From the SMMT website, I downloaded the attached chart. In 2 years (2005 & 2006), the number of TS certificates doubled.

From the SMMT website, I downloaded the attached chart. In 2 years (2005 & 2006), the number of TS certificates doubled.

Has the application of the standard been relaxed to fuel this growth? My anecdotal contribution is this: the company that I left in 2005 as a QMR establishing a TS transition from QS, became registered in 2006. IMHO, they should have been stripped of their QS cert, nevermind certified to a higher standard just on their customer satisfaction / relations data alone:mad: . This company had a sham of an APQP process :bonk: and it showed in their new product deliveries. But hey, it's just one data point...:frust:

From the SMMT website, I downloaded the attached chart. In 2 years (2005 & 2006), the number of TS certificates doubled.

Isn't this what should have been expected? The great majority of new TS 16949 registrations were for companies transitioning from QS-9000, I expect. When the automotive OEMs mandate registration and set a deadline, the effect is self-fulfilling prophecy. We saw roughly the same thing happen with QS-9000 and GM's mandate in 1998. Approximately 3-4 months before the deadline, only ~40% of the affected suppliers were registered, but in the final 4 months, a lot of miracles took place. :cool: :magic:

Has the application of the standard been relaxed to fuel this growth? No. Actually the IATF and it's regional bodies (IAOB, SMMT, etc...) have been quite vigilant on the CB's performance and adherence to the IATF rules. Not always that vigilance will translate in the automotive supplier's performance. However, (as mentioned in another thread) back in November, I attended a seminar where Mr. Joe Bransky, from GM/IAOB, mentioned that, in general, the TS certified suppliers quality performance is much better, compared to the QS-9000 certified suppliers of earlier years....

Approximately 3-4 months before the deadline, only ~40% of the affected suppliers were registered, but in the final 4 months, a lot of miracles took place.You might recognize the name John Seddon, one of the main detractors of ISO 9000. A few years ago he cast shadows about the validity of the thousands of "transitions to the 2000 version" of the Standard, since most organizations procrastinated as much as they could. On page 9 of his notes (http://www.btinternet.com/~sbcco/iqa/cert2k/9k1_bob_seddon.pdf), he stated:


Slide
The year 2000 revision of the standard required everybody to upgrade to what was believed to be a new and improved standard. That’s an interesting idea isn’t it, if that’s an improvement then it’s a recognition that it wasn’t very good in the 94 review, let alone in the 87 review or in the original 1979 version. Some people say this is continuous improvement. I say this is an acceptance that we’ve done something wrong. But nevertheless, look at the numbers, six thousand firms said they’re not going to transition to ISO9000: 2000, of the remaining sixty one thousand few had transitioned. It left fifty one thousand or more to transition by the end of 2003 or lose their certification.
XXX is now telling us we have a 95% conversion rate. But what issue does that raise? Well, we did 51250 firms in one calendar year, that’s 200 every business day. How could that have been done if it wasn’t full of corruption? it is hardly credible. This is something that ought to worry Lord Lindsay (chairman of the UK Accreditation Service).


He was singling out one specific CB, but the same question applies to the whole Certification Sector...

No. Actually the IATF and it's regional bodies (IAOB, SMMT, etc...) have been quite vigilant on the CB's performance and adherence to the IATF rules. Not always that vigilance will translate in the automotive supplier's performance. However, (as mentioned in another thread) back in November, I attended a seminar where Mr. Joe Bransky, from GM/IAOB, mentioned that, in general, the TS certified suppliers quality performance is much better, compared to the QS-9000 certified suppliers of earlier years....

And, don't forget, the TS requirements make performance measureable, instead of the 'old' 94 based QS requirements where 'beauty was in the eye of the beholder'............

Andy

A lot of good points brought up here. I think the increase is basically because the companies had to. QS expired Dec. 14/06, not much else they could do if they wanted to supply automotive. As far as companies deserving to be certified, well most had a pervious system so the upgrade would not have been as difficult as creating one from scratch. Chances are if they had a poor system before they probably still have a poor system. They will be forced to fix it now as process audits don't generally let you hide as much as the previous systems.

I would expect the number of registered companies to level off this year, no drastic increases.

Just my two cents worth.
Jason.

Well said, Jason.

Andy

P.S. Your :2cents: are obviously USA currency - worth a lot!!:lmao: