IATF16949 Practical Application (19) | Identification of COP/SP/MP Processes: Process List, Clause Coverage Matrix, and Turtle Diagram Step-by-Step Evaluation

On the second day of an initial IATF certification audit for a company, the auditor requested to review warranty analysis records. The quality manager presented the customer complaint ledger and 8D reports, explaining that warranty issues are handled according to the complaint process. The auditor then asked two follow-up questions: How many returned parts were disassembled and analyzed in the past twelve months? After comparing the identified failure modes with the PFMEA, which PFMEA has been updated? No one on-site could answer these questions. The auditor did not issue a nonconformity for "warranty management" but a more serious one under 4.4.1: The organization has not determined the processes required for the quality management system (QMS) and their application. The exact wording in the report was: Warranty is listed as a sub-activity of customer service in the manual, but there is no independent process owner, process performance indicators, or process description, indicating that the process has not been determined.

The root cause of such issues is not the familiarity of individuals with the standards, but the way the process list is constructed: The list should not merely rename departments as "certain processes," but rather be a comprehensive allocation of all clauses. Clauses are the auditor's checklist, and processes are the actual operational units of the company. There must be a matrix that aligns these two; otherwise, there will inevitably be a gap where "clauses are recognized but processes are neglected." This article provides three deliverables that can be directly used: a baseline process list from the IATF perspective, a method for constructing and self-checking the clause coverage matrix, and a set of criteria for evaluating each cell of the turtle diagram (including a 20-point acceptance form).

1. Answering "What Processes Should Exist": The Baseline Process List for IATF

1.1 Criteria for Identifying the Three Types of Processes

COP (customer-oriented processes), SP (support processes), and MP (management processes) are often categorized by feel in many companies, leading to the same type of process being classified differently in various departmental lists. Using three questions for identification is more reliable than relying on experience:

If all three questions are answered "yes," it is a COP; if all are "no" but the process provides resources, methods, personnel, or data to other processes, it is an SP; if the output is "planning, monitoring, evaluation, and improvement of the system itself," it is an MP. Processes that belong to the "internal product realization chain" but are not directly delivered to external parties (such as incoming inspection, in-process inspection, and packaging) should be treated as SPs and marked in the COP turtle diagram interfaces, making it clearer than forcing them into COPs.

Two common misjudgments need to be corrected:

1. Categorizing "customer complaint handling" as an SP because it is handled by the quality department—it directly responds to customers, and its output is the customer's response and corrective actions, making it a COP.
2. Categorizing "incoming inspection" as a COP because it inspects products—its output is qualified materials and inspection conclusions for the production process, not delivered to customers, making it an SP.

1.2 Additional Essential Processes Required by IATF Compared to ISO 9001

The additional requirements of IATF are not just "a few more paragraphs of text," but several processes that must operate independently, have owners, and have metrics. The table below lists the minimum requirements for the process list; missing any one will leave a gap in the evidence for the corresponding clause:

A simple method for creating this table is to list all the additional IATF clauses and ask, "Which process executes this requirement, and who can prove it?" If the answer is "a part of a larger process," check if the larger process's turtle diagram includes the corresponding activities, resources, and metrics. If none of these are present, the process must be separated into an independent one.

1.3 What Can Be Trimmed and What Cannot

IATF 16949 does not have the concept of "reduction clauses" as in ISO 9001. The only exception allowed is for product design responsibility (8.3), which can be borne by the customer and must be documented and confirmed in writing by the customer. The criteria for other scenarios are as follows:

2. Eight Fields of the Process List and an Example Table

A process list with only names is not a list. The eight fields are the minimum requirements for a list that can be audited and used:

An example of a 12-row list (excerpt, actual list should be expanded according to the number of processes in the company):

2.1 Three Hard Criteria for Process Owners

If any of the following criteria are not met, it indicates that the process division has crossed authority boundaries, and either the process needs to be further detailed or the owner needs to be elevated:

1. Resource scheduling authority: The ability to allocate people, machines, and budgets for the process, not just to request them.
2. Performance evaluation linkage: The process's key indicators are included in the owner's performance evaluation metrics, with a weight of at least 10%.
3. End-to-end responsibility: Responsibility for the overall performance from input to output, not just a segment.

A common pseudo-owner is the "system engineer." A system engineer can lead the compilation, question, and summarize, but if all COP owners are listed as system engineers, there will be no one with the authority to make cross-departmental decisions when disputes arise, and the process will degrade into a document.

