Has anyone ever heard of Ford, GM, or Chrysler requiring information about a supplier's supplier's (that's not a typo) quality certificate and IMDS documentation? If you are going to reply with a lame catch all phrase like "if it's a customer specific requirement..." don't bother. This is just another reason why we'll never be able to compete with countries like China.

Has anyone ever heard of Ford, GM, or Chrysler requiring information about a supplier's supplier's (that's not a typo) quality certificate and IMDS documentation? If you are going to reply with a lame catch all phrase like "if it's a customer specific requirement..." don't bother. This is just another reason why we'll never be able to compete with countries like China.
I think I sense a bit of frustration. I feel your pain, but I'm not sure that it always makes good sense to expect the Big Three to make good sense. Aside from whether or not customer requirements make sense, the requirements are all a matter of contract review, and contract review entails negotiations, and in the end, whatever is agreed to is what you have to do.

As far as sub-tier certifications are concerned, 16949 says:Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body..

With regard to IMDS requirements, if the idea is to be able to track vehicle content, it makes sense that all content would be considered, no matter how far down in the supply chain it comes from.

I think I sense a bit of frustration. I feel your pain, but I'm not sure that it always makes good sense to expect the Big Three to make good sense. Aside from whether or not customer requirements make sense, the requirements are all a matter of contract review, and contract review entails negotiations, and in the end, whatever is agreed to is what you have to do.
Did you just suggest to tell the customer to take a hike because it's not in the original contract?
As far as sub-tier certifications are concerned, 16949 says:
Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body.

That's only if the organization is located in the USA. I know for a fact that this doesn't matter in Mexico.
With regard to IMDS requirements, if the idea is to be able to track vehicle content, it makes sense that all content would be considered, no matter how far down in the supply chain it comes from.
In other words you haven't experienced this yet.
What gets me is companies located in countries outside the USA seem to be exempt from any quality standard and making a lot of money doing it. While people in the states spend time and money making sure they comply to a standard only to have the company move overseas where it's basically a free for all.

Did you just suggest to tell the customer to take a hike because it's not in the original contract?
If there's something the customer wants to do that's going to cost more money and it wasn't addressed in the original contractual pricing, you're within your rights to reopen the negotiations. How you address that right is a matter of judgement; each case is different and no one here can give you direct advice as to how to handle it.

That's only if the organization is located in the USA. I know for a fact that this doesn't matter in Mexico.
I think I must have missed the part that says the requirement applies only to US companies. ISO/TS 16949 is an international standard.

In other words you haven't experienced this yet.
What gets me is companies located in countries outside the USA seem to be exempt from any quality standard and making a lot of money doing it. While people in the states spend time and money making sure they comply to a standard only to have the company move overseas where it's basically a free for all.
I have certainly experienced the phenomenon of a customer making demands that weren't part of the original agreement. I'm not familiar with the exemption you're referring to; all of the automotive suppliers my company uses are registered to either QS 9000 or 16949, regardless of nationality. We don't require it, but I don't know of any that aren't registered to one standard or the other.

If there's something the customer wants to do that's going to cost more money and it wasn't addressed in the original contractual pricing, you're within your rights to reopen the negotiations. How you address that right is a matter of judgement; each case is different and no one hear can give you direct advice as to how to handle it.
:topic: Let's talk about PPAP requirements in reality.
I think I must have missed the part that says the requirement applies only to US companies. ISO/TS 16949 is an international standard.
It's in the end, between the lines.
have certainly experienced the phenomenon of a customer making demands that weren't part of the original agreement. I'm not familiar with the exemption you're referring to; all of the automotive suppliers my company uses are registered to either QS 9000 or 16949, regardless of nationality. We don't require it, but I don't know of any that aren't registered to one standard or the other.
What?

To discuss PPAP requirements in reality is a difficult task to say the least.

We are a TS16949 registered company located in the US. 95% of our suppliers are in the US and they are certified to one standard or another.

For specific PPAP reqs. I am going to point you to the "AIAG Production Part Approval Process" booklet 3rd Edition. It outlines which specific Tier 1's require what. Ford is different from Chrysler which is different from GM. Here is another wrinkle:

Our Tier 1 has decided that our forms (straight from the book) are not good enough and want us to use theirs. Essentially it is the same, however theirs include a lot more space for their internal buy-off and signatories.

So no matter what you are trying to achieve, the customer will dictate what you are supposed to do.

TS16949 is an international standard and I would think you would be hard pressed to find a company anywhere that supplies to the "Big Boys" and does not meet a standard or have a plan for implementation of a standard.

Quote: I think I must have missed the part that says the requirement applies only to US companies. ISO/TS 16949 is an international standard.
It's in the end, between the lines.
I am sorry that you are so frustrated but I work with many companies that are working with the automotive industry and are not US companies and all know that all suppliers MUST be ISO9001:2000 or have customer waivers. The registration audits also check this.The customers who waive are the US who allow QS9000 for those who have not implemented ISO9001:2000, a state which you will find does not exist in Europe.


