IATF has published their year-end statistics for top 10 major and minor nonconformities raised during CB audits from December 2021 to December 2022. We’re taking a look back at the year-end statistics from 2021 to see how things have changed over the last 12 months.
The top 10 major nonconformities from 2021 compared to 2022 are as follows:
| 2021 Top 10 Major Nonconformities | 2022 Top 10 Major Nonconformities | |
| 1 | 10.2.3 Problem-solving | 10.2.3 Problem-solving |
| 2 | 10.2.1 Nonconformity and corrective action | 10.2.1 Nonconformity and corrective action |
| 3 | 8.3.5.2 Manufacturing process design output | 8.3.5.2 Manufacturing process design output |
| 4 | 8.5.1.1. Control plan | 6.1.2.3 Contingency plans |
| 5 | 7.1.5.1.1 Measurement system analysis | 7.1.5.1.1 Measurement system analysis |
| 6 | 8.5.1 Control of production and service provision | 8.5.1.1. Control plan |
| 7 | 9.1.1.1 Monitoring and measurement of manufacturing processes | 4.3.2 Customer-specific requirements |
| 8 | 4.3.2 Customer specific requirements | 8.5.1 Control of production and service provision |
| 9 | 9.1.2.1 Customer satisfaction – supplemental | 9.1.1.1 Monitoring and measurement of manufacturing processes |
| 10 | 6.1.2.3 Contingency plans | 8.5.1.5 Total productive maintenance |
We can see that not much has changed regarding major nonconformities. The top 3 spots remained exactly the same, as did MSA coming in at number 5 both years. Control plan moved down a couple of spots to make room for contingency plans moving much higher on the list – topping out the top 10 in 2021 but moving up to number 4 in 2022. Customer-specific requirements moved from the number 8 spot to number 7 and Total productive maintenance was added to the list, edging out the supplemental Customer satisfaction requirements from 9.1.2.1 that were in the number 9 spot last year.
What does it say for the industry that we’ve seen 9 of the top 10 major nonconformities remain on the list and relatively unchanged in position year-over-year? Why do we struggle so much to implement robust problem-solving techniques and corrective actions? Has the return from Covid and the ongoing supply chain disruption revealed an industry-wide inability to properly plan and implement contingency plans? We believe that it is important to regularly review and compare the published statistics for IATF findings to truly understand where the industry weaknesses are and where we need to focus to ensure that we’re implementing more robust quality management systems.
To that end, we’ll now take a look at the comparison of the minor nonconformities cited for 2021 compared to the past rolling 12 months.
| 2021 Top 10 Minor Nonconformities | 2022 Top 10 Minor Nonconformities | |
| 1 | 8.5.1.1 Control Plan | 6.1.2.3 Contingency Plans |
| 2 | 8.3.5.2 Manufacturing Process Design Output | 8.5.1.1 Control Plan |
| 3 | 8.5.1.5 Total Productive Maintenance | 8.3.5.2 Manufacturing Process Design Output |
| 4 | 6.1.2.3 Contingency Plans | 8.5.1.5 Total Productive Maintenance |
| 5 | 10.2.3 Problem-Solving | 10.2.4 Error-Proofing |
| 6 | 7.1.5.1.1 Measurement System Analysis | 8.3.3.3 Special Characteristics |
| 7 | 8.3.3.3 Special Characteristics | 7.1.5.1.1 Measurement System Analysis |
| 8 | 8.5.1.3 Verification of Job-Setups | 8.5.1.2 Standardized Work – Operator Instructions and Visual Standards |
| 9 | 8.5.1.2 Standardized Work – Operator Instructions and Visual Standards | 8.5.1.3 Verification of Job-Setups |
| 10 | 8.5.1 Control of Production and Service Provision | 8.5.1 Control of Production and Service Provision |
Looking at the minor nonconformities year-over-year is equally disheartening. Again, we see that there are 9 of the 10 items in the list both years, with the only major change being that problem-solving was replaced by error-proofing. While it’s obviously great to see problem-solving not show up in the list, any positive notion is destroyed when considering that a) problem-solving is still number 1 in major nonconformities, and b) it was replaced by error-proofing, something that might arguably have greater negative impact for customers and end users.
Again, as a whole, these lists, especially when compared year-over-year, provide valuable insight into where problem areas are in IATF quality management systems, and which requirements seem most difficult to implement and/or control. For those of us who support in the implementation of these systems, it’s especially important to be aware of these problem areas so that more robust systems and controls can be implemented to improve these repeat offenders.