I was speaking with an old clent which, like many, hired Entela as their registrar years ago but are choosing different registrars due to their dissatisfaction with Intertek. This client chose Smithers.

This client is QS-9000 registered and is only Tier 1 to Visteon for service parts. They did the QS-9000 dance because of customers like Valeo requiring it. This client has reviewed contracts and does not see any TS 16949 requirements.

The Smithers auditor told this client they should NOT pursue TS 16949 registration because supposedly in 2006 the TC committee is "...expected to meet and announce the demise of TS 16949...".

Anyone else heard this?

This would certainly be the earliest notice of a rumor - I doubt the agenda is even set, yet. Wishful thinking?

We are also clients of Smithers and although we are also not pursuing 16949 I have heard no official statement that 16949 would be gone in 2006.

I have had numerous discussions with auditors who all seem to see writing on the wall that there are many reservations about 16949 and they MAY NOT ratify it. Due to the way ISO is structured (?), the TS must be ratified by 2006 or it cannot become a standard. One opinion is if it isn't ratified, the US Big Three will revert to a QS-9000 style system specifically for the US auto industry.

To my knowledge, this is all speculation and there has been no official release on the subject. It would obviously be made known to the registrars before the rest of us so anything is possible.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is the auditor may have been repeating rumors and we should all proceed with the assumption that 16949 is alive and well until it is announced officially. I certainly agree with the advice that your client shouldn't pursue TS16949, but not for the reason stated.

Dave

Wes, That's what I'm trying to figure out. I haven't heard a thing. But back in the late 1980's I knew about TS 16949 before it was made public that there wold even be such a thing from several friends who were in the 'inside circle'. I don't have contact with any of them any more (all are retired or moved to parts unknown, so to speak) so they can't help, but I do know many times these things are 'planned' early and nothing is made public for a year or two so it wouldn't surprise me.

Like I said - Just wondering if anyone else had heard the same 'rumour'. Supposedly TS 16949 will be 'retired' and companies will have to do ISO 9001 with customer specific requirements.

I will say it will not surprise me if TS 16949 is obsoleted.

Dave - Thanks for the detailed info. It sounds like that may be the scoop is.

The last I heard from our auditor (registrar) TS was NOT ratified. In fact the rumor he heard was there may be a Q4 in the works, Ford, Chrysler, GM and Toyota - the big 3 emulating the Toyota production system. Should be interesting to sit back and watch.

If obsolescence (actually "non-ratification") is in the wind, the AIAG folk sure don't act like it. Today's news release:

ISO/TS 16949:2002 Implementation Conference: Hear representatives from the International Automotive Task Force (IATF), the International Automotive Oversight Bureau (IAOB) and other industry and technical experts present best practices and case studies on ISO/TS 16949:2002 implementation at this conference on June 16-17 at the Sawmill Creek Hotel & Conference Center in Huron, Ohio. Sessions will focus on customer specifics; layered process audits; internal audits and the process approach; the impact of the rules on the supplier; and more. The second day of the conference will feature overviews of the new PPAP Fourth Edition and the new SPC Second Edition, as well as a special session on FMEA. To register, please contact AIAG customer service at (248) 358-3003 or register online at www.aiag.org (http://www.magnetmail.net/ls.cfm?r=20307793&sid=492431&m=91421&u=AIAG&s=http://www.aiag.org).

Under ISO rules a Technical specification is only good for three years, with one extension. So, I heard that ISO is waiting for 2006 for new ISO 9001 and then updating ISO/TS 16949:2002.
In my humble point of view, it will be walking backwards for Europe’s automotive industry if this standard will be “retired” and we have to go back to QS-9000. :rolleyes:

Under ISO rules a Technical specification is only good for three years, with one extension. So, I heard that ISO is waiting for 2006 for new ISO 9001 and then updating ISO/TS 16949:2002.
In my humble point of view, it will be walking backwards for Europe’s automotive industry if this standard will be “retired” and we have to go back to QS-9000. http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/rolleyes-a1.gif
I guess the rumour has to do with the fact that, according to what Antonio mentioned, under the ISO Rules, a ISO/TS document has to be ractified after 3 years. So, I assume that TS16949:2002 life could be extended by another 3 years.
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/proc/deliverables/iso_ts.html
ISO/TS Technical Specification

A normative document representing the technical consensus within an ISO committee

The way it is done

a) A TC/SC may decide that a particular work item should result in publication of a technical specification. Normally this decision should be agreed at the outset, i.e. simultaneously with approval of the NP. The text is developed through the preparatory and committee stages at the end of which the text shall be submitted for a three month vote by the P-members of the committee to approve publication of the document as a technical specification. Acceptance of the document requires approval by 2/3 of the P-members. If the acceptance criterion is satisfied the document shall be sent to the Central Secretariat for publication as an ISO/TS.

b) In cases in which a committee had decided to produce an International Standard, but subsequently discovered that there was insufficient support for the publication of a standard, the committee may agree, by the above process, to publish the document as a technical specification.

c) Any P-member or category A or D-liaison organization of a committee may propose that an existing document be considered for adoption as a technical specification. The process for approval is as described in a). NB: A-type liaison: participation by an organization in a TC or SC which can make an effective contribution to the work of the committee. D-type liaison: participation at the working group level only or contribution to a specific project

NOTES

As defined above, technical specifications essentially replace the existing type 1 and type 2 technical reports. (As described later, this latter type of publication is retained for purely informative documents – formerly, type 3 technical reports.)
Technical specifications may be processed in one language only.
Competing technical specifications offering different technical solutions are possible provided that they do not conflict with existing International Standards. (A TC/SC may decide to revise an ISO standard to allow conflicting technical specifications.)
Technical specifications shall be reviewed at least every three years to decide either to confirm the technical specification for a further three years, revise the technical specification, process it further to become an International Standard or withdraw the technical specification. After six years, a technical specification shall either be converted into an International Standard or be withdrawn.
ISO member bodies may adopt technical specifications and publish them as documents having the same level of authority as the ISO/TS.

It was my understanding that TS 16949 has already been extended and 2006 will mark the end of the extension.

Dave

I will not be a happy camper as we are just implementing TS for our support processes so our Mexico plant can get certified. We currently have no certification in our plant in the US and Mexico is 9001. Wonder when the decision will be made?

I guess for now, especially for smaller companies like mine, the best bet is to continue on with the registration process until it's made official. Besides, IMO, ISO/TS16949 is a better way of doing things than QS9000 was, so if the transition is done properly, it will benefit the company. Also, for those of us who's main job at a particular company is implementing ISO/TS16949, it's job security in an unsecure market.

Kevin

It was my understanding that TS 16949 has already been extended and 2006 will mark the end of the extension.

Dave

You are absolutely right, 2006 is the limit for ISO/TS 16949:2002. :rolleyes:

Couple of things to keep in mind:

1) Any manufacturing plant that is or wants to be a Tier 1 supplier to a "subscribing organization" is already required to have TS16949, with limited exceptions (ie. due dates for transition have passed).

2) Supplier (tier 2 and below) development to the appropriate standard is present within some customer-specific requiirements.

3) QS-9000 was based on ISO9001:1994, an obsolete version. Upgrading at least to ISO9001:2000 is probably unavoidable if you want to continue 3rd party certification.

Finally,
4) Whatever happens to TS16949:2002, several years from now, if there is still an automotive sector that can dictate to it's suppliers, some required standard will exist. If only to avoid the chaos and extra work for the OEMs of individual systems.



B.G. Wiehle

I was speaking with an old clent which, like many, hired Entela as their registrar years ago but are choosing different registrars due to their dissatisfaction with Intertek. This client chose Smithers.

This client is QS-9000 registered and is only Tier 1 to Visteon for service parts. They did the QS-9000 dance because of customers like Valeo requiring it. This client has reviewed contracts and does not see any TS 16949 requirements.

The Smithers auditor told this client they should NOT pursue TS 16949 registration because supposedly in 2006 the TC committee is "...expected to meet and announce the demise of TS 16949...".

Anyone else heard this?


I spoke with a member of TC176 and this is not true.

Aaron - Any comment on any of the other 'theories' in this thread?

Do you know this?:



Regards
Mago

Do you know this?:



Regards
Mago


Very interesting post Mago. Thank you.

Dave

Do you know this?:



Regards
Mago

The attachment says the same thing I was told verbally by the auditor from our Registrar yesterday at the conclusion of our follow-up audit. He said it has been exteded through 2008.

Hello All:

I am a member of the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO/ Technical Committee 176/ Subcommittte 2. (US TAG to ISO/TC 176/SC 2).

http://www.tc176.org/

ISO/TC 176 is the "umbrella" committee under which the ISO 9000 series of quality management and quality assurance standards are being developed. There are three Subcommittees (SC), 1 Working Group and 3 Task Groups under ISO/TC 176 that are producing standards and guidance documents in the areas of:

SC 1 Concepts and Terminology
SC 2 Quality Systems
SC 3 Supporting Technologies
WG Interpretations
STTG Spanish Translations Task Group
JATWG Joint Arabic Translations Working Group

I was at the most recent US TAG meeting in Atlanta. There was no dicsussion regarding any changes to TS 16949.

