# IATF 16949 Gap Assessment Tool > Source: https://netray.co/tools/iatf-16949-gap-assessment-tool > Publisher: Netray (netray.co), AI and integration engineering for ERP and manufacturing systems. > Section: Free Tools ## Short answer A ten-question self-assessment that scores how ready a tier 1 or tier 2 supplier is for IATF 16949 certification or a surveillance audit. ## Category quality ## Industry Automotive ## Audience - Quality manager - Quality engineer - Plant manager ## Tool **Kind:** assessment **Questions:** #### How mature is your APQP and PPAP process for new launches? **Help:** Think about the last three program launches. **Options:** ##### Ad hoc, deliverables vary by program **Score:** 0 ##### A procedure exists but is not consistently followed **Score:** 1 ##### Followed on most launches with timing plans and gate reviews **Score:** 2 ##### Followed on every launch, PPAP approved on time, gate data reviewed by management **Score:** 3 #### How are FMEAs, control plans and process flows kept linked? **Options:** ##### Maintained separately, often out of date **Score:** 0 ##### Linked at launch, rarely updated after **Score:** 1 ##### Updated after major changes and customer complaints **Score:** 2 ##### Single linked set, updated on every change and every escape **Score:** 3 #### How do you control measurement systems (MSA) and calibration? **Options:** ##### Calibration only, no MSA studies **Score:** 0 ##### MSA done for PPAP only **Score:** 1 ##### MSA done for all control plan gauges, reviewed periodically **Score:** 2 ##### MSA, calibration and gauge R and R are scheduled and tracked in a system **Score:** 3 #### How do you evaluate process capability and SPC on special characteristics? **Options:** ##### Not measured routinely **Score:** 0 ##### Capability studied at PPAP only **Score:** 1 ##### Ongoing SPC on most special characteristics **Score:** 2 ##### Ongoing SPC on all special characteristics with reaction plans that are used **Score:** 3 #### How effective is your problem solving and corrective action (8D, 5-Why)? **Options:** ##### Fixes are made but root cause is rarely proven **Score:** 0 ##### 8D reports are written, recurrence is common **Score:** 1 ##### Root cause verified, systemic actions sometimes missed **Score:** 2 ##### Verified root cause, escape point analysis, systemic and lessons-learned deployment **Score:** 3 #### How do you run internal audits (system, process and product)? **Options:** ##### Annual system audit only **Score:** 0 ##### System audit plus occasional process audits **Score:** 1 ##### Full three-type audit plan with qualified auditors **Score:** 2 ##### Risk-based plan, qualified auditors, layered audits on key processes, findings trend reviewed **Score:** 3 #### How do you manage supplier development and sub-tier control? **Options:** ##### Approved vendor list only **Score:** 0 ##### Supplier scorecards without follow-up **Score:** 1 ##### Scorecards, QMS audits of key suppliers, flow-down of customer requirements **Score:** 2 ##### Risk-ranked supplier program with audits, development plans and PPAP of sub-tier parts **Score:** 3 #### How do you handle customer-specific requirements (CSR)? **Options:** ##### Not formally tracked **Score:** 0 ##### Known by the quality team only **Score:** 1 ##### Matrix of CSR by customer mapped to procedures **Score:** 2 ##### Matrix reviewed on each customer revision and audited internally **Score:** 3 #### How are contingency plans, TPM and product safety handled? **Options:** ##### No documented contingency or product safety process **Score:** 0 ##### Documents exist but have never been tested **Score:** 1 ##### Contingency plans tested, product safety responsibilities defined **Score:** 2 ##### Tested contingency plans, TPM program with metrics, product safety governance reviewed by top management **Score:** 3 #### How do you use management review and quality objectives? **Options:** ##### Management review once a year to satisfy the clause **Score:** 0 ##### Objectives exist, rarely linked to action **Score:** 1 ##### Regular review of customer scorecards, cost of poor quality and audit results **Score:** 2 ##### Objectives cascade to processes, reviewed monthly with resourced actions **Score:** 3 **Bands:** #### Significant gaps **Min:** 0 **Max:** 39 **Verdict:** Core system elements are missing or not being followed. A certification or surveillance audit would likely produce major nonconformities. **Recommendations:** - Start with a documented APQP, control plan and corrective action process before anything else. - Build a customer-specific requirements matrix for every OEM you ship to. - Train internal auditors and run a full system audit to create the real gap list. #### Partial implementation **Min:** 40 **Max:** 64 **Verdict:** The