MAQMSR

Could MAQMSR help us?

We are a remote location based in Europe, when have some in-house manufacturing in the far east (nothing in Europe), but the vast majority is now outsourced to TSMC (Taiwan), additionally we have several other divisions worldwide, these other divisions are named as separate remote locations on the IATF certification; we have many key well known large customers based in Europe.

Until 2023 the scope of our IATF16949 certificate included several elements as we completed key elements of design that ended up on the Automotive chip. Our company evolves and we do important work, but nothing we design now ends up on the chip, so after good honest and open discussions with our certification body it was agreed that the scope of our remote location must be reduced, so it no longer included Design/Development. The re-certification audit in 2023 went very well.

The reality is our internal processes are unchanged and we work the same way. The 'problem' we now have it that some of 'Automotive' customers in Europe we continue to supplier SW for & they are now concerned as the are no longer IATF16949 (for Design/Development).

As more than one of our customers have a MAQMSR published (see Customer Specific Requirements – International Automotive Task Force) I wondered if this could be a possible solution, but as we have never gone down this route before I would appreciate guidance on this, OR any other ideas as to how we can proceed with our customers.

Thanks in advance.

Take a look at sanctioned interpretation 8. It has the various stages laid out. MAQMSR is one stage. So is IATF compliance with second party audits.

Hi 'Golfman', Thanks for replying, yes I was aware of the SI to the clause, the information I was looking for was/is slightly different, I will try to explain again.

If we assume 'Ford' are a customer of ours (they are not but that does not matter) on the IATF website you can see their MAQMSR requirements ((broken link removed) what I want to understand further is how implementation works in reality.

Is it up to Ford to come to us as say 'OK we now you can no longer quality to be in the scope of IATF certification given the change to your work, but we need you to meet these MAQMSR requirements, or should we be driving this in some way?

(Re)reading the clause and the SI to me it seems like the Customer is responsible & should be driving this?

To stress again we still follow the same processes as we did before when did did quality to be in scope for the IATF16949 certification, we have not reduced are quality levels, in fact we continue to enhance them.

DariusPlumdon said:

Hi 'Golfman', Thanks for replying, yes I was aware of the SI to the clause, the information I was looking for was/is slightly different, I will try to explain again.

If we assume 'Ford' are a customer of ours (they are not but that does not matter) on the IATF website you can see their MAQMSR requirements ((broken link removed) what I want to understand further is how implementation works in reality.

Is it up to Ford to come to us as say 'OK we now you can no longer quality to be in the scope of IATF certification given the change to your work, but we need you to meet these MAQMSR requirements, or should we be driving this in some way?

(Re)reading the clause and the SI to me it seems like the Customer is responsible & should be driving this?

To stress again we still follow the same processes as we did before when did did quality to be in scope for the IATF16949 certification, we have not reduced are quality levels, in fact we continue to enhance them.

Click to expand...

Let the customer drive it. They will figure out what they need.