What is the status of the Semiconductor Supplement to TS 16949. Is it an auditable document? May customers require registration to this document as a specific requirement? Can I get a 3rd party registration to this document? Any information on the future of this document in addition to its current status?

Thank you, Dirk van Putten

Dirk,

The last I heard was the Semiconductor Supplement is obsolete. See http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8789

If anyone knows anything different, please let us know!

That was my understanding as well Marc, however Dirk's customer can always require compliance to it anyway which would make it a customer specific requirement under 16949 and therefore auditable. The customer cannot require registration to it if it's obsolete but there should be no reason why he can't incorporate it into his own requirements (copyright aside).

I would check first with the customer to see if it really is still a requirement and if so, ask your registrar if he can include compliance to it in your scope. I for one, would be interested in his comments.

Dave

Good point, Dave, Thanks for the reply!

Hello All:

Here is the background to my question. The Semiconductor Assembly Council played a role in the Semiconductor Supplement. I called the SAC and they thought that maybe the Semiconductor Supplement was never approved as standard. They suggested I call Tripp Martin at the International Automotive Oversight Bureau. The IAOB is the US Certification Body of the International Automotive Task Force (IATF). Tripp said that Chrysler had remove the supplement as a customer specific requirement due to an organizational / supply chain reorganization. Tripp beleived that the supplement was an approved standard and had not been obsoleted. Our registrar told us that the supplement is an obsolete document and they could not perform a 3rd party audit to it.

This is why I asked the question. The SAC, IAOB, and our registrar all have different opinions on the Semiconductor Supplement to TS 16949.

Regards, Dirk

Dirk, I did some search on this and found that at the AIAG website they have an announcement (could not find a date, though) here (http://www.aiag.org/forms/SQRT_TESemicond10_02.pdf). It states that a Guidance document was being developed and to be used IN CONJUCTION with TS-16949.

Then I went to some of the customer Specific Requirements page available at the IAOB website and found that Ford states (http://www.iaob.org/forms/FordspecTS2nd.pdf)


Semi-Conductor suppliers may register to ISO/TS 16949:2002, providing they meet the scope requirements. They may also be eligible to register to QS-9000 Semi-Conductor Supplement. See the SQRTF (Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force) letter on QS-9000 supplements at https://web2.qpr.ford.com/sta/. The QS-9000 supplements are available through AIAG: http://www.aiag.org/.
I could swear I had seen a TS-16949 Semiconductor Supplement and an announcement in the IAOB website in the past....

Hello Sidney:

I posses a copy of the TS 16949 Semiconductor Supplement. No where in it does it state that it is a draft, etc. It appears to be a fully released customer specific requirement document. The initial release was 3/1/2003. The Foreward refers to the Automtoive Electronics Council and to the President of Omnex. I think I will contact them tomorrow.

I saw a posting on the IAOB website that stated the Semiconductor Supplement was obsoleted for Chysler customers. This posting is no longer on the IAOB website.

Regards, Dirk

Thanks for the info, Dirk. Where did you get the copy you have? Is it electronic or paper?

My copy of the Semiconductor Supplement is electronic and I inherited it when I took the job. My employer provided the document.

I just searched the internet to see if I could purchase a copy of the Semiconductor Supplement. In the US, the IATF publications are sold by the AIAG. The AIAG does not have the Semiconductor Supplement for sale. Based on this alone I would say the document is not a published standard. The IATF and the AIAG don't even sell it. The ASQ and ANSI don't sell it either. How can there be a standard but it is not available for purchase?

Regards, Dirk

Dirk, I found my copy of the document too. I believe this document falls under, or has been replaced by other CSR documents.

Section I.2 of the document states:


I.2 Purpose




This customer specific, commodity document provides a consistent interpretation between DaimlerChrysler, Delphi Corporation and Visteon Corporation of ISO/TS-16949 and communicates additional common system requirements unique to the producers of semiconductor devices.

Hi All,

Not sure whether the semiconductor commodity was obseleted or not, but our customer still want us to comply to the requirement.

I got my copy of the standard through this site: http://www.aecouncil.com/AECDocuments.html

You may register your name & company, then you can download it.

I got my copy which was released in Jan 12, 2004.

Hope this help.

BTW, what is the meaning related to the design & process simulation robustness relating to clause 7.3.2(d) S Design and development input ?

I was told by the TS auditor that this requirement is mainly talking about the software simulation and how it can predict the failure of machine during design stages? I was puzzle, can anyone enlightened me?

thanks in advance

http://www.aiag.org/forms/ToolingEQ_SemiCondSupplLtr_final.pdf

Hi All,
This is interesting.
I have a softcopy downloaded from the AEC, but now this document is not available for downloads.
I wrote to the AEC website( they have this website where u can clarify doubts) but there was no reply.
I also wrote to our CB and they adviced us to check the AIAG website. After our last year's recertification audit, we received the certificate but it does not mention the supplement in the certificate.
I checked the AIAG, IAOB & IATF websites. They told me, that they will get back to me. After repeated reminders, they have no answer.
AIAG came back after the 2 follow-up and their reply was "We are not the owners of the document"

So why should we waste our time with this "document" when the document is an orphan ??:bonk:

My organization has finally learned that Delphi no longer requires the supplement. So I will no longer feel compelled to include its clauses in my audits.