structure exists but execution is inconsistent. Expect findings in linkage of FMEA to control plan, MSA, and problem solving. **Recommendations:** - Close the FMEA, control plan and process flow linkage on your top five part families. - Add MSA and SPC coverage for every special characteristic. - Move from annual audits to a three-type audit plan. #### Largely ready **Min:** 65 **Max:** 84 **Verdict:** The system works in most areas. Remaining gaps are usually in sub-tier control, contingency testing and effectiveness of corrective actions. **Recommendations:** - Run a mock audit by someone outside the site to test effectiveness, not just documents. - Test contingency plans and record the results. - Review recurrence of customer complaints to prove corrective action effectiveness. #### Audit ready **Min:** 85 **Max:** 100 **Verdict:** Your answers describe a mature system. Keep evidence current and watch for drift between audits. **Recommendations:** - Add layered process audits on the processes that generate your complaints. - Trend internal audit findings by clause to spot recurring weak points. - Check every customer scorecard before the next surveillance audit. ## Content **Intro:** This is a quick self-score of your quality system against the main expectations of IATF 16949. It is meant for a quality manager preparing for certification, a surveillance audit, or a customer second-party audit. It does not replace a certification body audit. **Sections:** #### How to use the assessment **Body:** Answer each of the ten questions for the site as it actually runs, not as the procedure says it should. Use the last three launches, the last three complaints and the last internal audit as evidence. When two answers feel close, pick the lower one: auditors sample, and the weakest example is the one they find. Export the result to PDF or Excel and attach it to your audit preparation file. #### What the questions cover **Body:** The questions follow the themes that drive most automotive audit findings: APQP and PPAP, the linkage between process flow, PFMEA and control plan, measurement system analysis, statistical process control, structured problem solving, internal audit quality, sub-tier control, customer-specific requirements, contingency and product safety, and management review. They map to the process-based approach IATF 16949 asks for on top of ISO 9001. **Bullets:** - Product realization: APQP, PPAP, FMEA, control plan - Measurement and monitoring: MSA, SPC, calibration - Improvement: 8D, corrective action effectiveness - System: audits, CSR, supplier control, management review #### Reading your score and avoiding common mistakes **Body:** The score is the share of the maximum points. A result in the middle band usually means the system exists on paper but is applied unevenly. The most common mistakes are answering for the best program instead of the average one, counting a document as implementation, and ignoring customer-specific requirements, which can add obligations beyond the standard. Treat the recommendations as a first-ninety-days plan and repeat the assessment after each internal audit cycle. **Cta:** If your quality data lives in ERP and spreadsheets, Netray can build private reporting that pulls complaints, scrap and audit actions together before an audit. This tool works fully without us. **Faq:** #### Is this a substitute for a certification audit? **Answer:** No. It is a self-assessment to find obvious gaps early. Certification is granted only by an IATF recognized certification body after an audit of your site, and customer-specific requirements are assessed there as well. #### Does it cover every clause of IATF 16949? **Answer:** No. It samples ten areas that account for most audit findings in tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers. Use it as a screening tool, then run a clause-by-clause internal audit using your own checklist for the full standard. #### How often should I repeat it? **Answer:** Repeat it before each surveillance audit and after any major change such as a new customer, a new site or an ERP change. Comparing scores over time shows whether corrective actions are actually improving the system. #### Can a tier 2 supplier use it? **Answer:** Yes. Many tier 2 suppliers are not certified but are required by their tier 1 customers to meet IATF-based expectations. The same ten themes apply, and customer second-party audits often use similar questions. ## Search terms IATF 16949 gap assessment, IATF 16949 readiness assessment, IATF 16949 gap analysis template, IATF 16949 self assessment, automotive quality system gap analysis, IATF 16949 certification readiness, IATF 16949 audit preparation --- Talk to an engineer: https://netray.co/contact?intent=erp_ai | Machine catalog: https://netray.co/agent/catalog.json