Iatf 16949 Audit

IATF 16949:2016 Internal Audit — Supplemental Requirements

Goal

Audit the automotive-specific supplemental requirements of IATF 16949:2016, including CSR compliance and the three mandatory internal audit streams. Use in conjunction with iso-9001-internal-audit for a complete IATF audit.

When to use

This skill covers the IATF 16949 supplemental requirements — the automotive additions to ISO 9001.

IATF 16949 requires three types of internal audit (§9.2.2.1). All three must be planned, executed, and recorded within the audit programme cycle:

1. QMS audit — covers the entire quality management system (ISO 9001 + IATF supplementals)
2. Manufacturing process audit — process-based, covers all manufacturing processes at least annually
3. Product audit — product-specific, verifies product conformance to specifications

All manufacturing processes must be audited at least annually, with increased frequency for high-risk or poor-performing areas.

Required IATF Audit Checklist

☐ Verify all three audit streams are planned and executed within the programme cycle ☐ Confirm CSR register is current and that changes trigger QMS document updates ☐ Check contingency plans are documented, reviewed, and tested (not just written) ☐ Verify special characteristics are consistent across all documents (drawing, DFMEA, PFMEA, CP, WI) ☐ Confirm supplier monitoring and escalation are active with defined thresholds ☐ Check Control Plan ↔ PFMEA linkage is current ☐ Verify traceability and suspect material isolation capability (24-hour test) ☐ Review temporary deviations for approval, expiry, and active control ☐ Verify problem-solving methodology is applied with objective evidence of effectiveness ☐ Confirm management review includes all IATF supplemental inputs ☐ Do not accept verbal confirmation — verify by observing the process, interviewing personnel, and reviewing records

Key IATF 16949 supplemental requirements — audit questions

§4.3.2 — Customer-specific requirements (CSR)

This is the most commonly non-conforming IATF clause.

Questions:

• Is there a register of all applicable customer-specific requirements (CSRs)?
• For each OEM customer: have the latest CSRs been downloaded and reviewed?
• Are CSR requirements addressed in the QMS (procedures, control plans, work instructions)?
• Are personnel who deal with each customer aware of their specific requirements?
• CSR review must be revision-controlled and linked to implementation evidence in affected documents — is this traceable?
• Evidence: CSR register, evidence that each CSR has been reviewed and implemented, CSR revision dates vs. QMS document dates

High-risk CSR areas: PPAP requirements, problem-solving format requirements, special characteristics symbols, labelling specifications, sub-supplier approval requirements.

§5.1.1.1 — Corporate responsibility

• Is there a documented corporate responsibility policy (ethics, anti-bribery)?
• Is there an escalation process for reporting ethical concerns?
• Are employees aware of how to report ethical concerns confidentially?
• Evidence: code of conduct, ethics policy, reporting mechanism (hotline or similar)

§5.3.1 — Organisational roles, responsibilities, and authorities — supplemental

• Is there a person responsible for customer satisfaction?
• Are responsibilities for special characteristics defined?
• Is there a process for communicating customer requirements to all relevant functions?
• Evidence: roles matrix with customer satisfaction ownership identified

§6.1.2.1 — Risk analysis (supplemental)

• Does the risk analysis consider lessons learned from similar products?
• Is warranty data, field returns, and customer complaints included as inputs?
• Evidence: risk analysis records with warranty/field data inputs

§6.1.2.3 — Contingency plans

IATF requires documented contingency plans for:

• Key equipment failure
• Key supplier failure or disruption
• Labour shortages
• IT/infrastructure failure
• Natural disasters or site incidents affecting delivery

Questions:

• Are contingency plans documented for each of these scenarios?
• Are plans reviewed periodically (at least annually)?
• Are they tested or rehearsed?
• Does top management know who activates contingency plans?
• Do contingency plans include customer communication protocols and recovery priorities?
• Evidence: contingency plan document, last review date, test/simulation records

§7.2.3 — Internal auditor competency

• Are internal auditors formally qualified or trained?
• Do auditors have process knowledge for the areas they audit?
• Is there evidence of auditor training (certification, OJT, qualification test)?
• Are auditors independent of the area they audit?
• Is auditor effectiveness periodically reviewed based on audit quality and finding accuracy?
• Evidence: auditor qualification records, audit schedule showing independence

§7.2.4 — Second and third-party auditor competency

• For supplier audits: are supplier auditors trained and qualified?
• For customer audits: are there designated contacts?