The review of TS 16949:2002 has been moved until at least 2008. This is becasue TS 16949:2002 is based upon ISO 9001:2000. ISO 9001:2000 will hopefully be amended by 2008. It does not make sense to review TS 16949 before its base document is amended. The amendment to ISO 9001 will only be to clarify and improve the current requirements. No requirments will be added or removed.

I am not aware of any effort to "obsolete" TS 16949. TS 16949 does not need further "ratification." It is an official Technical Specification.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Regards, Dirk

Looks like this one is resolved. TS 16949 will be around for at least another 4 years (through 2009).

Hello All:

I am a member of the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO/ Technical Committee 176/ Subcommittte 2. (US TAG to ISO/TC 176/SC 2).

http://www.tc176.org/

ISO/TC 176 is the "umbrella" committee under which the ISO 9000 series of quality management and quality assurance standards are being developed. There are three Subcommittees (SC), 1 Working Group and 3 Task Groups under ISO/TC 176 that are producing standards and guidance documents in the areas of:

SC 1 Concepts and Terminology
SC 2 Quality Systems
SC 3 Supporting Technologies
WG Interpretations
STTG Spanish Translations Task Group
JATWG Joint Arabic Translations Working Group

I was at the most recent US TAG meeting in Atlanta. There was no dicsussion regarding any changes to TS 16949.

The review of TS 16949:2002 has been moved until at least 2008. This is becasue TS 16949:2002 is based upon ISO 9001:2000. ISO 9001:2000 will hopefully be amended by 2008. It does not make sense to review TS 16949 before its base document is amended. The amendment to ISO 9001 will only be to clarify and improve the current requirements. No requirments will be added or removed.

I am not aware of any effort to "obsolete" TS 16949. TS 16949 does not need further "ratification." It is an official Technical Specification.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Regards, Dirk


Sorry, but now I am really confused. Are you saying that the following statement is not correct?

Technical specifications shall be reviewed at least every three years to decide either to confirm the technical specification for a further three years, revise the technical specification, process it further to become an International Standard or withdraw the technical specification. After six years, a technical specification shall either be converted into an International Standard or be withdrawn.

If TS "needs no further ratification", what is the sense of stating the above in the first place?

If no changes are expected in the amended ISO 9001, what is the reasoning in pushing "Review" of 16949 to 2008? If the base document is projected to remain unchanged, it shouldn't effect the TS at all.

If TS is already an "official Technical Standard", why is it being "extended" to 2008 as stated in the PDF file in Mago's post, and what would be the purpose of a "review" in 2008?

I am not aware of an effort to "obsolete" TS 16949 either but I don't think anyone is looking for an "effort". The question is - under its own rules will ISO be forced to "make a standard or withdraw"? It seems from what we are seeing and the different opinions that nobody really knows. If the quote in blue is correct, the rules are being heavily bent or possibly even broken in an attempt to keep TS as a TS for an extended period. Why? Is there a possibility that the TS will not move to a Standard? If not, why not? What is holding it back? If the answer to that is "nothing", then why extend it till 2008?

I am certainly not challenging Dirk, but I am having a hard time sorting out the objective evidence on this one. There are too many questions to simply accept "waiting for a base document to be amended". Since when has anyone cared about re-issuing a document? I seem to remember a re-issue based on a cover color change.

Dave

I was informed today by a very reiliable source (who shall remain nameless) that in effect the IAOB has indicated the demise of TS16949 in 2006.

Further, it was stated that no one is currently offering IATF (or IAOB) training for TS16949 registration auditors and thats the first clue. Will have to check this part out to verify.

I was informed today by a very reiliable source (who shall remain nameless)
that in effect the IAOB has indicated the demise of TS16949 in 2006.

Further, it was stated that no one is currently offering IATF (or IAOB) training for TS16949 registration auditors and thats the first clue. Will have to check this part out to verify.What an interesting situation!

My mind races with the implications.

My first thought, of course, was,
"If this is true, how can I make money from it?"

And the plot thickens...

Interesting - just checked IAOB & AIAG. AIAG is offering various TS related auditor training through December of 2005 per their catalog - includes transitioning to TS, internal auditor training, RABQSA certified ISO 9001 Int. auditor with emphasis on TS, etc. Checking IAOB, no training for TS certification auditors is scheduled.

I was at AIAG the week ending April 15 for a class in combining ISO 14001 & TS, and intro to environmental auditing. The instructor was a TS registration auditor and indicated he had plenty of work scheduled in that area for a long time to come. He gave me the impression that TS registration auditors were still in short supply.

Hmmm - as Sergeant Schultz said - verrry interesting.

It is all very interesting but, with the various "programs" and standards that Detroit has pushed for and all the money pumped in, what difference has it made to market share, number of recalls, exports, job security for employees of and suppliers to the Detroit OEMs? And, even if TS will be retired, what will replace it? And should I believe after all the years with QS 9K and TS and so forth the cars will deliver comparable value for money with, say, Toyota? And should I believe whatever committee will sit and sagely produce a new/ revised/ upgraded "standard" it will do any better than the ones we have seen?

However well-intended may be the committee and camp-followers, Detroit's problems will not be solved by a new TS or similar flavor of the half-decade campaign.

But, as I state in that article of mine in the Reading Room, "Let the games begin". It's all good knockabout.

Also see this post: Future of APQP and PPAP in Doubt? 2005 Update (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=107455&postcount=23)

This makes no sense, or perfect sense, depending on your position. No matter what happens, they will devise a new scheme and we will all fall in to lock step with the new one. I agree with Wes, what's in it for me? Money? Fame? Fortune?

Toyota released last week that is was going to ALLOW the big three to catch up in the price wars. It was a bold move on the part of Toyota. Coming from Toyota in a past life, they do not wipe their nose without a plan. They have something up their sleeve. I would expect to see a new standard authored exclusively by the Asian Big Three and in doing so, the US Big Three will have to fall in to place to keep up.


Just some thoughts....

Further, it was stated that no one is currently offering IATF (or IAOB) training for TS16949 registration auditors and thats the first clue. Will have to check this part out to verify.

I was looking at the AIAG site to possibly schedule some ISO/TS training for internal auditing. You are right - it isn't available anymore. I went to the Southfield AIAG for training in October, now it isn't even offered.

First, I am representing myself and not the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO. I have been a member since 1999 and am still learning the US TAG and ISO processes.

Dave wrote< Sorry, but now I am really confused. Are you saying that the following statement is not correct?

Technical specifications shall be reviewed at least every three years to decide either to confirm the technical specification for a further three years, revise the technical specification, process it further to become an International Standard or withdraw the technical specification. After six years, a technical specification shall either be converted into an International Standard or be withdrawn.>

I believe the statement you have quoted is correct. It is my understanding that the ISO processes allow for one postponement of the review cycle. This is allowed if the member bodies approve of the postponement. There was an official resolution that was voted upon. I am not familiar with the rules / process for a TS after 6 years (2 x 3 year cycle). I am trying to locate a copy of the resolution that was voted on so I can share it with the Cove.

Dave wrote <If TS "needs no further ratification", what is the sense of stating the above in the first place?>

When I stated that TS need no further ratification, I was speaking of TS prior to 2008. The way I read this thread, I thought the message was that any TS needs ratification becasue it is a TS. This may be true after 6 years however I am not familiar with this process for technical speciafications. I probably mis-understood the thread. I htought the dicsussion was about TS 16949 being obsoleted because someone or some grup wanted it to be obsoleted and not becaue of the ISO process. I thought the implication was that TS 16949 was going to be obsoleted before 2008.

Dave wrote<If no changes are expected in the amended ISO 9001, what is the reasoning in pushing "Review" of 16949 to 2008? If the base document is projected to remain unchanged, it shouldn't effect the TS at all.>

The requirements of 9001 should not change but the structure could. The text could change also. But the core requirements should not change. Quality systems should not have to change becasue of the 9001 Amendment.

The Design Specification for the review of ISO 9001 is being finalized. If the Design Specification for the review of ISO 9001 is finalized in the form that I reviewed, no requirements will be added or taken away. The goal of the amendment will be to clarify clauses that are confusing. If the amendment improves the usability of ISO 9001, then it should improve the useability of TS 16949. To me, it doesn't make sense to review TS now, amend 9001, and then have to review TS again. I am not sure there are sufficient resources to do this anyway in the next 3 years.

If there are changes to the structure of 9001 (e.g. a clause is moved from one section to another becaseu it makes the standard easier to understand), I am sure there would be complaints of the useabiltiy of TS 16949 because it would not match exactly 9001.

Dave wrote<If TS is already an "official Technical Standard", why is it being "extended" to 2008 as stated in the PDF file in Mago's post, and what would be the purpose of a "review" in 2008?>

As far as I know, all documents (technical reports, technical specifications, and international standards) are required to be reviewed. This review allows for continual improvement and to ensure suitabilty of the document. Again, I think I misunderstood the point in a previous posting.


Dave wrote <I am not aware of an effort to "obsolete" TS 16949 either but I don't think anyone is looking for an "effort". The question is - under its own rules will ISO be forced to "make a standard or withdraw"? It seems from what we are seeing and the different opinions that nobody really knows. If the quote in blue is correct, the rules are being heavily bent or possibly even broken in an attempt to keep TS as a TS for an extended period. Why? Is there a possibility that the TS will not move to a Standard? If not, why not? What is holding it back? If the answer to that is "nothing", then why extend it till 2008?

