TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive ProductionvsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements

See exactly how IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls map to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

13
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
60%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production maps to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements with 60% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 10 IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls identifies 4 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in IATF 16949 Clause 8 - Nonconforming + PPAP.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 10 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 13 of 13 mapped controls across 6 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

IATF 16949 Clause 10 - Improvement(4 mappings)

IATF16949-Clause10-Improvement-Nonconformity-CorrectiveAction-Problem-ErrorProofIATF 16949 Clause 10 - Improvement + Nonconformity + Corrective Action + Problem Solving + Error Proofing + Continual Improvement4 targets
→3.1Physical Security
→3.3Configure Data Access Control Lists
→FEDRAMP-CM-6Configuration Settings
→FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup

IATF 16949 Clause 4 - Context of Organization(1 mappings)

IATF16949-Clause4-Context-Scope-CustomerSpecific-ProductSafetyIATF 16949 Clause 4 - Context of Organization + QMS Scope + Customer Specific Requirements + Product Safety
→3.1Physical Security

IATF 16949 Clause 6 - Planning(1 mappings)

IATF16949-Clause6-Planning-Risk-Contingency-Objectives-ChangeIATF 16949 Clause 6 - Planning + Risks and Opportunities + Contingency Plans + Quality Objectives + Change
→3.11Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest

IATF 16949 Clause 8 - Operation (APQP + Design + Production)(1 mappings)

IATF16949-Clause8-Operation-APQP-Design-Production-ControlPlan-SpecialCharsIATF 16949 Clause 8 - Operation Planning + APQP + Design + Special Characteristics + Production + Control Plan + Set-Up Verification
→3.11Encrypt Sensitive Data at Rest

IATF 16949 Clause 8 - Supplier(3 mappings)

IATF16949-Clause8-Supplier-QMS-Development-Externally-ProvidedIATF 16949 Clause 8 Supplier - Control of Externally Provided Processes + Type and Extent + Supplier QMS Development3 targets
→3.16System and Services Acquisition
→3.17Supply Chain Risk Management
→3.5Securely Dispose of Data

IATF 16949 Clause 9 - Performance Evaluation(3 mappings)

IATF16949-Clause9-Performance-Monitoring-InternalAudit-ManagementReviewIATF 16949 Clause 9 - Performance Evaluation + Monitoring + Internal Audit + Manufacturing Process Audit + Management Review3 targets
→3.3Configure Data Access Control Lists
→FEDRAMP-CM-6Configuration Settings
→FEDRAMP-CP-9System Backup

Related Comparisons

Other IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production comparisons

IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs USMCA Chapter 19 - Digital Trade (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement)6 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs AS9100D - Aerospace Quality Management System5 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs ISO/IEC 27003:20175 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs ISO/IEC 27014:20205 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG)5 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs Annex 11 to EU GMP - Computerised Systems5 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs IAEA Nuclear Security Series - Computer Security at Nuclear Facilities (NSS-17-T Rev 1)5 mappingsIATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production vs French Sapin II Law (Law No. 2016-1691)5 mappings

Other NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements comparisons

NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements20 mappingsNIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements18 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements17 mappingsNIST Privacy Framework vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements16 mappingsNIST SP 800-146 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-145 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsNIST SP 800-144 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappingsISMAP (Japan) vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements15 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production has 10 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements covers 35 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (60% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in IATF 16949 Clause 8 - Nonconforming + PPAP, where 1 IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls have no direct NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements equivalent.

How many controls map between IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

Of 10 total IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls, 6 map directly to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements controls — representing 60% coverage. The remaining 4 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production to NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

4 IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements. The highest concentration of gaps is in IATF 16949 Clause 8 - Nonconforming + PPAP with 1 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between IATF 16949:2016 - Quality Management System for Automotive Production and NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements?

The domain with the highest gap count is IATF 16949 Clause 8 - Nonconforming + PPAP (1 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.