§8.3.2.1 — Design and development — supplemental

• Are special characteristics (SC) identified and documented in DFMEA and drawings?
• Are customer-specific SC symbols used correctly?
• Are SC characteristics flowed down to PFMEA, Control Plan, and work instructions?
• Evidence: drawing with SC marked, DFMEA with SC, PFMEA with SC, Control Plan with SC, WI with SC

§8.3.3.3 — Special characteristics

• Is there a process to identify, document, and control all special characteristics?
• Do all documents (drawing, DFMEA, PFMEA, CP, WI) use consistent SC symbols?
• Are operators aware of which characteristics are special?
• Any inconsistency in SC identification across documents must be treated as a significant audit finding due to control failure — is SC consistency actively verified?
• Evidence: SC registry or matrix cross-referencing all documents

§8.4.1.2 — Customer-directed sources (directed buy)

• When the customer directs a specific supplier (directed buy), is this documented?
• Is the directed supplier included in the approved supplier list?
• Is quality monitoring applied even if the customer selected the supplier?

§8.4.2.3 — Supplier monitoring

IATF requires active supplier monitoring with specific actions for non-performing suppliers.

Questions:

• Is there a supplier performance monitoring system (PPM, on-time delivery, quality issues)?
• Is supplier performance reviewed at a defined frequency (minimum quarterly)?
• Are supplier development or escalation actions triggered based on defined performance thresholds?
• For poor performers: is there a documented escalation and improvement process?
• Are suppliers assessed for delivery of conforming product (not just quality level)?
• Evidence: supplier scorecards, last 4 quarters of performance data, improvement plans for poor performers

§8.5.1.1 — Control plan

Questions:

• Is there a control plan for each production part?
• Does it cover: pre-launch, production, and reaction plan?
• Are all special characteristics in the control plan with specific control methods?
• Is the control plan linked to the PFMEA (detection controls match)?
• Are reaction plans in the Control Plan understood and applied at the point of use — not only documented?
• Was it updated after the last process or product change?
• Evidence: control plan, PFMEA (verify linkage), latest revision date vs. last process change date

§8.5.2.1 — Identification and traceability — supplemental

• Is full traceability from raw material to finished product maintained?
• Can suspect material be isolated within 24 hours?
• Is there a procedure for handling suspect material?
• Are lot sizes defined to limit the scope of recalls?
• Evidence: traceability records, suspect material handling procedure, sample traceability exercise (ask for a part and trace it backwards)

§8.5.6.1.1 — Control of changes — supplemental (temporary change)

IATF requires that temporary process changes (deviations) be strictly controlled.

Questions:

• Is there a process for managing temporary deviations (substituting a process step or material)?
• Are deviations approved in writing with defined expiry dates?
• Is there a register of all open temporary deviations?
• Are expired deviations actively closed or extended — not left open silently?
• Is the customer notified when required by their CSR?
• Evidence: deviation register, sample open deviation with expiry date and approval

§8.7.1.1 — Customer notification

• Is there a procedure for notifying the customer when suspect material may have been shipped?
• Does it define when notification is required (not just when the customer asks)?
• Does the procedure specify notification timelines (e.g., 24 hours for safety-related escapes per CSR)?
• Has the procedure been triggered recently? Were notifications timely?
• Evidence: notification procedure, last notification records (if any)

§9.2.2.1 — Internal audit programme — supplemental

IATF requires three audit streams — most organisations fail by only conducting clause-based audits:

1. QMS audit — covers clauses; must cover entire QMS within the audit programme cycle
2. Manufacturing process audit — process-based, all manufacturing processes annually minimum; uses VDA 6.3 or equivalent scoring
3. Product audit — product/shipment audits at defined frequency

Questions:

• Are all three audit types in the programme?
• Is the manufacturing process audit process-based (turtle diagram approach)?
• Are all processes and products covered within the audit cycle?
• Is the audit programme risk-based (higher risk = higher audit frequency)?
• Low process audit scores must trigger corrective action, management review, and re-audit planning — is this in place?
• Evidence: annual audit programme, audit reports for all three types, process audit records (not just clause audits)

§9.3.2.1 — Management review — supplemental inputs

IATF management review must include (in addition to ISO 9001 §9.3.2):

• Cost of poor quality (COPQ)
• Warranty performance (if applicable)
• Customer satisfaction and field performance review
• Status of CSR compliance
• Manufacturing feasibility assessments

Questions:

• Are these topics covered in the management review agenda?
• Is there data for each topic?
• Are decisions from these IATF-specific inputs translated into actions with owners and due dates?
• Evidence: management review minutes with IATF-required topics explicitly addressed

§10.2.3 — Problem solving

• Is there a documented problem-solving methodology (8D or equivalent)?
• Is the methodology applied consistently across all quality escapes?
• Does the 8D identify root cause of occurrence AND root cause of escape?
• Is effectiveness verified before closure?
• Evidence: problem-solving procedure, sample 8D reports, verification of effectiveness records

§10.2.4 — Error proofing

• Is there a documented approach to applying error-proofing (poka-yoke)?
• Are poka-yoke devices tested at defined intervals (IATF requires: minimum at every start of production)?
• Are test records maintained?
• Are failed or bypassed error-proofing checks treated as production stop / reaction plan triggers where applicable?
• Are poka-yoke failures treated as non-conformances requiring CAPA?
• Evidence: poka-yoke register, test frequency, test records, last test date vs. interval

§10.3.1 — Continual improvement plan

• Is there a formal, documented continual improvement plan?
• Does it include manufacturing process effectiveness (not just quality KPIs)?
• Is it reviewed at management review?
• Evidence: CI plan document, last review, evidence of CI activities

Product audit — §9.2.2.3

A product audit verifies that finished products meet all requirements before shipment. It is one of the three mandatory IATF audit streams.

Focus areas for product audit:

• Product conformity to drawing and specification (dimensional, functional, visual)
• Packaging and labelling compliance (OEM label format, part number, revision, quantity)
• Traceability and release status (is the product formally released and traceable to its records?)
• Audit frequency based on risk, customer issues, and product criticality

Evidence required: product audit reports, measurement records, packaging inspection records, release documentation.

Manufacturing process audit — turtle diagram approach

A manufacturing process audit (required annually for each process) uses a turtle diagram to assess:

For each element: is it adequate? Is it controlled? Is there objective evidence?

Each turtle element should be verified by direct observation, interview, and record review — not by document review alone.

A process audit must result in a process audit score (VDA 6.3 uses a percentage score by process element P1-P7). Low scores must trigger corrective action, management review input, and re-audit planning.

Common IATF audit failures

1. CSR register not updated when customer publishes new CSR revision
2. No manufacturing process audits — only clause-based audits in the programme
3. Contingency plans exist but were never tested
4. Temporary deviations without expiry dates or expired deviations not closed
5. SC not consistently marked across drawing, PFMEA, control plan, and work instruction
6. Error-proofing not tested at every start of production (frequency not defined or records not kept)
7. Problem-solving procedure exists but CARs in practice skip root cause or VOE

Output Format

At the start of each use, ask the user:

"How would you like to receive the output? A — Structured Markdown (formatted tables and sections, ready to copy) B — Plain tables (simplified structure for Excel or Word) C — Narrative report (flowing text for a formal document or email)

Default: A."

Adapt all output sections to the chosen format. If the platform or session context already defines a format preference, skip this question.

Reference files

• IATF supplemental requirements checklist

Changelog