3. Clause Coverage Matrix: Identifying "Unclaimed Clauses"

The matrix is the only tool for aligning the process list with the standard clauses and is also a generator for internal audit plans. The construction involves five steps:

Step 1: Define the vertical axis. List all the final clauses from ISO 9001 Chapters 4-10, and then add the IATF additional clauses, typically 70-90 rows. Do not list only secondary clauses (e.g., only 8.5), as this will miss specific clauses like 8.5.1.1, 8.5.1.5, 8.5.2.1, 8.5.4.1, and 8.5.6.1, which are often the focus of nonconformities.

Step 2: Define the horizontal axis. Use the process list from the previous section, typically 20-30 columns.

Step 3: Fill in M/S. At the intersection, fill in M (main responsibility: the process executes and records the clause's requirements) or S (support: the process participates but does not bear main responsibility). Leave blank if irrelevant.

Step 4: Run three self-checks.

• Each row must have at least one M—rows without an M are "unclaimed" gaps.
• The M for each IATF additional clause must have a corresponding activity in the process's turtle diagram; if not, the matrix looks good but is not implemented.
• Each column must have at least one M—columns with only S should be evaluated to determine if they need to exist independently or can be merged into upstream processes as a set of activities.

Step 5: Resolve conflicts. If a row has two M entries, either clearly define "main responsibility + support" and document it in the procedure, or split the clause into two processes. Two M entries without distinction mean no one is responsible.

The following are the most easily overlooked blank clauses during reviews, which should be prioritized:

After the matrix is constructed, it has three secondary uses, which are more valuable than the self-check:

• Generate internal audit plans: Schedule audits by process, review the M clauses for each process, and avoid "department-based audits with repeated clause reviews."
• Simplify documents: When multiple processes share a procedure, the matrix proves the completeness of coverage; conversely, if an M is scattered across five documents, it indicates a need for consolidation.
• Respond to questions: When an auditor asks, "Who is responsible for this clause?" being able to quickly refer to the matrix row and point out the process, owner, and evidence location is more effective than explaining on the spot.

4. Turtle Diagram: Each Cell Requires Evaluation Criteria

4.1 Filling Requirements for the Nine Cells

The main body of the turtle diagram consists of six cells (input, output, what is used, who does it, how it is done, performance indicators), and the four corners are the process owner, process customer, interface processes, and risks and opportunities. The evaluation criteria for each cell are as follows:

4.2 Filling Order and Time

A turtle diagram for a process is primarily filled by the process owner, with system engineers providing feedback. It can be filled to a usable level in 1.5-2 hours (not just to look good). The order is to start with the output and then the input: Begin with "who receives the output of this process and what criteria are used to judge its qualification," then trace back to the input and judgment criteria, and finally fill in the resources and methods. Starting with resources often leads to the entire diagram becoming a departmental self-introduction.

After filling each cell, ask three questions:

1. Where is the evidence for this cell? If the record or document number cannot be provided, it means the process is not implemented.
2. Do the people executing the process on-site know about this cell? Randomly ask an operator "where your input comes from and who to hand over nonconforming items to." If they cannot answer, it means the diagram is for the auditor.
3. If this cell changes, who will update it and how soon? A turtle diagram that no one is responsible for maintaining will become disconnected from the on-site process after a year.

4.3 Five Typical "Waste Diagrams"

4.4 20-Point Acceptance Form

Ten items, each worth 2 points, used to score the turtle diagram during reviews. A score of 16 or above passes, 12-15 requires revision within a deadline, and below 12 requires redrawing:

Item 10 is the easiest to overlook but is the best way to distinguish a "real diagram" from a "decorative diagram": If the diagram passes the first nine items but two out of three on-site personnel cannot clearly state who their process output is handed over to, the diagram should be marked as failing.

5. Indicators for Each Cell: Different Metrics for Different Process Types

Poorly filled indicator cells can degrade the entire process method into a document exercise. The nature of indicators for the three types of processes is different and cannot be substituted for each other:

Three key disciplines for metrics are more important than the metrics themselves:

1. Clearly define the numerator and denominator, and distinguish between same-named but different-meaning metrics. "Delivery rate" can have at least two definitions: delivery on the commitment date and delivery on the customer's required date. Mixing these can lead to a situation where the quality department reports 99% and the customer scorecard records 85%. Including the definition in the metric name saves time for explanations.
2. Lagging indicators must be paired with leading indicators. PPM, IPTV, and warranty costs are results; problems are already present when they occur. Pair COP production with "control plan compliance rate" and "poka-yoke verification on schedule," and SP equipment with "preventive maintenance on schedule" to detect signs before results deteriorate.
3. Set targets based on evidence. Filling all targets as 100% is equivalent to having no target and is not credible. Targets should be based on three sources: the company's historical baseline (actual values over the past 12 months), customer requirements (scorecard thresholds or contract agreements), and internal benchmarks for similar processes. After setting the targets, the management review should identify the gaps and reasons between the targets and actual values.

