[Update, see bottom.] The IATF, which oversees the IATF 16949 automotive quality management system certification scheme, just did an astonishingly stupid thing, if I’m reading this correctly. And there’s a risk that IAF and the IAQG might follow suit for the ISO 9001 and AS9100 schemes, respectively.
In an update to the automotive scheme’s auditing rules, the IATF is now requiring that a multi-site company implement entirely separate QMS’s — and undergo entirely separate, standalone audits — if a facility is more than 10 miles from another one. So whereas — for decades now — if you had two facilities, you could merge them under a single certificate, the IATF is trying to launch a cash grab and split them up.
Think about that distance. Ten miles, driving at 60 miles an hour, is only a ten-minute drive. So now, a plant will have to implement its own QMS — complete with management review, audits, etc. — even though the HQ is just ten minutes away.
Look at their math, too. The document above assumes a ten-mile drive takes sixty minutes, meaning the car would be traveling at ten miles per hour. I know the IATF does a shit job of managing quality, but does that mean its members’ cars can’t get out of first gear? Good lord, no wonder everyone is buying a BYD now.
I have reached out to a few folks to see if I am reading this wrong, and so far, they have assured me that I am not. As you likely know, though, Oxebridge doesn’t do automotive or IATF 16949, so I have no insight into that scheme at all. (I invite any experts to write me, and I can update accordingly.)
Per one of my contacts:
That 10 mile / hour drive requirement is a killer. [My niece’s] company has sites all over the Detroit metro area, plus one in Illinois. One of them is “11” miles from HQ. This will have zero impact on their QMS structure. Its ONLY impact is increased audit days and cert costs.
I have to say, I really can’t understand this. There must be more to this. Right now, the automotive industry is tanking, and pressure from China competitors who are eating the legacy manufacturers’ lunch on cost and quality. Factor in the current political environment, which is taking a flametorch to US carmakers and the supply chain, and you have a recipe for apocalypse.
The IATF probably thinks it can get away with this because its members mandate certification as a part of doing business. But what if a considerable number of key suppliers just say “no“? What are they going to do about it?
Again, if I’m reading this wrong, let me know.
UPDATE: I’m getting confusing information, but some are suggesting that this was an attempt to stop CBs from issuing blanket certificates that covered sites they didn’t actually audit. I still don’t see how that works, since a CB would have been required to audit any address it lists on the certificate, but maybe there’s some wrinkle in IATF 16949 that the CBs were gaming. I really can’t be sure yet.
If so, then the solution is far simpler than this 10-mile rule would have you believe. If an address is included, it gets audited; period. Simple. No mileage, no limits, no nothing. But that’s not how this reads on its face.
I will update again as I get more information.
Christopher Paris is the founder and VP Operations of Oxebridge. He has over 35 years’ experience implementing ISO 9001 and AS9100 systems, and helps establish certification and accreditation bodies with the ISO 17000 series. He is a vocal advocate for the development and use of standards from the point of view of actual users. He is the writer and artist of THE AUDITOR comic strip, and is currently writing the DR. CUBA pulp novel series. Visit www.drcuba.world