I am certainly not challenging Dirk, but I am having a hard time sorting out the objective evidence on this one. There are too many questions to simply accept "waiting for a base document to be amended". Since when has anyone cared about re-issuing a document? I seem to remember a re-issue based on a cover color change.>

I wil try to get an answer to "under its own rules will ISO be forced to make TS 16949 a standard or withdraw it?" My entire posting was to clarify my understanding of TS 16949's road map from now until 2008. My understanding of the enitre thread was that TS might be obsolted prior to 2008 becasue some group (IAOB, IATF, etc) wants to. Not because of the rules governing a technical specificaiton.

Again, for me it makes prefect sense with the available resources and how users like things to match for clarity, to not review TS 16949 until the base docuemnt (9001) completes its amendment.

I am not sure what Dave means by no one caring about re-issuing a document. As far as I know and have seen, the amendment to 9001 and the postponement of the review of TS 16949 have all followed the rules. I have no reason to believe there are any hidden agendas or rule bending.

Some additional questions I have are, what is the IAOB's role? What power do they have to direct the future of TS 16949? what about the IATF?

I would be pleased to see TS 16949 go away. In my opinion, the sector specific arena has too many documents. I would rather see effort be put on improving 9001.

Finally, I am writing this from home three days after the birth of our first child. All of the above is from sleep deprived memory with no supporting document in front of me to review.

Regards, Dirk

Finally, I am writing this from home three days after the birth of our first child. All of the above is from sleep deprived memory with no supporting document in front of me to review.

Regards, Dirk

CONGRATULATIONS :applause: on your first born. However, you may be sleep deprived for a long time to come.

Thanks Dirk for answering my questions so openly. It is extremely helpful to have an "insider" available when we hit an area of confusion.

Congratulations on the birth of your child. Bad news - the sleep deprivation doesn't ever end. My second great grandson was born Sunday and I'm suffering today too.

Dave

:topic: Dirk, I well remember you from the 'old' JenneJohn listserve. I always respected you and enjoyed your input in the discussions. I want you to know that I appreciate your input here in these forums. I wish Phyllis and some of the others from that group participated here. I can not express how much the listserve helped me out.

As an aside, Congratulations on the new family member. Kevin Mader, an excellent resource, pretty much dropped out after his first child (and a second child came to his family about a week or so ago, BTW). I hope you stick around. Having someone on the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO really helps out in trying to understand what's happening and why.

AIAG is still providing training for RABQSA-Certified ISO 9001:2000 Lead Auditor Training with AIAG ISO/TS 16949:2002 Supplier Auditor Certification and RABQSA-Certified ISO 9001:2000 Internal Quality Auditor Training with ISO/TS 16949 Automotive Emphasis.

This might be a red herring but there are no training sessions for 3rd party auditors scheduled by AIAG, SMMT and ANFIA (Italy), I could not find the German or French positions
http://iaob.org/training/16949_auditor.html

This seems to be strange but the way in which registrars was limited was also restrictive.
In the end there will not be the man hours to audit the candidates.

Hello All:

Thank you for the kind words regaring our new baby girl.

I contact Joe Bransky, IATF Delegation Leader. He provided me with a copy of the resolution to postpone the review of TS 16949. I thought the resolution contained text regaridng the justificaiton for the postponement. It really does not. Here is the ballot:

TMB resolution 45/2004
TS 16949 Application of ISO 9001 in the automotive sector
The Technical Management Board,
approves the request from the International Automotive Task Force (IATF) to extend the validity of TS 16949 Quality management systems -- Particular requirements for the application of ISO 9001:2000 for automotive production and relevant service part organizations to 2008 or the next revision of ISO 9001 Quality management systems -- Requirements plus one year.


Also, here is some information from Joe:

The TMB originally authorized TS 16949 and related pilot study. TC 176 was commissioned by the TMB to have oversight of the TS 16949 pilot study. TS 16949:1999 was released in March 1999 based on ISO 9000:1994.

After revision based on ISO 9001:2000, and balloting, TS 16949:2002 was released in March 2002. Based on this revision of TS 16949 and to assure stability in the use of TS 16949 in the automotive supply base, in June 2004, the TMB agreed to extend TS 16949:2002 to 2008 or one year beyond any revisions of ISO 9001:2000 whichever is longer.

(TMB = Technical Management Board)

I wonder if we are assuming a relationship between providing classes and the docuement itself. In the TC 176, we are told to not make decision on the auditability of the document. We are to write and review documents based on the ease of us for the user. We are to keep the world of conformity assessment seperate from the standards. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, is a group in support of standardization and not necessarily conformity assessment.

By the way, anyone can be an insider, at least in the US. We are volunteers on the US TAG and all meetings are public. One would think I would have learned all of the TC 176 processes since becoming a member in 1999, but I have not. There is so much to do in terms of document review, that I have not been able to learn all of the behind the scenes stuff. I find the US TAG meetings and volunteers so very interesting. Very intelligent people. I always learn a lot at the meetings.

I sent another meessage to Joe and asked point blank, "Are there any plans to obsolete TS 16949. If I learn anything, I will let you know.

Finally, I will continue to searfch for info on the processes for technical specifications, obsoleting, review cycles, etc.

Back to feeding and diapers....

Sincerely, Dirk van Putten

The IAOB website has been recently updated. Now they have more sanctioned interpretations and FAQs to both the TS specification and the Rules for achieving IATF recognition.
Issued Rules 2nd Edition FAQs April 2005.pdf (http://www.iaob.org/Issued%20Rules%202nd%20Edition%20FAQs%20April%202005.pdf)

Hello All:

I received the following note from Joe Bransky, IATF Delegation Leader.

"Don't know the basis for the TS 16949 speculation and incorrect information. There are no plans for TS 16949 obsolescence. There is possibly some confusion related to automotive standards since QS-9000 expires December 14, 2006."

Regards, Dirk van Putten

Thank you Dirk.

Please keep us informed if you hear anything else related to TS16949 in the future. Maybe we can help clear up future misunderstandings as well.

Dave

If they were thinking of making it obsolete, they sure do have some nice decoys
Implementing ISO/TS 16949:2002 Conference

Join quality experts for the only conference dedicated to simplifying ISO/TS 16949:2002 for automotive supply chain partners - June 16-17, 2005, in Huron, Ohio, at the Sawmill Creek Resort and Conference Center.

At the Implementing ISO/TS 16949:2002 Conference, best practices and case studies from companies who have successfully made the move will provide insight for suppliers that are now making the transition to the technical specification. Discover the particulars of ISO/TS 16949:2002 in a series of presentations delivered by the experts of the International Automotive Task Force (IATF) who developed the automotive quality standard. Members of the Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force (SQRTF) and the International Automotive Oversight Bureau (IAOB) will also be on hand to educate you on customer specifics and the rules for achieving IATF recognition.

In addition to all of the information on implementing ISO/TS 16949:2002, you will be among the first to learn about the revisions to the PPAP and SPC manuals. As two of the five essential Core Tools, these manuals are an integral part of compliance with ISO/TS 16949:2002. See what's new with an overview of the NEW Statistical Process Control (SPC) and NEW Production Parts Approval Process (PPAP) manuals. A special session on Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) will also be presented.

While it is a robust conference with extensive information on ISO/TS 16949:2002, it is not all work. There are plenty of opportunities for play at this four-star resort, complete with an 18-hole golf course and conveniently located on Lake Erie within minutes of Cedar Point and other family vacation destinations. Make your reservations today at (419) 433-3800 and mention the AIAG ISO/TS 16949:2002 Conference to secure your accommodations at the best rate for conference attendees.

To register for this enlightening conference, visit the AIAG Web site at www.aiag.org (http://www.magnetmail.net/ls.cfm?r=20156148&sid=514303&m=94998&u=AIAG&s=http://www.aiag.org) or contact AIAG Customer Service at (248) 358-3003. Registration fees are $195 for AIAG members, and $295 for non-members.

https://mows.aiag.org/StaticContent/ISOTS_Conference_Flyer.pdf

I am attending a TS workshop today here in So Cal and Mr. Bransky (from GM and IATF) confirmed that the IATF has a special agreement with ISO that they will keep TS 16949 as a Technical Specification for an extra year after ISO 9001:2000 gets revised. Since ISO 9001:2009 is just an amendment, TS 16949 might exist until 2013 or 2014.

This might be a red herring but there are no training sessions for 3rd party auditors scheduled by AIAG, SMMT and ANFIA (Italy), I could not find the German or French positions
http://iaob.org/training/16949_auditor.html

This seems to be strange but the way in which registrars was limited was also restrictive.
In the end there will not be the man hours to audit the candidates.


I was told that someone crunched some numbers, and determined we have 30% more TS auditors than needed, for the current TS population of companies. Consequently, they are being tough in the recert audits, because they need to weed out ineffective auditors. However, I know a number of very competent auditors who had to retest once or twice. So, the intent and the reality do not match (imagine that?).