IATF 9.1.3.1 requires not just "having indicators," but also "prioritization and trend analysis": indicators should be ranked based on their impact on customers and safety, and key indicators should be analyzed for trends (three consecutive months of directional changes trigger analysis) rather than just checking if a single number meets the standard each month.

6. Putting the List to Use: Three Linkages

Linkage 1: Internal audit plans generated from the matrix. Internal audit plans should be scheduled by process, not department, and each process should be audited for its M clauses, covering all shifts and processes within a certification cycle. COPs can use process audit methods (VDA6.3 P2-P7 questions and scoring), while MP/SPs use system audit methods. Product audits should be conducted separately by product family. The division of labor for the three types of audits should be clearly stated in the annual plan to avoid the same process being audited multiple times and another process never being audited.

Linkage 2: Annual process review meetings. Each process gets 20 minutes, with four fixed inputs: indicator trends, internal and second-party audit findings, changes during the period, and customer complaints and returns. The outputs are three: revision of the turtle diagram, adjustment of indicators, and initiation of improvement projects. The meeting minutes themselves are a valid input for 9.3 management review, more solid than piecing together materials on the spot.

Linkage 3: Triggers for updating the turtle diagram. Clearly define six trigger scenarios and response times: organizational or responsibility changes, process or equipment changes, new customer special requirements, major nonconformities or customer complaints, new product introduction, and key indicators failing to meet targets for three consecutive months—each should be revised within 30 days and version records retained. A turtle diagram without a trigger mechanism will become a "historical document" the following year.

7. Key Points for Implementation and Common Errors

Key Points for Implementation

1. Start with the clause list before the process list: Spread out 70-90 final clauses and ask, "Who executes and who proves it?" Processes will naturally emerge, more reliable than copying lists from peers.
2. Use the three questions to determine COP/SP/MP and document the conclusions in the list notes to avoid re-debating during transitions.
3. Process owners must meet the three hard criteria, especially "performance evaluation linkage." Owners without this linkage are nominal.
4. Run three self-checks on the matrix: each row has an M, each additional clause's M has a corresponding activity, and each column has an M. Passing all three means alignment.
5. Fill the turtle diagram in the order of "output first, then input," and ask "where is the evidence, do on-site personnel know, who is responsible for updates" for each cell.
6. Complete the four elements for each indicator (formula, data source, frequency, target) and pair each lagging indicator with a leading indicator.
7. Use a 20-point scoring form for acceptance, with "on-site personnel can repeat" as a hard threshold to prevent decorative diagrams.
8. Set the same version number for the process list, matrix, and turtle diagram, and review and change them together to avoid different interpretations.

Common Errors

• The process list is full of department names, leading to no one responsible for cross-departmental interfaces, and issues being pushed back and forth between departments.
• All IATF additional requirements are crammed into a few large processes, making it impossible to find corresponding activities in the turtle diagram, and relying on verbal explanations during audits.
• The clause matrix only lists secondary clauses, and key additional clauses like 8.5.1.1, 8.5.6.1, and 9.3.2.1 are entirely absent.
• A row has two M entries without distinguishing main and support responsibilities, effectively meaning no one is responsible.
• Inputs and outputs in the turtle diagram are written as "customer demand" and "qualified product" without carriers and acceptance criteria, making it impossible to judge.
• All indicators are set to 100%, or only PPM is used to represent the effectiveness of all processes.
• The turtle diagram is archived after completion and not updated after process or organizational changes, becoming completely disconnected from the on-site process after a year.
• Internal audits are still scheduled by department, with the same process being repeatedly audited and another process never audited, making it impossible to prove coverage of all processes and shifts.

The difficulty in the process approach has never been understanding "a process is a set of activities that convert inputs into outputs," but transforming this statement into a list that aligns with clauses, assigns owners, can be repeated on-site, and can be verified by metrics. Completing the list, matrix, and turtle diagram ensures that 4.4.1 is no longer an abstract requirement but a table that auditors can easily verify.

Clauses must be claimed, and processes must be managed.

Knowledge code: 15.1.1

Version: v20261009

Author: QTank QTank is dedicated to providing systematic professional knowledge, methodologies, and practical tools for quality management practitioners, helping companies continuously improve their quality capabilities.