Has anyone ever heard of Ford, GM, or Chrysler requiring information about a supplier's supplier's (that's not a typo) quality certificate and IMDS documentation? If you are going to reply with a lame catch all phrase like "if it's a customer specific requirement..." don't bother. This is just another reason why we'll never be able to compete with countries like China.

To supply any IMDS, GMW3059 declaration etc the easiest way is to use your suppliers declaration

I am afraid that you are barking up the wrong tree

Durring a tour at a GM facility I noticed material that came from a place I had a connection. The material did not originated from a TS certified supplier and it did come from overseas. This was a year ago. Have things changed? Not. I only deal with the facts not what's supposed to be.

Have you tried www.mdsystem.com (http://www.mdsystem.com) for IMDS information yet? It makes it a lot easier.

As for parts, etc. coming from overseas you are correct. As long as the company bringing the parts in to the states is TS and they certify the parts (puts their name on them) there is no consideration for TS or ISO.
The B3 don't care where the parts come from, as long as they meet price restrictions and some dummy, I mean, supplier is willing to take the blame when/if a failure occurs.

Have you tried www.mdsystem.com (http://www.mdsystem.com) for IMDS information yet? It makes it a lot easier.

As for parts, etc. coming from overseas you are correct. As long as the company bringing the parts in to the states is TS and they certify the parts (puts their name on them) there is no consideration for TS or ISO.
The B3 don't care where the parts come from, as long as they meet price restrictions and some dummy, I mean, supplier is willing to take the blame when/if a failure occurs.

It seems you've been around. Thanks for the link.

During a tour at a GM facility I noticed material that came from a place I had a connection. The material did not originated from a TS certified supplier and it did come from overseas. This was a year ago. Have things changed? Not. I only deal with the facts not what's supposed to be.


Of course, the Big 3 can always accept whatever they want, though. I mean, there are always going to be exceptions - and considering they're the ones that are *enforcing* the rules, are you really shocked that they're the ones *breaking* them? Even JSW's quote from the standard, it openly states "unless otherwise specified by the customer".

Besides - I don't know what the material was, but keep in mind that there may be materials or services over which a supplier has somewhat of a "monopoly". If they're not certified, but they're the only one available (or the only one that's affordable, by a long shot) then what else are you supposed to do?

What gets me is companies located in countries outside the USA seem to be exempt from any quality standard and making a lot of money doing it. While people in the states spend time and money making sure they comply to a standard only to have the company move overseas where it's basically a free for all.

Now that's an exaggeration if ever I've heard one. The Europeans are leaps and bounds ahead of us in creating and enforcing these types of regulations. IMDS is based on ELV, which is a directive of the European Union. From my understanding, the North Americans are merely jumping on the bandwagon. Furthermore, the ELV...RoHS...WEEE - all of these come out of the EU.

May want to take another look before claiming that the US is always the scapegoat. Keep in mind that this is an international forum...and there are plenty of overseas contributors...obviously North America isn't the only continent to be subject to the ISO standards.

Now that's an exaggeration if ever I've heard one. The Europeans are leaps and bounds ahead of us in creating and enforcing these types of regulations. IMDS is based on ELV, which is a directive of the European Union. From my understanding, the North Americans are merely jumping on the bandwagon. Furthermore, the ELV...RoHS...WEEE - all of these come out of the EU.

May want to take another look before claiming that the US is always the scapegoat. Keep in mind that this is an international forum...and there are plenty of overseas contributors...obviously North America isn't the only continent to be subject to the ISO standards.

I wasn't talking about Europeans.
I never claimed the US was a scapegoat.
Let's stick with the facts please. :ca:

I wasn't talking about Europeans.
I never claimed the US was a scapegoat.
Let's stick with the facts please. :ca:

'Twas merely an example of locations *outside* of North America that are just as in-tune with regulatory requirements and quality standards as we are.

:topic: 'Twas merely an example of locations *outside* of North America that are just as in-tune with regulatory requirements and quality standards as we are.
Unfortunately a lot of manufacturing jobs are leaving the US and and going to places NOT "as in-tune with regulatory requirements and quality standards as we are."

If you consider the OEM requirement that the supplier be registered to ISO 14001. ISO means "equal" right? and that is he intent of the folks that write the ISO standards, is that organizations implementing a standard are on equal footing worldwide. But organizations implementing ISO 14001 in the US are not on equal footing compared to those implementing in, say China, Mexico and India. Those countries have relatively little environmental legal requirements and thus little associated costs, whereas in the US the costs are much higher. Remember to be ISO 14001 we have to be committed to compliance with legal requirements.

