Value Stream Mapping

Certification, ISO 9001

Question

We produce plastic fittings and pipes. We only have one process: only one machine is needed to produce a product.  Can we still benefit from Value Stream Mapping? If yes, could you please explain how?

Answer

Thank you for your question.  Value Stream Mapping (VSM) can benefit organizations of any size.  The fundamental question you want to answer is: How quickly can I receive an order, build it, and be paid for it?    This is “order-to-cash”.    Along the way, we look primarily at two things – how quickly and smoothly can I get a build order to flow through my factory, and how do I minimize raw material inventory and work-in-process inventory during that process?

Value stream mapping can benefit your organization by answering some of the following questions…. How long do I wait for raw material (e.g., am I buying from down the street, or does it take months to arrive from China)?  How long is a customer order in hand before I start up my machines to produce it? How long is my machine set-up?  How long does work in process sit between machines?  How long does material sit in the back of the plant before it is shipped?   How long does it take me to get paid?    Value stream mapping can help to answer these questions and challenge your organization to continuously shrink these times.     I had one client who got very good at this.  They insisted on payment from key customers within 30 days, and had payments terms of 60 days with their suppliers.    In many cases, they were paid for their products before they even had to pay for their raw materials.  That’s lean!

Denis.

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
A Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
www.DevosAssociates.com

Visit ASQ’s Value Stream Mapping Learn About Quality page for more information.

ISO 17025 and Business Changes

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratoriesQuestion

My organization has just been recently accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2005. Shortly thereafter, changes were made to the organization’s structure and business operations.  I would like to know:

1) When should these changes be reflected in the Quality Manual?

2) Do I need to advise the local registrar about the changes?

3) Are these changes time-sensitive that need to be reported to the certifying body to maintain certification or, should I just wait for the next surveillance audit coming in about six (6) months?

Answer

Thank you for your question.  Updates to your Quality Management System and Quality Manual should be made as soon as they are implemented.  I would suggest notifying your CB of the changes now and let them plan for auditing these changes.  They will likely want to roll that into your next surveillance and not make a special visit.  That decision, of course, would be up to them.

Denis.

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
A Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
(519) 476-8951
www.DevosAssociates.com

TS 16949, ISO 9001

Automotive inspection, TS 16949, IATF 16949

Question

Our company designs and manufactures commercial and automotive semiconductor products. We used to maintain dual certification (ISO9001 and TS16949) for all of our manufacturing and assembly locations, but recently dropped the ISO9001 certification.  My questions are as follows:

1) If we manufacture automotive and non automotive products in the same location “site”, without dedicated separation, does the TS certification eligibility apply to the entire site?

2) Can we include the non automotive design RSLs in the TS16949 certificate scope, or would we need a separate ISO9001 certificate to cover those activities?

Answer

Thank you for your question.   Yes, TS 16949 requirements would apply to all of your “automotive” processes whether they produce/support only automotive products or not.   This is actually the way you’d want to do it:  it would be more complicated to try to have two systems for automotive and non-automotive products.    If you have only one certification, the scope of your audits would have to be your whole product line, and not just your automotive products.

The answer to your second question is again related to the scope of your registration.   If you are not design-responsible for the automotive side of your business there is a risk that your TS 16949 audits (internal and external) do not include your design function.    If you want your design activity in scope, work with your registrar to roll it into your scope of registration.  Understand that if you do it that way, your non-automotive design would be subject to all of the additional 7.3 controls listed in TS 16949.  Although you should be able to cover it under one registration, It will be up to them if they want you to split it out into a separate ISO 9001 registration.  The impact of that difference should be minimal.

Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions related to this answer.

Denis

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
A Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
(519) 476-8951
www.DevosAssociates.com

TS 16949 Layouts

Automotive inspection, TS 16949, IATF 16949

Question

On layout inspection, if the customer doesn’t specify, what will be the minimum required for TS16949? What is the frequency of this layout inspection for TS16949?

Answer

Thank you for your question.  ISO/TS 16949:2009 does not require an annual layout, but Clause 8.2.4.1 states that annual layouts will be performed in accordance with the Control Plan.    If the Customer requires an annual layout, you will flow that requirement down into your Control Plan and conduct the layouts.  If none of your customers require an annual layout, you are not required to do them (but you can if you choose to do so).

I hope you found this answer helpful.

Denis

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
A Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
(519) 476-8951
www.DevosAssociates.com

“As received/As found” Condition Requirement in ISO/TS 16949?

Automotive inspection, TS 16949, IATF 16949

Question

It’s been mentioned to me by several people that TS16949 requires that the “as found” (sometimes known as the “as received”) condition is required to be documented on calibration certificates. However, I’ve read 7.6.2 several times and I can’t find where it requires that.

Can you point me to the section that is being understood to mean the “as found” must be included?

Answer

Thank you for your question.

Although recording the as-received readings over the range of calibration is a best practice, it is not required by ISO/TS 16949.  Clause 7.6.2 – Calibration/Verification Records requires only that “records……shall include, any out-of-specification readings as received for calibration/verification.” Therefore, “as found” readings are only required to be recorded if they are out of specification. If they are within specification, they are not.

