IATF 16949:2016 vs ISO/TS 16949:2009 conversion tool



These clauses are almost the same; the new version explains the context of the organization and its influence on the structure of the Quality Management System (QMS), while pointing out that the standard does not imply a need for uniformity in the structure of the QMS. Additionally, enhancing customer satisfaction is pointed out in this clause.

The 2009 revision of the standard only mentions that the quality management principles are taken into consideration; the 2016 revision lists the quality management principles, pointing out that detailed descriptions of the principles are given in ISO 9000.

The clause name is the same, but the 2016 revision has three sections that explain the process approach, PDCA cycle, and risk-based thinking. For more information, read Plan-Do-Check-Act in the ISO 9001 standard.

This clause of the new version of the standard refers to ISO 9000, ISO 9004, and Annex B of the standard, which provide more details about other standards on quality management.

This clause is almost the same for both versions of the standard.

This clause provides clarification on the applicability of IATF 16949:2016 on various processes and sites of the organization where manufacturing of automotive parts occur.

These clauses are almost the same for both versions of the standard.

The new version refers to ISO 9000:2015.

The new version provides definitions for automotive industry-specific terms.

This is a completely new requirement; the organization will need to determine the external and internal contexts that affect the organization. 

Interested parties are introduced in the new version of the standard. The previous version was only focused on the customer.

This requirement was related to the Quality Manual in the previous version. Now, there is only a requirement to document the scope.

These requirements were originally included in ISO/TS 16949:2009 Sections 1.1 and 1.2. The first requirement was slightly revised to not only address the need to include supporting functions in the audit, but also to ensure that the supporting functions are also included in the scope of the QMS.

These requirements were originally included in ISO/TS 16949:2009 Sections 1.1 and 1.2. The first requirement was slightly revised to not only address the need to include supporting functions in the audit, but also to ensure that the supporting functions are also included in the scope of the QMS.

Although the need to fulfill and satisfy customer-specific requirements was already mentioned throughout the whole ISO/TS 16949 document, this requirement specifically addresses the need to evaluate the customer-specific requirements and include them where applicable in the organization's Quality Management System.

The requirements from the previous version remain; the new requirements are related to determining the risks and opportunities, inputs and outputs of the processes, as well as assigning responsibilities and authorities for the processes.

The requirements from the previous version remain; the new requirements are related to determining the risks and opportunities, inputs and outputs of the processes, as well as assigning responsibilities and authorities for the processes.

This requirement was adopted based on survey feedback. It ensures two things: that the organization is responsible for the conformity of outsourced processes, and that all products and processes meet the requirements and expectations of all interested parties.

This is a new section with new and enhanced requirements that address current and emerging issues that the automotive industry is facing related to product and process safety. The list of items a) through n) requires that the organization addresses them in a documented and dedicated process for the management of product safety-related products and manufacturing processes.

The clauses are very similar; the emphasis in the new version is on promoting awareness and support of other persons who contribute to the effectiveness of the QMS. The main difference between the clauses is that the new version requires the top management to take accountability for the effectiveness of the QMS. 

The clauses are very similar; the emphasis in the new version is on promoting awareness and support of other persons who contribute to the effectiveness of the QMS. The main difference between the clauses is that the new version requires the top management to take accountability for the effectiveness of the QMS. 

Corporate responsibility was not included in ISO/TS 16949.

The requirement to review the processes to ensure effectiveness and efficiency was covered in ISO/TS 16949, Section 5.1.1. Based on the IATF survey feedback, the IATF strengthened the requirement to ensure that the results of the review are now to be included in the management review.

ISO/TS 16949:2009 addressed management responsibility and authority, but it did not explicitly mention that management must ensure that process owners understand their roles and are competent. The IATF adopted this requirement to ensure that management understands this expectation.

The old requirements remain the same. Determination of the risks and opportunities regarding conformity of products and services is a new requirement, as well as the consideration of the statutory and regulatory requirements.

The requirements remain the same. An additional requirement is to be available to interested parties, as appropriate. 

The main difference is that the new standard does not require appointing a management representative; however, the new clause describes in more detail the roles, responsibilities, and authorities within the QMS, implying that they can be allocated to different persons.