Unfortunately ISO 14001 does not make for a level playing field for organizations worldwide. Just the opposite.

'Twas merely an example of locations *outside* of North America that are just as in-tune with regulatory requirements and quality standards as we are.

The point I'm trying to make is the lack of actual quality in a product will not persuade anyone not to purchase. Yet it's far more economical to produce product with little to no quality at all.
It's easy to talk about countries with the highest quality standards like the European Nations. What about the contries with the lowest quality? What's going on with them. How about a poll on who's got the worst quality. Then let's all wonder why the big three insist you build there.

The point I'm trying to make is the lack of actual quality in a product will not persuade anyone not to purchase. Yet it's far more economical to produce product with little to no quality at all.
It's easy to talk about countries with the highest quality standards like the European Nations. What about the contries with the lowest quality? What's going on with them. How about a poll on who's got the worst quality. Then let's all wonder why the big three insist you build there.
Thus far it's been very difficult to tell exactly what your point is. It's clear that you're upset about something, but if you're not interested in getting help with it, you should just forewarn us that you're posting a rant and we'll leave you alone until you're feeling better.

Thus far it's been very difficult to tell exactly what your point is. It's clear that you're upset about something, but if you're not interested in getting help with it, you should just forewarn us that you're posting a rant and we'll leave you alone until you're feeling better.

...? I did receive the help I was looking for within this thread. What are you talking about?

...? I did receive the help I was looking for within this thread. What are you talking about?
Well, how about this:
The point I'm trying to make is the lack of actual quality in a product will not persuade anyone not to purchase. Yet it's far more economical to produce product with little to no quality at all.
If I read through the overabundance of negatives in the first sentence correctly, what you seem to be saying is, "Poor quality doesn't deter anyone from purchasing products." Do you really think this is true in a general sense?
Then you say that it's more economical to produce poor-quality products than (presumably) to produce conforming products. How can this be true, again in a general sense? Certainly there are times when some manufacturers will, in spite of everything, buy on the basis of price and disregard cost. And I know it's very frustrating to be powerlessly involved in those situations, but that's because it's fundamentally wrong. I think that another mistake you make is in assuming that the Big 3 will be consistent, treat others the way they would like to be treated, and generally evince some semblance of ethical behavior when dealing with suppliers. We know, or at least we should, that that is not the case, so if a maneating tiger comes to your door and you let in in based on its claims to be a vegetarian, you can hardly blame the tiger when it starts chomping on your leg.

Well, how about this:

If I read through the overabundance of negatives in the first sentence correctly, what you seem to be saying is, "Poor quality doesn't deter anyone from purchasing products." Do you really think this is true in a general sense?
Then you say that it's more economical to produce poor-quality products than (presumably) to produce conforming products. How can this be true, again in a general sense? Certainly there are times when some manufacturers will, in spite of everything, buy on the basis of price and disregard cost. And I know it's very frustrating to be powerlessly involved in those situations, but that's because it's fundamentally wrong. I think that another mistake you make is in assuming that the Big 3 will be consistent, treat others the way they would like to be treated, and generally evince some semblance of ethical behavior when dealing with suppliers. We know, or at least we should, that that is not the case, so if a maneating tiger comes to your door and you let in in based on its claims to be a vegetarian, you can hardly blame the tiger when it starts chomping on your leg.

It appears you're reading it correctly and just when I think you get it, you start writing about man eating tigers and vegitarians. Hmm... strange.

It appears you're reading it correctly and just when I think you get it, you start writing about man eating tigers and vegitarians. Hmm... strange.
Just as you should not believe a tiger who claims to be a vegetarian because there is ample empirical evidence of carnivorous behavior on the part of tigers, you shouldn't expect the Big 3 to make sense in their dealings with suppliers, regardless of what they say.

Just as you should not believe a tiger who claims to be a vegetarian because there is ample empirical evidence of carnivorous behavior on the part of tigers, you shouldn't expect the Big 3 to make sense in their dealings with suppliers, regardless of what they say.
Yes, I agree.

I would like to determine something...

What exactly are you trying to get assistance with?

Are you trying to garner more information to pass on to others in an effort to persuade them from experts?

Are you trying to wrap your brain around lost business to an non registered foreign competitor?

Are you trying to determine if you (your company) can skirt the registration issue due to costs or internal structure maybe?

Are you trying to find out if other companies have not been registered and still been awarded B3 business?


I have read through this thread from beginning to end a few times in an effort to understand fully what you are trying to accomplish. While it is difficult to read into inflection and tone through an electronic medium such as this or email, I sense a lot of anger and even some hostility towards those that are trying to help you. We have all been known to use the Cove as a place to rant about our jobs, customers, bosses, registrars, co-workers etc. and it is very therapeutic to hear from other folks that experienced the same thing or even those who offer advice, humor and possible solutions to help diffuse the situation.

