IATF 16949 Cl. 4.3.2 - Customer Requirements vs. Customer Specific Requirements

AMIT BALLAL said:

@Jim Wynne, I do agree with you that this website doesn't link to updated CSRs, but only help in identifying whether a specific customer has a CSR.

Click to expand...

You still have to go to the customer to determine revision status, so what's the point?

AMIT BALLAL said:

This is the definition I refer to when I speak of CSRs, as specified IATF6949:2016 standard;
"Interpretations of or supplemental requirements linked to a specific clause(s) of this Automotive QMS Standard".

Click to expand...

Which was my point exactly.

AMIT BALLAL said:

Although CSRs of major OEMs are available on the IATF website, I still beg to differ that not all automotive OEMs subscribing to IATF16949 are members of IATF and they do have their CSRs, but not available on the IATF website.

Click to expand...

I said that the IATF website lists the CSRs for all IATF OEM subscribers, which doesn't mean what you think it does. The statement is accurate.

Johnnymo62 said:

customer requirements
all requirements specified by the customer (e.g. technical, commercial, product and manufacturing process-related requirements, general terms and conditions, customer-specific requirements, etc,)

customer-specific requirements (CSRs)
interpretations of or supplemental requirements linked to a specific clause(s) of this Automotive QMS Standard

Click to expand...

These are both the IATF definitions as shown in the standard.

Jack Chiew said:

I just joined the group but noticed your question is over 2 years old. Not sure my input is still useful. I am a 3P auditor and have just written a book for sharing on IATF 16949 compliance. My answer to your question is attached. You can download the full book, it is free.

Click to expand...

Jack Chiew said:

I just joined the group but noticed your question is over 2 years old. Not sure my input is still useful. I am a 3P auditor and have just written a book for sharing on IATF 16949 compliance. My answer to your question is attached. You can download the full book, it is free.

Click to expand...

Hi Jack,
Where can I find your book in order to download it?

Thanks,
Imre

QualityImre said:

Hi Jack,
Where can I find your book in order to download it?

Thanks,
Imre

Click to expand...

Sorry. But that poster was here only for 1 month last year and hasn't posted or visited this forum after June-2020. And he/she didn't post a link to the document / document directly, hence the mentioned book not available.

I picked this up as it raised its ugly head again at my last audit.

Just to be 100% clear:
My automotive customers are all tier 2 automotive suppliers.
My automotive customers have all held an IATF16949 certification since 2016/2017
My automotive customers have all provided new/updated "Supplier Quality Manuals" (and other related documentation) in the last 24 months
None of my automotive customer "Supplier Quality Manuals" (and other documentation they have provided) make reference to any of the clauses within the IATF16949 standard.

So my conclusion is (still) that none of my automotive customers have communicated any "Customer Specific Requirements", to me, only "Customer Requirements".

It is not for me to say which part of what my customer communicates (that isn't linked to a specific clause(s) of the IATF16949 standard) is or is not a CSR, as the standard has already made it clear that they are not.

My customers know and understand the IATF16949 standard, so they know full well if they want something to be considered a CSR by their supplier, they should/must link it to a clause from the IATF16949 standard.

I don't understand why, if a definition exists in the standard that stipulates what is and is not a CSR, we should ignore it and make up our own CSR's on our customers behalf? Shouldn't our customer dictate what their CSR's are?

Hi. We have the same situation as you expect that we are Tier 2 automotive suppliers. But the structure of the SQMs does not have to be based on the same structure as the IATF standard. You need to understand and place the points in a customer-specific requirements matrix for your process where you can ensure the compliance of the specific requirement(s). Afterwards, you will know which IATF points were not specific enough to your customer, so they expects something extra in addition to comply with the IATF points. To do this, of course, you need to have a document that has which IATF point(s) appears in which process.

All in one you have to meet the IATF or ISO 9001 and if you have SQM from your customers you also have to ensure that your QMS also comply with them and that is why is called Customer Specific Requirements.

I hope this was helpful to you.

Not Really

QualityImre said:

You need to understand and place the points in a customer-specific requirements matrix for your process where you can ensure the compliance of the specific requirement(s).

Click to expand...

Why do I need to do that for Customer Requirements that are not linked to clauses of the IATF16949 standard, and therefore not deemed "Customer Specific Requirements" by the IATF16949 standard?

Scanton said:

Not Really



Why do I need to do that for Customer Requirements that are not linked to clauses of the IATF16949 standard, and therefore not deemed "Customer Specific Requirements" by the IATF16949 standard?

Click to expand...

See IATF16949 section 4.4.1.1. We need to show that we are meeting all of our customer requirements as well as statutory and regulatory requirements. The matrix should include all of these as well.

Johnnymo62 said:

See IATF16949 section 4.4.1.1. We need to show that we are meeting all of our customer requirements as well as statutory and regulatory requirements. The matrix should include all of these as well.

Click to expand...

"The Matrix should include all of these as well" Really? Where does it say that in the standard?

As far as I can see only 7.5.1.1 d) suggests "a document (i.e. matrix) indicating where within the organizations's QMS their customer specific requirements are addressed", it doesn't say anything about lumping every other type of customer requirement in there too.

Isn't it up to me how I address 4.4.1.1 and show how my QMS shows conformance to all of these other customer requirements? As far as I can see, there is no should lump everything the customer requires into a matrix requirement in IATF.

That's why I wrote should. It's my recommendation.