It’s Been a Rough Transition to IATF 16949

Third-party audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations

Published: Thursday, August 17, 2017 - 12:02

Globally, there are more than 68,000 organizations certified to ISO/TS 16949:2009 that will need to undergo a transition audit to the International Automotive Task Force (IATF) international automotive quality standard, IATF 16949:2016. As of April 2017, 181 of these audits have been completed, resulting in an average of 5.3 nonconformities and nearly one major nonconformity (0.73) per audit.

There is a lot we can analyze and learn from these audits. What areas are receiving nonconformities? What surprises lie in these nonconformities? What are third-party auditors finding or not finding? For example, who thought “total productive maintenance” was going to be one of the top nonconformities? The list of nonconformities can be used as a preventive measure to ensure key registrar nonconformities are addressed before your transition audit.

Omnex has performed a large number of gap analysis audits for our customers and will compare our findings to the list of registrar nonconformities. What were Omnex’s top findings? How many of them still remain? Why are companies still receiving major nonconformities for “auditor competencies” and “customer-specific requirements” (CSRs), when those were one of the top findings in Omnex’s gap analyses? These are just some of the questions we will explore.

Top five nonconformities

The top five nonconformities overall are “total productive maintenance” (48 nonconformities), “control plan” (38), “contingency plans” (37), “control of production service provision” (26), and “internal auditor competency” (23). See figure 1 below.  

Figure 1: Top five total nonconformance clauses

The two biggest surprises shown in this list are total productive maintenance (TPM) and control of production and service provision. The requirements for TPM (clause 8.5.1.5 of IATF 16949) have increased significantly from those of ISO/TS 16949. We can infer that when organizations are implementing IATF 16949, they have so much to update in other areas that maintenance is not getting the attention it needs. Despite the many additional requirements found in IATF 16949, the third-party auditors are not overlooking the expanded requirements for TPM. Total productive maintenance has also made it to the top-five list of major nonconformities, showing that it is indeed an area that needs the attention of the IATF 16949 implementation champion.  

Similarly, control of production and service provision (8.5.1 of IATF 16949) has requirements for “special processes” and “implementation of actions to prevent human error.” Control of production and service provision is showing the fourth most nonconformities of all areas in IATF 16949.  (We will present more information on the remaining top nonconformities during the webinar with Quality Digest on Aug. 22, 2017).

Based on automotive industry data, the top-five major nonconformance clauses are customer-specific requirements (7 nonconformities), internal auditor competency (7), quality management system (QMS) audit (7), TPM (6), and management review inputs (6)—see figure 2. Omnex gap analyses are also finding major nonconformities in CSRs, internal auditor competency, QMS audits, and management review inputs. Management review inputs have not changed drastically enough in IATF 16949 to be resulting in so many major nonconformities. Omnex gap analyses have found many of the majors are the result of a variety of issues with the ISO/TS 16949 management reviews.  

The Omnex webinar on Aug. 22 at 2 p.m. Eastern/11 a.m. Pacific will review information on 35 minor and 29 major nonconformities across all sections of IATF 16949 from Clause 4.0—Context, to Clause 10.0—Continual improvement. The issues involved in the nonconformities, as well as the implementation of these requirements in a manner that reduces the risk of being issued a nonconformity, will be discussed. Finally, we will end the webinar with a list of key preventive issues to review as well as any other issues that have not yet been added to the list of third-party auditor nonconformities. The goal is to provide professional insights to assist you in achieving a successful IATF 16949 implementation in your organization.

Figure 2: Top five major nonconformance clauses

For more information on this topic, check out the webinar, “Rough Transition to IATF 16949—Third-Party Audit Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations,” coming up on Tues., Aug. 22, 2017, at 11 a.m. Pacific/2 p.m. Eastern. I will be presenting, and Dirk Dusharme of Quality Digest will be our host. Click here to register.

About The Author

Chad Kymal

Chad Kymal is the CTO and founder of Omnex Inc., an international consulting and training organization headquartered in the United States. He is also president of Omnex Systems, a software provider of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and ISO 27001 management systems. He developed and teaches auditor training for ISO 9001, IATF 16949, ISO 14001, and ISO 45001, as well as an Integrated Management Systems Lead Auditor training course where all three standards are combined in a single audit.

Kymal is also on the ISO/TC 176, ISO/TC 207, and PC283 committees for ISO 9001:2015 (quality), ISO 14001:2015 (environmental), and ISO 45001 (health and safety) management system development.