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
Advisors to the Automotive Industry
http://www.DevosAssociates.com

TS 16949 Certification Requirements

Automotive inspection, TS 16949, IATF 16949

Question

My company is a fabless semiconductor company and we provide ASIC design and custom IP services, and manage our customers’ supply chain from foundry to assembly and test, and drop ship.

We are gearing ourselves up to supply IC chip to automotive customers and the prerequisites indicate our manufacturing partners must be ISO/TS16949 certified and our company’s QMS compliant to this standard.

There are a lot of documentations to be upgraded and revised, including supplier management specifications. I was thinking instead of repeating what ISO/TS16949 says from A to Z, I thought the best way is to add a clause in my supplier management spec is to specify “Suppliers manufacturing products for automotive customers must be certified to ISO/TS16949 (latest version) by a 3rd Party Registrar”.

Most of our manufacturing suppliers publish/broadcast their certifications in their external webpage and this is how we verify the certification status. Will this approach work from automotive customer’s perspectives?

Looking forward to your guidance and advice.

Response

Thanks very much for your question. A little bit about ISO/TS 16949; if your company doesn’t manufacture anything, then it is not eligible to be registered to ISO/TS 16949. You would, however, be required to be registered to ISO 9001. Double check that your customers are asking for your suppliers to be registered to ISO/TS 16949. That is not a default position. If it’s not in your contract, it won’t be a requirement (because your company is not ISO/TS 16949 registered).

If you are required to be compliant to ISO/TS 16949, make sure that your internal audit function conducts its audits against the ISO/TS 16949 Standard. At the practical level, the biggest impact to your company by being compliant is the requirement for you to use APQP and PPAP. PPAP will also apply to your suppliers.

Be careful about how you try to address supplier management in your QA manual. There’s much more to it than a one line statement. Your customers will expect a rigorous application of supplier selection and management (per ISO 9001) and they will expect you to manage APQP and PPAP with your suppliers. You will still have to be active in managing and being responsible for your suppliers. There will need to be more to your selection and evaluation process than looking at their websites for a certification.

The amount of risk depends on the closeness of the relationship with your “supplier partners”, and whether or not they have a high level of sophistication and experience in the automotive industry. This industry has a very sophisticated supply chain management process and very high performance expectations, with penalties to match.

I hope this answer gets you started.

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
Advisors to the Automotive Industry
http://www.DevosAssociates.com

ISO/TS Exclusions

Manufacturing, inspection, exclusions

Question:

I have a question regarding exclusions from the ISO/TS standards.

The majority of our business is the design and manufacture of enclosure hardware.  Recently though, a small portion of our business has become the sole North American Distributor for an Italian company. Their product lines are similar to ours. However, we procure their products and simply resell/distribute to their customers stateside, to Canada and Mexico. We do not have Design or Process Control for these items; they are pass-through product.

Therefore, my question is related to permissible exclusions from the ISO standard. Should we seek exclusions regarding certain clauses of Clause 7 of the standard, for this certain “supplier”, and/or for certain product groups that are sold on their behalf?

Response (Answered by Bud Salsbury):

At first, your question seemed relatively uncomplicated and I am inclined to say that you can simply sell or provide the products in question with a disclaimer or something identifying the fact that your company is not the designer/manufacturer of the product.  My company occasionally has purchased parts inserted into or added to the products made. Like bushings or threaded inserts, etc. We don’t have to add anything to our QMS for those as long as those items meet regulatory and statutory requirements.

However, I should mention, the standards make it clear that exclusions are permissible if “such exclusions do not affect the organization’s ability or responsibility to consistently provide product that meets customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.”

Therefore, stepping away from the initial ‘simple’ answer, I would say that such exclusions would not be permissible. This is due to the fact that your organization is ultimately responsible for meeting customer requirements. Although you do not design or manufacture that specific product, you provide, and are responsible for what the customer requests.

You are also responsible for seeing to it that the OEM is meeting customer as well as any statutory or regulatory requirements. This would be of particular importance if these are electrical enclosures or intended for hazardous services, such as NEMA 7 (explosion proof enclosures).

Since you already design and manufacture your own products and have the Clause 7 included in your QMS, it would be counterproductive to add more documentation to exclude what you have mentioned. It would be wise to notify customers up-front, in the sales/purchase order process, that the product you are distributing is from a separate company.

Thanks much for this good question.

Bud Salsbury
ASQ Senior Member, CQT, CQI

Follow Up Questions:

• IF there were permissible exclusions allowed, WHO would need to ‘approve’ these or ‘allow’ them to be exclusions?  Would that be the registrar or someone else?

• IF there were permissible exclusions, would it be stated/depicted on the actual Certificate as such or only noted in the quality manual, for example?

• IF there were permissible exclusions, would it be an exclusion of the ISO CLAUSE?  And/or PRODUCT?  And/or  SUPPLIER?

• Currently we list “the design and manufacture…” in our scope.  Would we need to revise the scope to include ‘distribution’?

