. They are ancillary cost to the OEM. So I suggest that this clause should be defined as "AS APPLICABLE", not "SHALL". There was no issue after the auditor talked to the marketing guy.