I was informed today by a very reiliable source (who shall remain nameless) that in effect the IAOB has indicated the demise of TS16949 in 2006.Ralph, just a reminder for you to move this source from the reliable category...:tg:

Actually, during the workshop I attended yesterday, Mr. Bransky mentioned that data shows that TS certified suppliers performance is much better than similar QS-9000 suppliers of a decade ago. He mentioned that average defect rates for TS certified suppliers are in the 10-25 DPPM, approaching 6 sigma levels (his words). So, all in all, it looks like the TS subscribing OEMs are "happy" with TS and how it is improving the automotive supply chain. Thus, any rumor of a TS demise is totally unfounded.

Ralph, just a reminder for you to move this source from the reliable category...:tg:

Actually, during the workshop I attended yesterday, Mr. Bransky mentioned that data shows that TS certified suppliers performance is much better than similar QS-9000 suppliers of a decade ago. He mentioned that average defect rates for TS certified suppliers are in the 10-25 DPPM, approaching 6 sigma levels (his words). So, all in all, it looks like the TS subscribing OEMs are "happy" with TS and how it is improving the automotive supply chain. Thus, any rumor of a TS demise is totally unfounded.

Sidney,

Well, the reliable source did not renew their TS16949 auditor certification and discountinued auditing for our registrar. So, apparently it may have been erroneously passed to that person. I am sure that they were sincere, albeit incorrect.
It does seem that now TS is redundant if you are a tier 1 to Ford, and have to comply with all their specifics including Q1. This is realy overkill plus all their CSRs for QMS and PPAP, plus MMOG.
I have not been able to participate much on the Cove due to audits and new computer systems firewalls.
I have had 4 QMS audits in the last 4 weeks. Tuesday Oct. 24-Dana SSA with a Dana STE ..we scored a 96 out of 100, then Thursday Oct. 26 a Ford Heat Treat STE was in to audit our curent system and informed us that we are now required to comply with QCI-9 in addition to WHTX. We scored 160. Nov. 13,14,15,16.-4 day audit by 2 QA men from our corporate headquarters in Japan. Scored a 3.3 out of a 4.0. This week Nov. 28 and 29 a 2 day TS16949 semi-annual registrar surveillance audit..were only 2 minor finding and those were related to paper work on control plans. "Hey..were talking audits here" (Marc's old phrase) This doesn't count the other 3 previous visits by Ford to do a Q1 assessment for 3 days, and 2 additional trips to approve PPAPs to Ford.
It really seems odd that we have been making the same parts for 5 years for Visteon and only had to comply with TS16949 and some CSRs, and now all of a sudden we become a tier1 by default we are not worthy unless we comply with all these other requirements.:frust:
Now in addition to all that I have a new boss who knows zilch about TS16949 or Q1, and barely speaks English, and hasn't spoken to me in 5 years, and my old boss is now in Sales. I turned in for a vacation day, and he said from now on he wants a weeks notice if I want a vacation day:whip: I have 3 weeks coming and will be lucky to use them.
Oh well, maybe there will be a better oppotunity some where.
Maybe it has something to do with our plant located only 80 miles from Myrtle Beach;)

Mentioned earlier in the thread is that AIAG isn't offering lead auditor courses for TS anymore. I don't know if this is the course that was being referred to, but looking at their website it seems they're offering the ISO Lead Auditor course with TS Supplier Auditor Certification 13 times between now and the end of 2007.

http://www.aiag.org/education/trainingindex.cfm?classcode=LEADAU

If that would be the case, what would happen to all company that was been certified in TS16949. Why is it so short that TS16949 be obsoleted? What could be the reason? What would be the equivalent certification for this after?
Best regards,
raffy

If that would be the case, what would happen to all company that was been certified in TS16949. Why is it so short that TS16949 be obsoleted? What could be the reason? What would be the equivalent certification for this after?
Best regards,
raffyLooks like you DID NOT read the thread. Had you read it, you would have not asked these questions.

If that would be the case, what would happen to all company that was been certified in TS16949. Why is it so short that TS16949 be obsoleted? What could be the reason? What would be the equivalent certification for this after?
Best regards,
raffy


Relax. There is no substance to the rumor. Read this whole thread, it will give you more balance.

Mentioned earlier in the thread is that AIAG isn't offering lead auditor courses for TS anymore. I don't know if this is the course that was being referred to, but looking at their website it seems they're offering the ISO Lead Auditor course with TS Supplier Auditor Certification 13 times between now and the end of 2007.

http://www.aiag.org/education/trainingindex.cfm?classcode=LEADAU


As I mentioned earlier, they feel they have more than enough TS auditors in the pipeline. There is little demand to increase the number.

I heard at a meeting in Detroit that TS will not be revised until 2010.
However with IAOB's SI's, FAQ's, TS rules, and OEM CSR changes ...

As I mentioned earlier, they feel they have more than enough TS auditors in the pipeline. There is little demand to increase the number.

Right, I got that part. What I don't get is that if there's no need for any more TS auditors, then why are they offering the training every 4 to 5 weeks throughout this year?

Right, I got that part. What I don't get is that if there's no need for any more TS auditors, then why are they offering the training every 4 to 5 weeks throughout this year?


Not sure what training they are offering, since I was not looking for any. I thought your post said they were NOT offering any, only supplier training?

Hi all , great to be back...

Any of you have a copy of PAS 99:2006 IMS guide ?

not asking for a copy thou just asking for your thought on it...

Thanks and Regards,

Hi all , great to be back...

Any of you have a copy of PAS 99:2006 IMS guide ?

not asking for a copy thou just asking for your thought on it...

Thanks and Regards,

I have thanks. Not sure what this has to do with TS, though.:topic:

They are offering recertification for exisiting auditors, thats whay there appears to be so many courses. They do run new auditors courses but not as many.

There are about as many auditors as the IATF wants, but not necissarily as many as the registrars would want. I work for a registrar and we are always looking for good TS auditors. It is not as easy for TS subcontractors to switch from registrar to registrar as it is for ISO. TS auditors are sponsored by a particular registrar, and while they can audit for two registrars there is a fee to doing that.

After reading the whole thread seems my inital thoughts were right they will not be dumping Ts 16949 after all why go back to QS9000 which was a poorer standard and TS 1st edition was bolstered by the inclusion of parts from VDA 6.1.

Just as a side issue I am starting to get calls about contracts that are for firms who are just working to VDA 6.1 now please correct me but has that like QS9000 been made obsolete by TS?

According to my Client Manager yesterday, Both the ISo9001 and Ts16949 will be re-isseud next year, The ISO first, then the Ts later part of the year.

IT was mainly thought to be tidying up loose ends, and no any huge changes.

Have to wait and see i guess.:)

Hello Moneypennyuk:

Your client manager is incorrect.

No NWIP or New Work Item Proposal has been initialed within ISO related to TS 16949. TS will be affected by the ISO 9001 changes but there is no information upon which to base any timing. TS will not change next year based on how long a review of a technical specification takes.

Hello Moneypennyuk:

Your client manager is incorrect.

No NWIP or New Work Item Proposal has been initialed within ISO related to TS 16949. TS will be affected by the ISO 9001 changes but there is no information upon which to base any timing. TS will not change next year based on how long a review of a technical specification takes.

What about TS16949 compliance due to changes in ISO9001 since it is the foundation of TS16949? Will we then have to incorporate those changes to remain TS16919 compliant?

What about TS16949 compliance due to changes in ISO9001 since it is the foundation of TS16949? Will we then have to incorporate those changes to remain TS16919 compliant?

Hi Ralphsulser,

I don't think you need to do changes in order to comply with current TS 16949. Remember the old QS 9000: 1998 where it stay until 2003? :bigwave:

It will only mean you are complying to TS-2002 and not the ISO 9001: 200X?

Let's wait for the new TS perhaps......:biglaugh:

The entire project of changing the words in ISO 9001 is to improve the meaning and NOT to change any requirement. I repeat ..... NOT to change any requirements. So the question about compliance is invalid. If the words change but the requriments do not, a previously complaint process / system will still be complaint. TS and ISO 9001 may have different words printed on the pages, but the requirements and impact on compliance should be zero.

All of the above assumes that all changes made to ISO 9001:2000 do not impact the actual requirements.

The entire project of changing the words in ISO 9001 is to improve the meaning and NOT to change any requirement. I repeat ..... NOT to change any requirements. So the question about compliance is invalid. If the words change but the requriments do not, a previously complaint process / system will still be complaint. TS and ISO 9001 may have different words printed on the pages, but the requirements and impact on compliance should be zero.

All of the above assumes that all changes made to ISO 9001:2000 do not impact the actual requirements.

What about the specific requirement which is new that specifies that the management rep must be a member of management? Some places have coordinators, and technicians as management reps.

What about the specific requirement which is new that specifies that the management rep must be a member of management? Some places have coordinators, and technicians as management reps.Is it really new?

5.5.2 Management representative

Top management shall appoint a member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes...5.5.2 Management representative

Top management shall appoint a member of the organization’s management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes....
Most auditors working for CB's don't get hung up with titles, but pay attention to the organization authority level the management rep "seems" to have.

My last posting "assumes that all changes made to ISO 9001:2000 do not impact the actual requirements."