Response (Answered by Denis Devos):

Thank you very much for your question and your follow up.

In further response to your original question – if you are in the automotive industry, you will still be obligated to provide a Level 3 PPAP (as a default) to your customer for the product you are purchasing and reselling; whether you are design and process responsible or not.

Permissible exclusions are only granted for Clause 7.3 Product Design.  Per TS 16949, you cannot be excluded from the requirements of Clause 6.3 related to process design.    You can declare this exclusion yourself in your Quality Manual and your registrar will validate your claim during your registration audit.   The exclusion will appear on your registration certificate.  You can only be excluded from Clause 7.3 Product Design, (not process design).

Under TS 16949, you cannot exclude products from your registration if they are being sold to the automotive industry.   Sometimes, a registrar will permit only a portion of your business to be registered and that would be reflected in the scope on your certificate:  Check with your registrar.   You cannot be exempted from any requirements related to supplier management, such as Clause 7.4.

Yes, you will likely have to include “distribution” in the scope of your registration; check with your registrar.

I hope this sufficiently answers your follow-up questions and you find this advice helpful.  If you need anything further, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Best Regards,

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
ASQ Fellow
Devos Associates Inc.
London Ontario
www.DevosAssociates.com

Capability Analysis

 

Pharmaceutical sampling

Q: Why is a standard capability analysis determined to be best represented by 30 pieces?

I have answered this question by explaining it best represents a normal distribution. But I wonder if this is traceable to an industry standard?

A: You are right that most people associate 30 pieces with the conventional quantity for performing a capability study.  Although I don’t know the origin of this number, I can tell you the following:

  • The number 30 has nothing to do with whether or not the population is normally distributed.
  • In many applications, the number 30 is insufficient to properly model the process.  For example, automotive industry standards published by the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) in their statistical process control (SPC) and production part approval process (PPAP) documents define 100 pieces as the appropriate sample size for an initial capability study (based on 20 subgroups of five or 25 subgroups of four).

I hope you find this helpful.

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
A Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
London Ontario
www.DevosAssociates.com

Related Content:

Statistics in Pharmaceutical Development and ManufacturingJournal of Quality Technology,  open access

An overview is given of the use of statistical thinking and methods in the research and development and manufacturing functions in the pharmaceutical industry. Four case studies illustrate how these issues work in real life settings. A synopsis of these issues concludes that the technical nature of pharmaceutical development and manufacturing offers opportunities for the effective use of statistical methods leading to both process-development understanding and product-quality improvement.

Build a Usable Process Capability Database, Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Open Access

Design for Six Sigma requires that designs meet customer needs without sacrificing quality. A number of statistical tools can be used to produce process capability data to enable development teams to design products that can be produced at reasonable cost on existing equipment. However, setting up and using a process capability database is poorly understood and as a result, it is seldom used. To create a successful database, it is necessary to get management support, build the right data structure, collect the right data, and use the data correctly. A correctly designed database will allow the product development team to focus its efforts only on those tolerances in which the capability is unclear or in which function or cost improvements can be achieved.

Applicability of TS 16949 to Non-Manufacturing Organizations

Automotive inspection, TS 16949, IATF 16949

Q: My conpany is certified to ISO 9001:2008 Quality management systems–Requirements. We provide integrated circuit chip design and outsource the manufacturing of the IC chips to our approved subcontractors. Recently, we won a contract to design and supply chips to one of our customers who, in turn, supplies to the automotive industry (the first automotive customer for my company).

One of the key deliverables of this project is to get ourselves certified to TS16949:2009 Quality management systems — Particular requirements for the application of ISO 9001:2008 for automotive production and relevant service part organizations in the next 6 to 9 months.

We would like to know:

1. Is TS16949 applicable to a company, like mine, that does no manufacturing?

2. In general, what does it take to be at least compliant to the TS16949 requirements?

3. Since TS16949 is based on ISO 9001 with addtional requirements, does that mean that once a company is certified to TS16949 it is not necessary to recertify to ISO 9001?

A: Thank you for your questions.

The answer to your first question is that a company like yours is not eligible to become registered to TS16949 because it is not a manufacturer.  Clause 1.1 General of TS16949 states this very clear:

“This Technical Specification is applicable to sites of the organization where customer-specified parts, for production and/or service, are manufactured.”

Furthermore, clause 3.1.11 from Terms and Definitions defines a “site” as:

“Location at which value-added maufacturing processes occur.”

Your second question is about how to attain TS16949 compliance.  Simply, you would need to purchase a copy of TS16949 and ensure that your ISO 9001 quality management system meets all of the TS16949 requirements.  The biggest difference between ISO 9001 and TS16949 are the requirements associated with advanced product quality planning (APQP) and production part approval process (PPAP).

The answer to your third question is yes, registration to TS16949 includes full compliance with all the requirements in ISO 9001.  A separate registration is not necessary.

If you have further questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Denis J. Devos, P.Eng
A Fellow of the American Society for Quality
Devos Associates Inc.
London Ontario
www.DevosAssociates.com