In the automotive industry, meeting quality requirements doesn’t just mean meeting a standard or producing components within specifications.

Vehicle manufacturers and other customers in the automotive chain can establish additional requirements that need to be considered by the supplier in their management, development, product approval, manufacturing and quality control processes.

These requirements can influence how the organization applies its methodologies, maintains records, demonstrates compliance, and communicates certain situations to the customer.

It is in this context that the management of CSR – Customer-Specific Requirements takes on great importance.

The challenge is not only to know the requirements, but to ensure that they are identified, analyzed, implemented, communicated to the areas involved and kept up to date throughout the relationship with the customer.

When this management does not occur in a structured way, the organization can execute technically controlled processes and, even so, fail to meet a specific requirement applicable to a particular customer.

Customer-Specific Requirements are specific requirements established by customers in the automotive chain that complement or establish particularities for the application of quality management system requirements, especially in the context of IATF 16949.

These requirements may define additional conditions related to the application of methodologies, responsibilities, approvals, records, audits, indicators, and other aspects of quality management.

It is important to distinguish the CSRs associated with the quality management system from other customer requirements, such as drawings, engineering specifications, logistics requirements and commercial conditions.

While all applicable requirements need to be considered by the organization, not all of them formally fall under CSR related to IATF 16949.

Identifying this difference helps define how each requirement should be analyzed, implemented, and monitored.

IATF 16949 establishes requirements for quality management systems applicable to the automotive industry, in conjunction with ISO 9001.

CSRs complement this structure by considering the specific requirements set by the customers applicable to the organization.

This means that meeting IATF 16949 does not eliminate the need to verify which specific customer requirements must be met.

An organization may supply components to different customers and need to consider different requirements for certain processes, documents, or activities.

Vehicle manufacturers that establish CSRs include Ford, General Motors, Renault, Stellantis, Volkswagen and BMW, among others.

However, the documents, their revisions and application conditions may vary.

Therefore, the organization must identify the requirements effectively applicable to its supply relationship, considering the documents in force and the other conditions established by the customer.

After identification, each requirement must be technically analyzed.

Not all requirements in a document will necessarily have the same application across all organizations, products, or processes.

The analysis must consider the activity carried out, the supplier’s position in the supply chain, the contracted scope and the conditions established by the customer.

The team needs to understand what the requirement dictates, where it applies, and what evidence will be needed to demonstrate compliance.

This evaluation may involve professionals from Quality, Engineering, Processes, Production, Logistics, Commercial and other related areas.

After defining the applicability, it is necessary to identify which processes or documents of the organization are impacted.

A requirement related to product approval, for example, may affect APQP activities, the preparation of PPAP documentation, and those responsible for customer submissions.

A requirement on manufacturing controls may require evaluation of the PFMEA, the Control Plan, the Reaction Plans, or the Work Instructions.

The important thing is that the requirement ceases to exist only in an external document and becomes related to the internal processes responsible for meeting it.

The organization shall establish who is responsible for implementing and maintaining each applicable requirement.

It also needs to identify the evidence necessary to demonstrate compliance.

Depending on the requirement, this evidence may involve:

• procedures and instructions;
• review and approval records;
• product and process development documents;
• study results and evaluations;
• production and quality records;
• evidence of customer communication;
• audit results;
• history of revisions and changes.

The existence of a document, by itself, does not necessarily prove that the requirement is being met.

It is necessary to verify its effective application.

Customer-specific requirements can be updated over time.

When a new revision is made available, the organization must evaluate what has changed and whether the change impacts its processes.

This analysis needs to identify which documents, controls, responsibilities, or records should be reviewed.

It is also important to keep track of changes and of decisions related to applicability.

Revision control, therefore, should not be limited to the customer’s document. It should reach the internal processes impacted by the change.

Core Tools are used in an integrated way in the development, approval and control of automotive products and processes.

Customer-specific requirements may establish additional conditions for their application.

Therefore, CSR management must consider the relationships between the applicable requirements and the tools used by the organization.

MSA allows you to assess the adequacy of the systems used to obtain reliable data.

Where there are specific criteria established by the customer, they need to be considered in the planning and evaluation of the applicable studies.

The applicable requirements may influence monitoring, evaluation and reaction criteria related to the statistical behavior of the process.

It is necessary to ensure that the methods used are aligned with the relevant requirements.

PPAP gathers evidence that the applicable engineering requirements and specifications have been understood and that the process is able to produce according to the established requirements.

Customers can define specific conditions related to elements, submission levels, presentation methods, and approvals.

Therefore, the organization needs to check the applicable requirements before preparing and submitting documentation.

Core Tools should not be treated as stand-alone activities. Changes in customer requirements may impact different tools and related documents.

Consider an automotive supplier that manufactures metal components used in vehicle assemblies.

While analyzing a new revision of a given customer’s applicable requirements, the team identifies a change in the approval criteria for process-related documentation.

The change requires reviewing previously defined documents and responsibilities.

The organization then needs to:

1. Identify the changed requirement and its effective date.
2. Verify applicability to the products and processes supplied.
3. Identify the impacted documents and activities.
4. Define those responsible for the adjustments.
5. Update internal documents when necessary.
6. Perform the required approvals.
7. Record the implementation evidence.
8. Verify that the processes now meet the new condition.

If the change involves the PFMEA and the Control Plan, for example, it is not enough to update a requirements record.

It is necessary to evaluate the applicable revisions, approvals, relationships with Work Instructions and the controls actually used in production.

This example illustrates the importance of maintaining traceability between customer requirements, applicability analysis, impacted documents, actions, and evidence of compliance.

Failure to meet an applicable requirement may lead to a non-conformity, even when the product meets its dimensional or functional specifications.

This is because compliance also involves meeting the requirements pertinent to the management system, the processes, and the supply relationship.

When a non-conformity is identified, the organization must assess its extent, potential impacts, and the need for action.

Depending on the situation, a structured investigation through Global 8D may be required, especially when the customer requires it or an in-depth analysis is needed.

The investigation may reveal, for example:

• a requirement that was not identified;
• a revision not incorporated into the internal procedure;
• communication failures between areas;
• no defined responsibility;
• deficiencies in verifying compliance;
• insufficient evidence of implementation.

Corrective actions must consider not only the occurrence, but the causes that allowed the requirement not to be met.

Where applicable, learnings should be incorporated into related processes and documents.