Please let us know how we can HELP.

Just some thoughts....

so if a maneating tiger comes to your door and you let it in based on its claims to be a vegetarian, you can hardly blame the tiger when it starts chomping on your leg.


I love this, can I use it?

I love this, can I use it?
Be my guest:agree1:

Thanks, do you need any copyright monies?

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I would like to determine something...

What exactly are you trying to get assistance with?

Are you trying to garner more information to pass on to others in an effort to persuade them from experts?

Are you trying to wrap your brain around lost business to an non registered foreign competitor?

Are you trying to determine if you (your company) can skirt the registration issue due to costs or internal structure maybe?

Are you trying to find out if other companies have not been registered and still been awarded B3 business?


I have read through this thread from beginning to end a few times in an effort to understand fully what you are trying to accomplish. While it is difficult to read into inflection and tone through an electronic medium such as this or email, I sense a lot of anger and even some hostility towards those that are trying to help you. We have all been known to use the Cove as a place to rant about our jobs, customers, bosses, registrars, co-workers etc. and it is very therapeutic to hear from other folks that experienced the same thing or even those who offer advice, humor and possible solutions to help diffuse the situation.

Please let us know how we can HELP.

Just some thoughts....
You must be kidding.

I've noticed that here at the cove you either get it or you don't. For instance, the first post is what the thread is all about but I would have to believe that everyone is intellegent enough to know that. I also believe that some people would rather post just to read it themselves with no positive input. Yet others seem to grasp it and put it in a way that you know they experienced it or know all about it.
I know most people don't want to be confused with the facts but I believe most people are becoming so sensitive it's difficult to get a point across with out taking into considering how the next person feels.

You must be kidding.

I also believe that some people would rather post just to read it themselves with no positive input.
Ha ha! That is funny. But true. Maybe I fit into that category. Thank you for helping me to understand myself :yes: .

You know what ~~~

Good Luck!!!

I think we've all lost sight of the original post. So, let me try and get it back on track.

I've run into exactly the same thing; Ford mandated supplier information all the way down the chain (in this case I am Tier III, and info went all the way down to Tier V).

To give one specific example (steel): when I submitted by PPAP to the Tier II, I included a Lvl 3 PPAP submission from my steel supplier (Tier IV), and required that the original mill certification (Tier V) AND material analysis from a registered lab accompany that PPAP.

I also requested by supplier create an IMDS entry for the specific grade of material purchased.

The above steps were 'rolled out' to all our suppliers; and ALL were able to comply (with a little bit of coaxing and training on IMDS for some). Now, it's an easy task; when I am preparing my IMDS submission to the Tier I or II, I already have all the supplier info ready for me, and I just have to link it all up.....an hours work at most (on a good day, if the system isn't too busy).

Is it necessary? Yes, because the customer wants it.....not that there is (yet) any governmental requirement for NA vehicles to comply.

Spend a little bit of time preparing the groundwork for this task, and in the long run you'll find it pays off.

I think we've all lost sight of the original post. So, let me try and get it back on track.

I've run into exactly the same thing; Ford mandated supplier information all the way down the chain (in this case I am Tier III, and info went all the way down to Tier V).

To give one specific example (steel): when I submitted by PPAP to the Tier II, I included a Lvl 3 PPAP submission from my steel supplier (Tier IV), and required that the original mill certification (Tier V) AND material analysis from a registered lab accompany that PPAP.

I also requested by supplier create an IMDS entry for the specific grade of material purchased.

The above steps were 'rolled out' to all our suppliers; and ALL were able to comply (with a little bit of coaxing and training on IMDS for some). Now, it's an easy task; when I am preparing my IMDS submission to the Tier I or II, I already have all the supplier info ready for me, and I just have to link it all up.....an hours work at most (on a good day, if the system isn't too busy).

Is it necessary? Yes, because the customer wants it.....not that there is (yet) any governmental requirement for NA vehicles to comply.

Spend a little bit of time preparing the groundwork for this task, and in the long run you'll find it pays off.
That sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me. What did you do to deserve this? I was able to persuade the parties involved that it was a waist of time for repeated PPAP submissions and now everyone's happy. Especially my customer who thanked me for helping them save time and money.

You know what ~~~

Good Luck!!!
I would like to determine something...

What exactly are you trying to say?

Hi,everyone
I'm Garrison.I am from shenzhen city,China. I enjoy to know you and elsmar. Last six year, I worked in different Dep . of different industries. I have rich experiences in plant management systems operation,such as ISO9001,ISO14001,ISO/TS16949,etc. I wish to discuss the problems in carrying out systems with others;I also be pleasured to communicate other things with you including Economics,History,Management,Financial,etc.
My e-mail is garrisonerkuo@yahoo.com.cn, garrisoner@tom.com