This requirement was already part of ISO/TS 16949:2009. However, the IATF adopted some modifications to the requirement to address the need to document assigned personnel responsibilities and authorities. Additionally, it clarifies that the goal is not just to address customer requirements, but also to meet customer requirements fully.

The IATF adopted some enhancements to the requirement originally included in ISO/TS 16949 to address the need to explicitly make top management responsible for ensuring conformity to product requirements and to corrective actions taken.

This is a completely new requirement. When planning the QMS, the organization will need to determine the risks and opportunities affecting the organization.

The need to identify, analyze, and consider actual and potential risks was already covered in various areas of ISO/TS 16949. The IATF adopted the additional requirements for risk analysis recognizing the continual need to analyze and respond to risk and to have organizations consider specific risks associated with the automotive industry.

The IATF enhanced the requirement found in ISO/TS 16949 by providing more detail regarding what is considered to be best practice in the automotive industry.

The IATF enhanced the requirement found in ISO/TS 16949 by providing more detail regarding what is considered to be best practice in the automotive industry. The expanded requirement ensures that the organization defines and prepares contingency plans, along with a notification process to the customer or other interested parties.

The requirements remain the same, but are further elaborated in the new version. 

ISO/TS 16949 included the importance of addressing customer expectations in the NOTE to Section 5.4.1.1. The IATF decided to enhance the requirement by including the NOTE in Section 6.2.2.1 and to require that it be done at all levels throughout the organization.

The new version of the standard defines how the changes in the QMS should be managed by considering the purpose of the change, the potential consequences, availability of resources, and allocation of responsibilities. 

The old requirements remain, but the new version emphasizes consideration of capabilities and constraints of the organization, as well as resources obtained from external providers.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same.

The new version puts increased focus on risk identification and risk mitigation, evaluating manufacturing feasibility, re-evaluation of changes in processes, and inclusion of on-site supplier activities.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same.

The requirement was maintained from ISO/TS 16949 to IATF 16949, only moved to Section 7.1.4.1.

The new version of the standard emphasizes the provision of resources for monitoring and measurement. The organization must retain the documented information as evidence of fitness for purpose of monitoring and measurement resources. The old standard only focuses on the measuring equipment. 

Records are now required for customer acceptance of alternative methods. See Annex B, which contains IATF-recommended tools for implementation.

Ensuring that customer requirements are met, and enhanced calibration / verification record retention requirements, including software installed on employee-owned or customer-owned equipment.

 

Added requirement to have the organization (client) define a methodology to verify measurement system capability if no national or international standard(s) exist.

Allows the organization to conduct second-party assessments of laboratory facilities; however, requires customer approval of assessment method. Added government regulatory confirmation, if required.

This is a completely new requirement, which acknowledges the organizational knowledge as an important resource. The organization will need to determine the knowledge necessary to run its processes and achieve conformity of products and services.

Competence and awareness are split into different clauses to emphasize their importance and provide more detailed requirements. 

The standard strengthens requirements for identification of training needs and achieving competence.

Enhanced emphasis of on-the-job training and its importance in meeting customer requirements, including other interested parties.

Enhanced requirements for the organization's internal auditor competency requirements to ensure a more robust internal audit process.

New requirements for second-party auditors to meet in order to be properly qualified to conduct those types of audits, with customer-specific requirements being a main focus.

Competence and awareness are split into different clauses to emphasize their importance and provide more detailed requirements.

Additional requirements to ensure all employees are aware of their impact on the organization’s (client’s) product quality output, customer-specific requirements, and risks involved for the customer with non-conforming product.

Not a major change, just now requiring maintenance of a "documented process" for employee motivation and empowerment.

The new clause includes both external and internal communication and requires definition of responsibility and methods of communication.

Documents and records now belong to the same category – documented information. The requirements of both versions are equivalent. 

Documents and records now belong to the same category – documented information. The requirements of both versions are equivalent. 

Requiring a record retention process that is defined and documented and that includes the organization’s record retention requirements.

Added a requirement that the process is documented and agreed with the customer. Also, clarified product design changes and product realization process changes.

The requirements of both clauses are equivalent. 

Enhanced detail to ensure key processes are included and considered when planning for product realization.

Minor editing, no major change in the intent of this section.

The requirements are almost the same, but the new version emphasizes communication about treatment of customer property. 