Invalid question presented to the AEC Council.

The Semiconductor Supplement is only valid if a customer wishes to impose an non-valid standard on their supplier. Of course, any customer can demand anything whether it makes ense or not. Here is the text from an e mail to the AEC Council, which supported and published the Semiconductor Supplement. By the way, the AEC people that reviewed my question and responded were all employees of major automotive companies.

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:58 PM

Hello AEC / TC:

May automotive customers require compliance to the Semiconductor Commodity Supplement, as a "Customer Specific Requirement", as part of TS 16949 certification under the IATF rules for TS 16949?

I ask this because I see that the AEC no longer offers the document.

Thank you, Dirk van Putten

Response from the AEC:

Each customer has their own requirements for semiconductors per TS16949.
The Semiconductor Supplement is no longer valid.

I was about to say that your correspondent was wrong, but in actuality he/she just didn't answer your question. Every customer is free to establish CSRs as they see fit, regardless of whether the publisher of a standard has deemed it "no longer valid." It is "valid" if I choose to use it, just as MIL-STD-105x is "valid" if it's what I want suppliers to use. I'm not saying that using obsolete or superseded standards is a good idea; I'm just saying that I can make my CSRs whatever I want them to be, and the only sticking point is whether or not suppliers will accept them.

Hello Jim:

I beleive what you stated and what I stated are the same thing.

Here is what I wrote....."The Semiconductor Supplement is only valid if a customer wishes to impose an non-valid standard on their supplier. Of course, any customer can demand anything whether it makes ense or not."

I think we are saying the same thing, aren't we?

:topic:?
Often times SQE's from customers ask that some of these requirements be adhered to after the contract has been signed and can be a considerable cost of quality if someone needs to be assigned to cator to these items and then actually maintain the process put in place.

In your company how much pull does the SQE actually have with the buyers?


Thanks,

Hello Jim:

I beleive what you stated and what I stated are the same thing.

Here is what I wrote....."The Semiconductor Supplement is only valid if a customer wishes to impose an non-valid standard on their supplier. Of course, any customer can demand anything whether it makes ense or not."

I think we are saying the same thing, aren't we?

Perhaps, but then I don't understand why you shared the email correspondence, and asked in it:
May automotive customers require compliance to the Semiconductor Commodity Supplement, as a "Customer Specific Requirement", as part of TS 16949 certification under the IATF rules for TS 16949?
As I pointed out, they didn't answer the question. The answer should have been something to the effect of "OEMs can require whatever they want to require."

Now you're nit picking, Jim.

Hello Marc:

I think Jim is right. I did it all wrong.

Jim: when you get a better answer from reputable sources, please post it. I just went through the entire thread since 2004. No one else asked the AEC anything. How hard is it to send them an e mail? Why should I try to get an answer from the soruce only to be critized? I am now on CQC Doug's side of the discussion. What is in it for me? Nothing! It is really enjoyable when someone goes out of their way to figure out a sittuation only to have someone else sit there and cherry pick without being part of the solution. Really fun!

Therfore, since I did it wrong, I am deleted my posting.

And by the way, why is it that no registrars cleared up the confusion? Sidney did a good job of trying to help. What about all the other registrars that are lurking but not helping?

All registrars that offer TS audits for semiconductor companies must know the status of the supplement. How about someone from the conformity assessment industry, the AEC, the IATF or you Jim, post something to clear all this up.

I am waiting.

I think Jim is right. I did it all wrong.I posted what I did to head off what I perceived to be a potential personality conflict in the thread over a minor aspect.

And by the way, why is it that no registrars cleared up the confusion? Sidney did a good job of trying to help. What about all the other registrars that are lurking but not helping?
SNIP
I am waiting.Thanks Dirk. Once again, I went to the AIAG website (http://www.aiag.org/staticcontent/files/SQRT_TESemicond10_02.pdf) and found the attached letter (from 2002). It states:
Semi-Conductor manufacturing supply organizations — Certification to ISO/TS 16949 is available utilizing the existing ISO/TS 16949 requirements document.
— Under discussion at the IATF is the development of a semi-conductor supplement or guidance document, however, no decision has been reached.
— Refer also to General Motors, Ford Motor, and DaimlerChrysler ISO/T516949 Customer Specifics for inclusion of the QS-9000 Semi-Conductor Supplement as a reference manual. Don't hold your breath about other CB's collaborating. With a few exceptions, most prefer to lurk in the shadows....:cool:

I deleted my inappropriate posting.

Hello Jim Wynne:

I realize that the AEC may not have responded to your quetion yet, but what question did you ask of the AEC? May we see the question you asked in an effort to improve our understanding of the Semiconductor Supplement?

Thank you,

Dirk

After Marc's mild reproval earlier, I think I'll sit this one out the rest of the way. :D