If a requirements change to ISO 9001 does happen, then I am not sure how the conformity assessment people will handle that.

Is it really new?
Most auditors working for CB's don't get hung up with titles, but pay attention to the organization authority level the management rep "seems" to have.

Sidney,

We have discussed this in the past and the general consensus is that Management, is the opposite of worker. White collar -Blue collar,
this would appear to be in agreement with ISO 9001:2000 - Interpretations- Clause 5.5.2 - RFI-027 (http://www.tc176.org/pdf/rfi027_final.pdf) which agrees that the MR does not need to be a member of the organization’s management.

It is not a matter of being hung up with titles it is a matter of what is actually meant and if the intention is to correct the interpretation

What about the specific requirement which is new that specifies that the management rep must be a member of management? Some places have coordinators, and technicians as management reps.It is not a matter of being hung up with titles it is a matter of what is actually meant and if the intention is to correct the interpretationHoward, I am not sure if you agree or disagree with my previous post. The issue @ hand is not the title of manager, but the authority to ensure that processes are implemented and maintained. As long as someone, working as a quality coordinator, can prove to an auditor that s/he has organizational authority over the VP of Sales to stop the practice of selling products that can not be delivered within the customer expected delivery date, no problems.

Howard, I am not sure if you agree or disagree with my previous post. The issue @ hand is not the title of manager, but the authority to ensure that processes are implemented and maintained. As long as someone, working as a quality coordinator, can prove to an auditor that s/he has organizational authority over the VP of Sales to stop the practice of selling products that can not be delivered within the customer expected delivery date, no problems.

I agree but unfortunately we both know those who the literal meaning is more important than the spirit.
The situation where there needs to be interpretations is not healthy and it is better to think twice about writing what you mean and not others saying that you mean what you write

We just finished our semi-annual TS16949 2 day registrar surveillance audit.
Guess what....ZERO non-conformances.
Looks like I'll continue as management rep for a while regardless of title.

It was close, and he was ready to write one, but I found the elusive customer document. I knew we had it because I printed it some time ago. The guy who used it for his files took it with him when he left the company.
It was in a folder in another folder in my documents.
Everyone here contributed and I thanked them all for their team work.

I will sleep better tonight :-)

Congratulations! Take tomorrow off - tell the bosses I said it was OK:lmao::lmao:

We just finished our semi-annual TS16949 2 day registrar surveillance audit.
Guess what....ZERO non-conformances.
Looks like I'll continue as management rep for a while regardless of title.

It was close, and he was ready to write one, but I found the elusive customer document. I knew we had it because I printed it some time ago. The guy who used it for his files took it with him when he left the company.
It was in a folder in another folder in my documents.
Everyone here contributed and I thanked them all for their team work.

I will sleep better tonight :-)

Good for you, but what about the option to scan such docs and put them on a proper folder on your server? Electronic files are less likely to get lost, and easier to locate.

We just finished our semi-annual TS16949 2 day registrar surveillance audit.
Guess what....ZERO non-conformances.
Looks like I'll continue as management rep for a while regardless of title.

It was close, and he was ready to write one, but I found the elusive customer document. I knew we had it because I printed it some time ago. The guy who used it for his files took it with him when he left the company.
It was in a folder in another folder in my documents.
Everyone here contributed and I thanked them all for their team work.

I will sleep better tonight :-)


Hello Ralph,

Thank you for the update. Congratulations with zero nonconformities. :applause:
I know that the coordination and guidance of your company's QMS is in excellent hands.
Go take a break! :yes:

Stijloor.

Hi, First post or reply!

This seems to be a fairly definititive answer as to whether it is possible to withdraw ISO TS 16949. Considering the time and effort spent to "harmonise" the global quality requirements of the Automobile industry I feel the extension option will be used to give more time to the people working on the standard. Having worked in CENELEC on harmonising the European railway cable standards, the time taken to reach a compromise can be long, and for an engineer extremely frustrating, as the answer is technically obvious, but may be politically or commercially unacceptable for one or other of the parties concerned.
Have personally so far been spared the QS9000/ ISO TS 16949 introduction, as sofar we have always been Tier 3 or 4 and could get away with ISO 9001:2000. Unfortunately we appear to be on the verge of being commercially succesfull (did I really say that?) which may result in implementation.
Has anyone a clear concept for doing this with German Manufacturers?
Does anyone have PPAP in German?

Regards Richard

Hi, and welcome to the cove.

PPAP is available in German ( copyrighted material ) and can be obtained in Europe via : http://www.adarecarwin.com/qs/

Best regards and lots of success,

Antoine

I have checked with the certification body. no news regarding obsoletion still.

As TS 16949:2002 is ISO standard/ Technical Specification, Is there any way to get the information right from” Horse mouth” to clear this ambiguity.
ELSMAR forum is way of learning for people like me, and if badly need autheniticated "news" and views

As TS 16949:2002 is ISO standard/ Technical Specification, Is there any way to get the information right from” Horse mouth” to clear this ambiguity.
ELSMAR forum is way of learning for people like me, and if badly need authenticated "news" and views

Hello wak125,

It's very simple.

Authorized sources:

www.iaob.org
www.aiag.org
Your Registrar/Certification Body

Stijloor.

Stijloor
None of the refereed sources tells about this issue :whip:

Stijloor
None of the refereed sources tells about this issue :whip:


Hello wak125,

Then it's not an issue! In other words: ISO/TS 16949:2002 will not go away.

P.S. I hope that whip was not meant for me.....:(

Stijloor.

Then it's not an issue! In other words: ISO/TS 16949:2002 will not go away. I agree.

Note that this is an old discussion thread which was started over 2 years ago. I can practically guarantee that if TS 16949 was going away (obsoleted) in 2008 there would be significant chatter about it here by now.

The Smithers auditor told this client they should NOT pursue TS 16949 registration because supposedly in 2006 the TC committee is "...expected to meet and announce the demise of TS 16949...".The last I heard from our auditor (registrar) TS was NOT ratified. In fact the rumor he heard was there may be a Q4 in the works, Ford, Chrysler, GM and Toyota - the big 3 emulating the Toyota production system. Should be interesting to sit back and watch.You are absolutely right, 2006 is the limit for ISO/TS 16949:2002.I was informed today by a very reiliable source (who shall remain nameless) that in effect the IAOB has indicated the demise of TS16949 in 2006.Amazing how some rumours persist over a long period of time....

Amazing how some rumours persist over a long period of time....

With an apology to Mark Twain:

"The Rumors of My ISO/TS 16949:2002's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated."

Stijloor.

The Smithers auditor told this client they should NOT pursue TS 16949 registration because supposedly in 2006 the TC committee is "...expected to meet and announce the demise of TS 16949...". I blame the Smithers auditor for starting the rumour back in 2005... :notme:

I blame the Smithers auditor for starting the rumour back in 2005... :notme:

I never did trust Smithers.

http://elsmar.com/gif/smithers.gif

As a member of the US TAG to ISO/TC 176, I can tell you the TS will be voted upon to become an International Standard one year after the publication of the 4th edition of ISO 9001. An IAOB member is on the TAG and updates us at every meeting on the IATF's intentions.

As a member of the US TAG to ISO/TC 176, I can tell you the TS will be voted upon to become an International Standard one year after the publication of the 4th edition of ISO 9001. An IAOB member is on the TAG and updates us at every meeting on the IATF's intentions.

Hello Bear41,

Please cite the formal document and its location. Many rumors and half-truths were started by hear-say and extremely poor communication. You could do us Covers a great favor by providing the actual meeting results/minutes of the US TAG to ISO/TC 176. I can't assume it's that secret....

Thank you.

Stijloor.

Please cite the formal document and its location. Many rumors and half-truths were started by hear-say and extremely poor communication. You could do us Covers a great favor by providing the actual meeting results/minutes of the US TAG to ISO/TC 176. I can't assume it's that secret....I am not sure there is any document to be "shown" or any minutes of meeting to be disclosed. The person he is referring to is probably Mr. Joe Bransky. As I already mentioned in this thread, I attended a workshop earlier in the year with Mr. Bransky, where he indicated the future of the TS document.

From what I gather, one of the reasons ISO 9001:2008 will not bring any changes, just clarifications to existing documents, is in part due to pressure from the Automotive stakeholders. Even though TS 16949 latest revision has been in place since 2002, you have to remember that QS-9000 (based on the 3rd Edition of ISO 9001) was still valid late 2006. So, the automotive supply chain had to cope with both QS and TS until "recently". Now that the whole supply chain (of the subscribing organizations) are aligned with TS16949, the Automotive OEMs wanted some "stability" of the requirements contained in the Standard.

TS is here to stay. It might turn into an IS (International Standard) in 2009, but the only difference will be the revised ISO 9001:2008 text with it's new "clearer" ;) wording.

I am not sure there is any document to be "shown" or any minutes of meeting to be disclosed. The person he is referring to is probably Mr. Joe Bransky. As I already mentioned in this thread, I attended a workshop earlier in the year with Mr. Bransky, where he indicated the future of the TS document.

