With TS16949:2002 almost reaching saturation point and the demise of QS9000 - what will become of VDA6? Will it just remain as German Auto Manufacturers Customer Specific requirements? I would be grateful for any advice as to it's current and future status.:)

With TS16949:2002 almost reaching saturation point and the demise of QS9000 - what will become of VDA6? Will it just remain as German Auto Manufacturers Customer Specific requirements? I would be grateful for any advice as to it's current and future status.:)

I don't know exactly if the certification will continue but for the German manufacturers ISO/TS is acceptable.
The question is why one wants to keep VDA certification in addition to ISO/TS or if their only customers are German to stay just with VDA.

Well, so far VDA is alive and kicking. There are no announcements about any plans to revise / withdraw. So, if any of your customers insists on VDA and VDA only, better get yourself certified, or forego the customer. (Believe me, there are such people around.)

Thats the current status.

I don't know exactly if the certification will continue but for the German manufacturers ISO/TS is acceptable.

Do you have an official word to that effect from any of these manufacturers.

I have just read a report from a well known German car maker (VW) that they are keen to source only from VDA 6 suppliers!?

I too believed there was a move towards TS but no official line seems to have been established!!!!

According to Formel Q

The 5th revised edition of this brochure considers the new quality strategy that was agreed upon between the manufacturers and the suppliers through the VDA. According to which suppliers in the automotive industry must have a quality management system according to ISO/TS 16949 or VDA 6.1 as well as the realization of the VOLKSWAGEN EXCELLENCE strategy.

I have nothing else

Does anyone know where the latest copy of Formel Q can be obtained from?

I am trying to establish some prospective business and would like to establish the requirements.

I have access to the VW supplier portal, but it does not appear to be available through this! Any thoughts?

I have copies of the following :

Q Konkret - general requirements - Sept 1998
Q Konkret - new parts integral - April 2003
Q Konkret - capability assessment of suppliers - Feb 2005

I don't know if that are the latest versions. I have no access to the VW portal.
I cannot send them because they are copyrighted manuals.

If you have access, you must find them on :
http://www.vwgroupsupply.com/b2b/vwb2b_folder/supplypublic/en.html

Best regards,

Antoine

I have copies of the following :

Q Konkret - general requirements - Sept 1998
Q Konkret - new parts integral - April 2003
Q Konkret - capability assessment of suppliers - Feb 2005

I don't know if that are the latest versions. I have no access to the VW portal.
I cannot send them because they are copyrighted manuals.

If you have access, you must find them on :
http://www.vwgroupsupply.com/b2b/vwb2b_folder/supplypublic/en.html

Best regards,

Antoine

Thanks Antoine,

This is the portal I have access to and I can only find documents that refer to training seminars available for Formel Q. Not the documents themsleves! Not sure where else to look!

Just so you all know. I have managed to access the said documents and I now have to review them all!

It is interesting to note however, that a guy in VW has said to us that the take on which certification a supplier should have is still very buyer dependant! Those suppliers with VDA 6.1 still get preference over those without (I.e. those with TS only)! This is absolute nonsense, as it flies totally in the face of the published quality documents, supposedly mapping out the customer requirements!

Politics!

I am not experienced enough to comment fully on TS just yet, but I would say, having one truly global standard for automotive quality makes sense! Just me?

Anyway thanks again for your help guys, I maybe an expert on Formel Q in few weeks!

No politics here Manix.

Please note that TS stands for "Technical SPECIFICATION". It is not a STANDARD yet. That means it has not drawn sufficient number of votes in the committee to qualify as a STANDARD. (Pl go througf the Foreword).

Yes, A common global standard is a preferred option by all (including VW and whoever else maybe causing such troublesome situations), everybody is working towards it but unfortunately, that milestone is yet to be reached.

Lets hope we all (the committee!!) reach there fast enough and these issues are buried forever.

No politics here Manix.

Please note that TS stands for "Technical SPECIFICATION". It is not a STANDARD yet. That means it has not drawn sufficient number of votes in the committee to qualify as a STANDARD. (Pl go througf the Foreword).

Yes, A common global standard is a preferred option by all (including VW and whoever else maybe causing such troublesome situations), everybody is working towards it but unfortunately, that milestone is yet to be reached.

Lets hope we all (the committee!!) reach there fast enough and these issues are buried forever.

What I meant by the politics, is if you refer to Formel Q, (the latest document), it clearly states that a supplier must have either VDA6.1 or TS16949. Yet speaking to a VW bod (and in first hand experience), he says that if a buyer wants VDA6.1 then unless you have it, they are not interested in your supply.

If individuals are ignoring written statements made by their organisation, that is POLITICS and a resistance to change, that so often comes with this negative kind of POLITICS :mad: .

Thank you for your info on the status of TS etc....

Please note that TS stands for "Technical SPECIFICATION". It is not a STANDARD yet. That means it has not drawn sufficient number of votes in the committee to qualify as a STANDARD.

In terms of the way that ISO classifies documents, you're certainly correct, but in practical terms, as soon as a large OEM requires conformance to the requirements laid out in any codified document, it becomes a standard in practical terms, regardless of what anyone else chooses to call it. Referring to 16949 as a "standard" doesn't mean that anything important information is being lost.

In terms of the way that ISO classifies documents, you're certainly correct, but in practical terms, as soon as a large OEM requires conformance to the requirements laid out in any codified document, it becomes a standard in practical terms, regardless of what anyone else chooses to call it. Referring to 16949 as a "standard" doesn't mean that anything important information is being lost.

You nailed it Jim. Here the OEM (VM) is not agreeing with conformance to TS. Thats why its not acceptable yet as a standard. And there seem to be a sufficint number of such OEMs (their associations) in the committee to block its recognition as a standard. Its been standing for quite too long as a specification for everybody's comfort.

Any insider comments?