The requirements are almost the same, but the new version emphasizes communication about treatment of customer property. 

Added a requirement for a communication method (written or verbal) to be agreed with the customer.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Strengthened the standard by elevating Notes into requirements.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Strengthens the requirement, stating that the organization is required to retain a documented customer authorization waiver.

Minor editing, no major change in the intent of this section.

Enhanced requirements for manufacturing feasibility analysis.

This new clause defines requirements related to changes to requirements related to products and services.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

This clause defines when the design and development process is necessary.

Strengthened the standard by elevating the NOTE to a requirement, added a requirement for documentation of the design and development process.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Clarification of when the multi-disciplinary approach is to be used and who should be involved.

NOTE added as an example of a product design skillset.

Added requirements for organization-responsible embedded software development and software development capability self-assessments.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Expanded the minimum set of product design input requirements, emphasizing regulatory and software requirements.

Expanded the list of manufacturing process design inputs; further strengthened the requirement by putting the NOTE into a requirement.

Identify source of special characteristics; include risk analysis to be performed by the customer or the organization.

The new clause sublimates the requirements of the three old clauses, keeping the old requirements and emphasizing the consideration of nature, duration, and complexity of design and development activities. 

The new clause sublimates the requirements of the three old clauses, keeping the old requirements and emphasizing the consideration of nature, duration, and complexity of design and development activities. 

The new clause sublimates the requirements of the three old clauses, keeping the old requirements and emphasizing the consideration of nature, duration, and complexity of design and development activities. 

Aligned the IATF 16949 standard with IATF OEM advanced quality activities; reduced the customer-specific requirements and further clarified the NOTE.

Strengthening of requirements for design and development validation; also, added embedded software.

Strengthened the standard by focusing the organization on the Quality Management System for managing outsourced products and services.

Clarified approval requirements with emphasis on outsourced products and/or services and record retention required.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Recognition of the use of 3D models; inclusion of service parts and packaging.

Strengthened verification requirements, process input variables, capacity analysis, maintenance plans, and correction of process nonconformities.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Strengthened requirement for change validation and approval prior to implementation and added embedded software.

Although the name of the clause has changed, the requirements are pretty much the same. 

Strengthened the IATF 16949 standard by elevating the NOTE to a requirement.

Strengthened the standard by specifically calling out supplier selection process criteria.

Clarification of organization’s responsibilities for customer-directed sources, even for Direct-Buy.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Further strengthened the requirement for control of outsourced processes, including the assessment of risk.

Further strengthened requirements; clarified applicability of statutory and regulatory requirements.

Provides a method to strengthen ISO 9001 certification; alignment of customer-specific requirements; clarification of acceptable third-party certification bodies (recognized by the IATF).

Added requirements for software development assessment methodology.

Strengthened requirements for supplier monitoring.

Alignment of customer-specific requirements into the IATF 16949 standard.

Emphasis on performance-based supplier development actions.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. The new version emphasizes the monitoring and control of external providers’ performance.

Requires the organization to provide key information to their supply chain.

The requirements are almost the same, but the new standard points out that the implemented controlled conditions are for delivery and post-delivery activities. 

The requirements are almost the same, but the new standard points out that the implemented controlled conditions are for delivery and post-delivery activities. 

The requirements are almost the same, but the new standard points out that the implemented controlled conditions are for delivery and post-delivery activities. 

Strengthened control plan requirements and aligned IATF OEM customer-specific requirements into the IATF 16949 standard. Elevated NOTE to a requirement; strengthened control plan review and update criteria and linked to PFMEA update.

Strengthened requirements for standardized work, including the requirement to address specific language needs.

Elevated NOTE to a requirement; clarified record retention.

Defined the requirement for verification after shutdown; improved integration of industry lessons learned / best practices.

Strengthened the requirement for equipment maintenance and overall proactive management of the total productive maintenance.

Strengthened tooling and equipment marking and tracking requirements.

Emphasized the importance of planning information; integrated IATF OEM customer lessons learned.

The requirements of both clauses are pretty much the same. 

Strengthened requirements for traceability to support industry lessons learned related to field issues.

The requirements of both clauses are the same, but in the new standard the requirements are extended to property belonging to external providers as well. 

The requirements of both clauses are the same.