From what I gather, one of the reasons ISO 9001:2008 will not bring any changes, just clarifications to existing documents, is in part due to pressure from the Automotive stakeholders. Even though TS 16949 latest revision has been in place since 2002, you have to remember that QS-9000 (based on the 3rd Edition of ISO 9001) was still valid late 2006. So, the automotive supply chain had to cope with both QS and TS until "recently". Now that the whole supply chain (of the subscribing organizations) are aligned with TS16949, the Automotive OEMs wanted some "stability" of the requirements contained in the Standard.

TS is here to stay. It might turn into an IS (International Standard) in 2009, but the only difference will be the revised ISO 9001:2008 text with it's new "clearer" ;) wording.

Thank you Sidney,

Excellent points!

A few additional comments.

My (consulting/training) organization is a member of AIAG, I have been to quite a few conferences and had the pleasure to hear Mr. Joe Bransky and his OEM counterparts in person. I am fairly familiar with what's going on in "automotive supplier land", and have been very involved with the various transitions from ISO to QS to ISO/TS. But I would not make claims without supporting information. I think many of us here would not do that either.

As you are very well aware of, the automotive supplier industry has been inundated with changes and more changes in Customer-Specific requirements (CSR's), PPAP submission requirements, Special Process requirements, etc., and the end is not in sight....

You can imagine that automotive supply folks are very worried about the next darn thing coming down the IATF/IAOB/ISO-TS pike.... The concern about cost and resource impact is significant.

So if statements are made about any changes affecting the automotive supplier industry, those impacted are entitled to, as a minimum, a reference to a document, an authorized spokes person and a location where the info can be found.

Just my :2cents:

Stijloor.

Please email standards@asq.org for access to TAG minutes. I would encourage people in this Forum to nominate to be members of the TAG -- especially those of you who represnt industries affected by the ISO family of standards. We have too many consultants right now, myself included.

The reason cited above for "amendments" to ISO 9001, rather than a revision, is but one of the considerations taken into account. It was only a year ago that QS-9000 became obsolete. However, the most compelling reason for just clarification is that many organizations are still struggling with the Process Model concept. (Even though that may seem strange to most of you.)

The latest I have heard from one of the Registrar's I work for as a 3rd party TS Auditor is that the 3rd Edition (ISO/TS 16949:2008) is scheduled for release in October 2008 and implementation in January 2009. In addition, new Rules are being proposed for Q1 2009 which will incorporate the SIs and FAQs and improve alignment with 17021. In a nutshell, it is not going away.


CQC Doug

The latest I have heard from one of the Registrar's I work for as a 3rd party TS Auditor is that the 3rd Edition (ISO/TS 16949:2008) is scheduled for release in October 2008 and implementation in January 2009. In addition, new Rules are being proposed for Q1 2009 which will incorporate the SIs and FAQs and improve alignment with 17021. In a nutshell, it is not going away.


CQC Doug

Hello Doug,

Can you cite the source, document, and location?
Not to be "picky", but our Fellow Covers appreciate references.

Stijloor.

Hi Stijloor,

The information came from TUV. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the draft document but I am trying to get my hands on one, would be a great reference document for working with existing TS consulting clients.

Sorry I don't have more information at this time. I will try to update post if I am fortunate enough to garner any details.


CQC Doug

From memory, and based on being a voting member of the US TAG to ISO (US Standards Group), we voted to postpone to the review of TS 16949 until after ISO 9001 was amended since TS is built on ISO 9001. Therefore, nothing will change with TS until 2009 at the learliest but I would be flabbergasted if anything happend that soon.

I looked for the document upon which we voted but I cannot find a copy.

I think the info that CQC DOug's got from TUV is incorrect.

Hi Dirk,

I guess we will have to wait and see. My source is solid and his information came out of one of the IATF Oversight Offices. Having read all the posts in this thread, including each of yours, as well as reading the draft of ISO 9001:2008, I think we are all fairly confident that the new edition of ISO 9001 will not be significantly different than the 2000 edition. Having said that, the revision of ISO/TS 16949 will not be significantly impacted by the 9001 revision so there would be no reason to hold up its revision until after ISO 9001:2008 is released, which I believe you stated yourself in one of your posts to this thread.

I'm putting my money on an earlier than later release of the revision of ISO/TS 16949. Don't be too flabbergasted.....:mg:


Take care,

CQC Doug

Does it make sense to relaese ISO 9001:2008 and a new revision of TS 16949at the same time, without the 9001 changes? No. I say "at the same time" since you quoted an October 2008 publication date which is the same expected date for ISO 9001.

How would that work anyway? TS would have incongruent ISO 9001 text inside the boxes on each page.

Would users get all excited about the ISO 9001 text within TS being different than the ISO 9001:2008 text? Yes, even though the intent / requirements are the same.

Do the TAG's around the world have the resources, speed and agility to review ISO 9001 and TS 16949 at the same time? Proably not.

And finally, for an October 2008 released of TS 16949, the review process would have had to start already, which it has not. There is no published design specification to revise TS, there is no new work item proposal, let alone any drafts.

Technical Specification 16949 is a document created out of the consensus process of ISO. Maybe the IATF and the auto industry can change the timing, speed and agility of the TAG's, and defined process for the revision of a technical specification?

Dirk,

I have not used the Elsmar Cove a great deal over the years as a forum for my input, only to do a little research once in a while. When I heard that TS:02 was being revised I came hear looking to see what I could find out. When I did a search this thread came up and low and behold it was originally posted by our Host himself. I read thru the thread and thought I would spread the knowledge I had just gained with fellow Quality professionals and hopefully get some valuable input in return. Obviously this was a big mistake. It appears that someone like myself with very few posts compared to your 640 should not be listened to and should be challenged. I will definitely give great thought to any input I opt to post here in the future as this somewhat personal reply/attack has really put me off. Mr. Vanputten, I have been working in the Quality profession for over 25 years, I have been running a successful consulting and training business for just under 11 years providing my services Internationally to both small privately owned businesses and large multinational corporations and in addition, I am an IAOB Qualified 3rd Party ISO/TS 16949 auditor that makes his living working with clients in the automotive industry. I live and breath this stuff!! I felt that my 2 cents worth may be valued by those interested in this standard. I see by your profile that you are an Internal Auditor and I understand thru your replies that you are a volunteer representative to US TAG to ISO but maybe you could enlighten me and the others in this forum, and specifically this thread, where you are getting your specific knowledge of the ISO/TS 16949 standard and your experience in the automotive industry, as I already have. Obviously you have a much greater understanding of this standard and much better insight into the workings of the standard development process and it would be my pleasure to retract my input and tell the individual that I got the information from that he needs to tell the IATF Oversight Office that they can't do what they told him was taking place. Shame on them!

To answer a couple of your questions: 1) The draft of ISO 9001:2008 is currently available to anyone wishing to purchase it. It can be purchased directly from ISO but I am sure you know this. This would definitely allow those working on the TS revision to stay in-line with the upcoming revision to ISO 9001. 2) As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that the review process for the next revision of ISO/TS 16949 started in October of 2007 with the final draft approval scheduled for July of this year.

I would love to answer the other questions you posted but I don't have the answers. I sincerely do hope that you can take the time to post a reply to my single question posted to you.

I truly look forward to your response,


CQC Doug

I read thru the thread and thought I would spread the knowledge I had just gained with fellow Quality professionals and hopefully get some valuable input in return. Thanks, Doug. Please don't hesitate to post again - although it appears you have had a hard ride on this one I can assure you it is not intended!

IMHO Dirk is one of the true gentlemen on the cove - a group I would not include myself in! :lol:

Obviously this was a big mistake. It appears that someone like myself with very few posts compared to your 640 should not be listened to and should be challenged. I will definitely give great thought to any input I opt to post here in the future as this somewhat personal reply/attack has really put me off. Again I can't speak for Dirk but don't believe the "attack" was personal - I must confess my eyebrows were raised when I saw your post about the proposed reissue date for TS3 - totally out of kilter with my expectations!

Mr. Vanputten, I have been working in the Quality profession for over 25 years, I have been running a successful consulting and training business for just under 11 years providing my services Internationally to both small privately owned businesses and large multinational corporations and in addition, I am an IAOB Qualified 3rd Party ISO/TS 16949 auditor that makes his living working with clients in the automotive industry. I live and breath this stuff!! I felt that my 2 cents worth may be valued by those interested in this standard. Again your experience will be very valuable here ... I 4 1 look forward to reading your posts in future.

I see by your profile that you are an Internal Auditor and I understand thru your replies that you are a volunteer representative to US TAG to ISO but maybe you could enlighten me and the others in this forum, and specifically this thread, where you are getting your specific knowledge of the ISO/TS 16949 standard and your experience in the automotive industry, as I already have. Obviously you have a much greater understanding of this standard and much better insight into the workings of the standard development process and it would be my pleasure to retract my input and tell the individual that I got the information from that he needs to tell the IATF Oversight Office that they can't do what they told him was taking place. Shame on them! Time will tell with this one. IMHO TS3 will be 6 months after 9k2008 (if it even makes 2008) I cannot see TS3 having the old 9k2k text and, even with the limited scrutiny TS gets compared with the 9k series there is a time lag.

To answer a couple of your questions: 1) The draft of ISO 9001:2008 is currently available to anyone wishing to purchase it. It can be purchased directly from ISO but I am sure you know this. This would definitely allow those working on the TS revision to stay in-line with the upcoming revision to ISO 9001. 2) As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that the review process for the next revision of ISO/TS 16949 started in October of 2007 with the final draft approval scheduled for July of this year. More than that they have had access to committee drafts and working documents all the way through but they cannot run ahead of TC 176.

Again, I look forward to the continuing debate!

Paul,

That's very nice and considerate of you! New Covers/Posters need this encouragement. I speak from personal experience.....:(

Let's keep up the great dialogue. A win-win for everybody! :applause:

Stijloor.

More than that they have had access to committee drafts and working documents all the way through but they cannot run ahead of TC 176.

Again, I look forward to the continuing debate!On this topic, many of us who do not currently sit on the committees have had access to, and read, the various draft incarnations given to the committees for discussion about proposed revisions. I just checked the last FREE source I know for a draft and it has posted a notice This news article could not be shown, this may be because
The new article not longer exists
You do not have access to the article
There was a error showing the article Without pulling it out and making a word by word comparison, my recollection is there seemed to be no SUBSTANTIVE changes which should occasion anxiety about necessary changes in an existing compliant or registered system. As always, though, the TS16949 format is subject to tinkering by OEMs and the committees aren't in charge of those.

:topic::caution::caution::caution:Sometimes, just sometimes, we all bring baggage into the Cove which makes us interpret comments and statements in a light for which the original commenter had no inkling might exist.

Often, folks with fragile egos find themselves in company with others who have iron-clad egos. Conflicts and misunderstandings seem almost inevitable. The whole thing sort of reminds me of a locker room filled with testosterone laden athletes and kids struggling to just pass the required PE course. The jocks are used to rough, physical humor - for confirmation, one need only witness a football game where they butt heads like young goats to celebrate a play. When the humor spills over to those unused to it, it can sometimes lead to a Columbine-type disaster where the victim of the humor takes revenge way beyond the apparent injury he suffered (who can tell how deep psychological scars run?)

Because our host, Marc, has witnessed this conflict of personalities in the past, he has wisely installed a "report this post" button in the upper right corner of every post (the little triangle.)

If anyone feels personally slandered by a public comment, or an observer feels someone else has been slandered, the proper response is NOT RETALIATION IN A PUBLIC FORUM, but a mere click of the button. Every moderator will receive email notice of the report and hasten to mediate the dispute before it boils over into full-fledged warfare. Clicking the button calls forth a dialog box where the person making the report can state his case. A copy of the report AND the offending post is then sent to every moderator.

That said:
As in every argument, there are two sides and two interpretations. Not every report will be resolved by whipping the apparent offender. The actual process is sometimes a long and lengthy one, involving days of discussions among the moderators with frequent recourse to private correspondence with each of the parties before arriving at a resolution. Every case, being unique, has a different resolution There is no "one size fits all" solution.

If such rules are too difficult to join in the game, each person makes his own decision.

I have not heard anything about the expected time frame for the release of the next version of the TS-16949 document. However, since several Industry sectors have liaisons with and inside the TC176, these sectors are obviously very well informed of the ISO 9001:2008 progress, and working on the draft of their sectorial standards. If the IATF is following the IAQG example, a revised 16949 document could be available as early as the last quarter of 2008, even though I would think sometime during the first half of 2009 is more likely.

Attached you will see one slide of a presentation used during the last IAQG meeting in Florida. It does show the original timeline for AS9100 Rev. C release, but with the earlier release of ISO 9001:2008, now scheduled for October 31st, 2008, AS9100 will be ready for publication as early as this coming November. Since the document has to be balloted in the 3 different sectors, it might be Q1 2009 before it is formally released. But I don't see why the IATF could not have a similar timeline for TS, especially when you consider that TS is not expected to add any new requirement, while AS9100 will.

From the ISO document N688...

Liaison report to ISO/TC 176 dated October 2004 from
The International Automotive Task Force – Liaison D Member

We reported last year the IATF’s concern to secure the future of ISO/TS 16949:2002, linked to ISO 9001:2000. We are pleased to report that following discussions with ISO, the ISO TMB has decided that ISO/TS16949:2002 will be extended, without revision, until at least 2008 or for the life of ISO9001:2000 plus one year. This will provide stability in third party audit cycles for the global automotive marketplace, while allowing sufficient time for any future revisions to ISO 9001:2000 to be reviewed in the context of the automotive standard. With this action, it effectively marks the end of the ISO Automotive Pilot Study, so no further meetings are planned for that group. Future reporting on progress will be made via the TC176 liaison forum or such other route as may benefit members of ISO/TC176 most effectively.

Hello CQC Doug:

In my first response to you, note that I wrote “From my memory…” and I stated I would be flabbergasted if TS was revised in 2008. Both statements leave room for the revision to happen.

In that same post I wrote, “I think the info the CQC Doug got from TUV is incorrect.” I went out of my way to say it was information you passed along and I stated your source. I did not say you were wrong.

Then you responded by implying that your source was legitimate. You continued to push that the revision will happen. You even stated that “..there would be no reason to hold up [TS 16949] revision until after ISO 9001:2008 is released,..”

I responded by giving some reasons why the revision of TS 16949 should be held up. I also left the door open for a revision of TS this year by stating, “Maybe the IATF and the auto industry can change the timing, speed and agility of the TAG's, and defined process for the revision of a technical specification?”

Can you get your source to send verifiable information or text from a document? Currently we are going on a report that someone at TUV said……

Thank you for spreading the knowledge you had just gained with fellow Quality professionals. I tried to give some valuable input in return. I don’t think you made any mistakes, but who am I to say. All should be listened to but challenges may be raised. I apologize if you think my attack was personal. As I said, I even specified your source and I did not say you were wrong. I am challenging your source. It may be time for TUV to stand up and prove their report.

I am getting my specific knowledge of the ISO/TS 16949 standard from the liaison reports (by Joe Bransky) at the US Technical Advisory Group to ISO/TC176/SC2 meetings. Also, since TS 16949 is a document created out of the ISO consensus process, all TAG’s to ISO world-wide would have to review and approve any change to TS 16949. I don’t think the IATF can hijack the process but maybe they can.

My experience in the automotive industry started in 1993 in Michigan.

I have not seen a New Work Item Proposal (NWIP) or a Design Specification within TC176 for the review of TS 16949. Maybe the IATF is doing the review and they will work the process for their needs and publish a new TS 16949 using the ISO resources for their needs. There may be loop holes in the document development process that allows this. Or being the largest single industry in the world, maybe the auto industry will simply do what they want? I know the single TUV person that attends the US TAG meetings. He would have the same info that I do. Maybe a TUV member is attending the international TAG meetings or the IATF meetings?

I apologize for offending you.

Finally, I personally think the TAG structure, ISO thing is broken. I have been on the US TAG for 8 years and I still don’t understand the processes and structure. ISO is supposedly the International Organization for Standardization but they seem to be supporting standards (not standardization) by supporting the proliferation of multiple sector specific standards. That is my opinion and is probably wrong too.

The saddest thing of all is that we don't know. If one goes to the IAOB / IATF website, here is what is reported:

"IATF Communiques

No current IATF Communiques at this time."

This is a wonderful example fo supplier develpment.


The second saddest thing is that my organization's registar is TUV, the source that CQC Doug is quoting. Wouldn't you think that a registrar would want infomed customers? I have not received any info from TUv on this subject.

From Sidney, "especially when you consider that TS is not expected to add any new requirement."

Did you mean to say that ISO 9001 is not expected to add any new requirements? Or do you know more about any expected changes to TS 16949? The quoted statement seems to imply that the only expected changes to TS would be becaue ISO 9001 is changing.

Did you mean to say that ISO 9001 is not expected to add any new requirements?Yes.Or do you know more about any expected changes to TS 16949?No.The quoted statement seems to imply that the only expected changes to TS would be becaue ISO 9001 is changing.Correct.

Sidney's terse answers convey my understanding, with the caveat that each registrant has to be wary of being caught in the switches with customer related requirements which can be seemingly arbitrary and capricious.

Hello Sidney:

Thank you for the answers. I wasn't trying to be abrasive or to corner you. My belief is that if anybody knows anything, you will. I wanted to confirm what you were communicating.

Thanks for the knowledge

I had heard from my Auditor that Ts 16949 standard is not a freezed standard as it is only a guideline which is upgraded version of QS 9000. As per me it is also a having lot of gaps which does not satisfy the organisational goals.

I was undergone a audit by Volkswagon. The customer it self is demanding much more than TS 16949. As per there standard it will azumed that they also not believeing only on TS 16949 also want some of the other techniques like Lean, Sixsima, Pokayoke, TPM to be introduced by the supplier. ( The Volks wagon standard is included all the above)

So ????????

Thanks for the knowledge

I had heard from my Auditor that Ts 16949 standard is not a freezed standard as it is only a guideline which is upgraded version of QS 9000.



ISO/TS 16949, like all ISO standards isn't frozen - it's reviewed and, when required, undated. Withe the advent of the ISO9K2008, there may be a revision to ISO/TS 16949.