Added specificity to preservation controls and included application to internal and/or external providers. 

The post-delivery activities are mentioned in several places in the old version, but in the new standard they are set apart as a separate sub clause.

Expanded scope to include material handling and logistics.

Clarification of service agreement requirements.

The control of changes is mentioned in several places in the old version; however, the importance of controlling changes is stressed in the new standard by defining a separate sub clause.

Strengthened the standard to align with existing IATF OEM requirements.

Added a requirement to address issues experienced by the IATF OEM customers.

This is a new requirement, dealing with verification of product and ensuring that product or service meets requirements.

Strengthened the standard to ensure that process controls align with the control plan.

Clarified that the frequency of layout inspections is determined by the customer.

Inclusion of haptic technology, as appropriate, for appearance items.

Alignment with ISO 9001:2015 terminology; clarification of source of statistical data.

Strengthened standard for statutory and regulatory conformity to require evidence of compliance.

Minor editing, no major change in the intent of this section.

The requirements are equivalent. 

Alignment of terminology; clarification of concessions applied to rework of nonconforming product and sub-component reuse.

Ensures customer-controlled shipping requirements are followed.

Strengthened requirements by ensuring that containment training is implemented.

Expanded scope to include: customer approval, risk assessment, rework confirmation, traceability, and retention of documented information.

Clarified the requirement and the need for follow up with detailed information for reworked product.

New automotive requirement to address modifications in ISO 9001 requirements and address customer issues for IATF OEM concerns.

New automotive requirement to address modifications in ISO 9001 requirements and address customer issues for IATF OEM concerns.

Strengthened the requirement of disposition of nonconforming product.

The new clause sublimates all requirements for processes and products / services monitoring and measurement. 

The new clause sublimates all requirements for processes and products / services monitoring and measurement. 

Clarification of the requirement for targeting process effectiveness and efficiency. Extension of the requirement to have effective and efficient processes instead of just having a process. Ensures that organizations support the manufacturing process through defined roles, responsibilities, and effective escalation processes to drive process capability and stability.

Clarification regarding documented deployment of the use of statistical tools from DFMEA, PFMEA, and the APQP (or equivalent) process.

Clarification regarding requirements for those involved in capturing and analyzing data; previously driven across all employees regardless of relevance.

The requirements are the same. 

Clarification of customer satisfaction monitoring criteria and introduction of additional focus on warranty management. Additional focus of the requirement to ensure all customer performance measures are regularly reviewed to reduce the risk of failure to achieve customer satisfaction.

The requirements are equivalent. 

Emphasis change from ISO/TS 16949 “Analysis of data" to prioritization of actions based on performance and risk management.

The requirements are equivalent. The main difference is that the new standard does not require a documented procedure. See the sample document here: Procedure for Internal Audit. For more information, read Five Main Steps in ISO 9001 Internal Audit.

Strengthened the need to drive a risk-based approach to the development and deployment of an organization-wide internal audit program.

Strengthened the Quality Management System audit and the use of the process approach; further drives process improvements organization-wide.

Strengthened the formal approaches to ensure that the benefits of effective manufacturing process audits are achieved by organizations.

Strengthened the product audit requirements to include customer-specified approaches.

The requirements are equivalent. 

Strengthened the organization's management review requirements, including assessment of risk and compliance with customer requirements.

The requirements are equivalent.

Enhanced details for management review input requirements.

The requirements are equivalent.

Enhanced to ensure action is taken where customer requirements are not achieved; supports continual analysis of process performance and risk.

The requirements in the new standard explain what should be considered in the process of improvement.

The requirements are equivalent. 

Consolidation of IATF OEM customer-specific minimum requirements.

Previously, only mentioned the use of error-proofing methods in corrective action; new requirements strengthen the approach to error-proofing and consolidate customer-specific requirements.

Adds a new requirement based on the increasing importance of warranty management and consolidates IATF OEM customer-specific requirements.

Adds a new requirement regarding embedded software and identification of preferred approaches.

The new standard points out the need to use all available information for continually improving the QMS. 

Clarification of the minimum process requirements.

Clarification of the minimum process requirements.

The new version provides more details about how to develop the Control Plan.

The bibliography provides information on additional documents that can be useful during the implementation, maintenance, and auditing of the QMS.