Your auditor is wrong, IMHO - ISO/TS 16949 isn't a 'guideline' and certainly not an 'upgraded' version of QS-9000. QS-9000 wasn't an international standard, like ISO/TS 16949 is, plus it was affected by a major rewriting of ISO 9001 - away from elements to a process based QMS - hardly an upgrade IMHO!

Was the comment made by your Volkswagen auditor?

It may not a be frozen standard, but then none are, and it is far more than a guide line for an extended QS9000. QS9000 is gone but not forgotten.

VW never recognised QS9000 as tehy demanded VDA6.1 with there own add ons. How ever to be a cat A supplier you must gain TS16949 and then show compliance with there own needs and wishes. This has never been any different

AndyN & AndyJP

Thanks for the clarification & clearing the mis understanding from me.

It all was due to some of the gap of understanding:notme:

Per Joe Bransky, at the FMEA rollout in Huron, Ohio: TS 16949 will be revised to only include the ISO 9001 revisions. He went on to say that 16949will remain a Technical Specification and will not go through the process needed to create an International Standard. This latter took approval from the ISO General Scretariat. (My thought is that this gives the OMEs the authority to amend TS as they eventually see fit.)

The above is about as much horse's mouth that you will ever have. So, don't let any auditors or consultants play games with you.

See this
# ISO/TS 16949:2009 Transition Process Posted 01/07/2009 (http://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/docs/IATF%20Oversight%20Certifcation%20Body%20Communique%202008_006.pdf)

from IATF

Thanks a lot for the most updated TS 16949 information!
But shouldn't the standard be upgraded to a normal ISO standard instead of still keeping TS-title with it per ISO's own rule?:confused:

The difference is that the TS belongs not to ISO but rather to the industry.
Apart from the mouthful what difference does it make.

From the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards, here is the defintion of a Technical Specification. Based on the defintion, it sure is an interesting question that Debyang raises. I wonder why TS 16949 is not ready to become a Internation standard?

Howard, what do you mean by stating that TS 16949 belongs to the industry?

3.4
Technical Specification
TS
document published by ISO or IEC for which there is the future possibility of agreement on an International Standard, but for which at present
• the required support for approval as an International Standard cannot be obtained,
• there is doubt on whether consensus has been achieved,
• the subject matter is still under technical development, or
• there is another reason precluding immediate publication as an International Standard
NOTE 1 The content of a Technical Specification, including its annexes, may include requirements.
NOTE 2 A Technical Specification is not allowed to conflict with an existing International Standard.
NOTE 3 Competing Technical Specifications on the same subject are permitted.
NOTE 4 Prior to mid-1999, Technical Specifications were designated as Technical Reports of type 1 or 2.

The IATF/AIAG won't relinquish control to a non-automotive group within the ISO structure? Possibly? When it was QS they maintained control over content, but it wasn't a 'standard', conversely TS is an 'ISO' but they'd technically have to give up 'authority for content etc.

I wonder why TS 16949 is not ready to become a Internation standard?Probably due to the fact that, for it to become a full fledged ISO Standard, the associated bureaucracy and lengthy stages of review/commenting/balloting are not in line with the IATF need for expedited review and publishing.

Just my guess. :cool:

Probably due to the fact that, for it to become a full fledged ISO Standard, the associated bureaucracy and lengthy stages of review/commenting/balloting are not in line with the IATF need for expedited review and publishing.

Just my guess. :cool:

Sidney:

What a good guess, I'm with you.

There is a statement in ISO/TS 16949 Foreward section quoted as follows:

An ISO/PAS or ISO/TS is reviewed after three years with a view to deciding whether it should be confirmed for a further three years, revised to become an International Standard, or withdrawn. In the case of a confirmed ISO/PAS or ISO/TS, it is reviewed again after six years at which time it has to be either transposed into an International Standard or withdrawn.

The ISO/TS 16949:2002 is the second edition, a confirmed one, and now is 2009 , already six years.....

As quality people, we must understand that exception does exist everywhere.
This is real life, is'nt it?;)

Howard, what do you mean by stating that TS 16949 belongs to the industry?



From TS
The content inside the boxed text of this document is ISO 9001:2000 text and is protected by the above copyright statement. "ISO copyright office " me
The text outside the boxes has been originated by the International Automotive Task Force. Copyright for this text is held by ANFIA, CCFA/FIEV, SMMT, VDA (see below) and the car manufacturers DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corp.
Neither this Technical Specification nor any extract from it may be reproduced in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission being secured.
Requests for permission to reproduce and/or translate non-boxed text should be addressed to one of the addresses below:
International Automotive Oversight Bureau (IAOB/USA)
Associazione Nazionale Fra Industrie Automobilistiche (ANFIA/Italy)
Comité des Constructeurs Français d'Automobiles (CCFA/France)
Fédération des Industries des Équipements pour Véhicules (FIEV/France)
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT/UK)
Verband der Automobilindustrie - Qualitätsmanagement Center (VDA-QMC/Germany)
and
ISO/TS 16949:2002 was prepared by the International Automotive Task Force (IATF) and Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (JAMA), with support from ISO/TC 176, Quality management and quality assurance.

my emphasis

I think this shows that TS belongs to the industry

With the weakness in the American automotive industry, I have wondered if VDA would finally win their rumored battle to replace TS with VDA. Anybody hear any rumors on this?

Just the one you posted... :notme:

With the weakness in the American automotive industry, I have wondered if VDA would finally win their rumored battle to replace TS with VDA. Anybody hear any rumors on this?

With Volkswagen coming late to the (long lost) minivan market, while using a rebadged Chrysler and touting it as engineered by Germans?:lmao:

Never!

IATF Oversight
Certification Body Communiqué
Communiqué # 2008-006
DATE: December 2008
SUBJECT: ISO/TS16949:2009 Transition Process
ISO/TS 16949:2009 will be issued during the first quarter 2009, following the ballot of the ISO TC176
and reflects the changes in ISO 9001:2008. As such, the following applies:
1) No new requirements
ISO/TS 16949:2009 introduces no new or changed requirements. ISO 9001:2008 is based on
clarifications or amendments to the existing requirements of ISO 9001:2000 and those that are
intended to improve consistency with ISO 14001:2004.
2) Application
Certification Bodies and Organizations are expected to understand and apply the amendments
to ISO/TS 16949:2009. Application of the clarifications related to ISO 9001:2008 requirements
in the boxed text of ISO/TS 16949:2009 is effective not later than 120 days after the release of
ISO/TS 16949:2009. .
3) Certification status to ISO/TS 16949:2002
The certification status to ISO/TS 16949:2002 remains in effect for the certification life.
Certification to ISO/TS 16949:2009 is recognized with the effective date of the release of
ISO/TS 16949:2009. The certification to ISO/TS 16949:2009 is not an upgrade and its term is
the same as the current ISO/TS 16949:2002 certificate.
4) Certificates issued to ISO/TS 16949:2009
IATF recognized certificates to ISO/TS 16949:2009 may be issued upon request by an
organization (client) after official publication and after a regularly scheduled surveillance audit,
but are not required until the next recertification audit.

Got my new TS3 yesterday, it's alive and well...

As a certified ISO/TS lead auditor I heard from the lecturer at training course in Mumbai; "there is no plan for revising TS2 before 2011 and the new version will be introduced in 2012"

2009 version is based on changed in ISO 9001:2008 not TS content

I heard from the lecturer at training course in Mumbai; "there is no plan for revising TS2 before 2011 and the new version will be introduced in 2012"Welcome to the Cove.
But please keep in mind that this forum is full of examples of misinformation propagated by lead auditors and trainers. Personally, I don't believe that TS16949 will be revised before 2014 or 2015, together with the next expected revision of ISO 9001.
The current state of the automotive sector and the need for stability of the TS document work against any revision before half way into the next decade.

TS 2?, TS 3? What are they?:notme::rolleyes:

Welcome to the Cove.
But please keep in mind that this forum is full of examples of misinformation propagated by lead auditors and trainers. Personally, I don't believe that TS16949 will be revised before 2014 or 2015, together with the next expected revision of ISO 9001.
The current state of the automotive sector and the need for stability of the TS document work against any revision before half way into the next decade.

Sadly, the IATF and its oversight offices are not shining examples of timely and effective communication. They act often like a secret society, hence the rumors, misinterpretations, and trainers/consultants that feel obligated to "inform." My standard answer is always: "Have you contacted IATF?" You may not get a whole lot, but that's the place to start.

Stijloor.

TS 2?, TS 3? What are they?:notme::rolleyes:

Version 2 (year 2002) and Version 3 (year 2009) of ISO/TS 16949.

Stijloor.

So in post #124 it refers to "TS 3" (apparently available) and then post #125 reports that there's no plan to revise "TS 2" until a few years hence.......:confused:

No wonder there's confusion over document control..........:mg::rolleyes:

To-day Recertification Audit of a ISO/TS 16949:2002 unit has started (20-21-22 July-2009)
The Auditor has informed that the Certificate will be issued as 'ISO/TS 16949:2009'.

Further to my earlier posting, to-day I saw the IATF communique to CBs informing that the date of implementation is 15-06-2009. From this date, all new Certificates or renewal will be issued as ISO/TS 16949:2009