Marc - we may want to change the name of this forum to TS16949. Anyway, I was at a conference where a Daimlier/Chrysler Quality Manager was speaking. He indicated strongly that his company's position in the near future (Jan 2000?) regarding QS or TS, was that TS16949 would be the standard of choice. Although he said the B3 were frustrated by the quality of QS9K audits that 3rd party registrars were giving, that was not the sole reason for changing standards. He said that TS16949 should be easier for the B3 to manage and that the B3 (& other European automakers?) would be much more stringent in mandating certain auditor requirements. He said that the B3 were still seeing too many bad products coming from suppliers and that the auditors should be picking these "systemic" problems up during their audits. He also said that as part of the accreditation body witness audits, that their may be a B3 auditor observing the 3rd party audit as well as the accreditation body auditor. The B3 auditor would be looking for questions being asked about sufficiency of continuous improvement efforts, scrap reduction, preventive action efforts, etc. He was obviously bothered by the fact that the QS9K 3rd party audits were not producing the results that Daimlier/Chrysler expected to see. Sooooo....move over QS9K, the TS freight train is coming!!!

The first mistake is to believe QS9000 is 'the' answer to bad product.

Without going into details, I have seen ISO audits go down hill since QS came on the scene. Things were more 'strict' a few years back. I believe what we are seeing is, in part, driven by the explosion in registrations and the QS 'problem child'. I have seen UL auditors go in one plant and rip the cal labs a new a___ole over bias and related calculations while another client the UL auditor completely overlooks serious laboratory problems.

I don't doubt the b3 would like to drop QS. It has become an albatross and (for example me...) some prople use it's very existence (and things like the IASG interpretations) to word-whip the b3. Getting it into ISO's hands is smart. If you remember, the b3 claimed many times over that ISO9001 was dead and QS9000 was the successor-to-be. QS9 never made it as a winner in any way, shape or form. And not one other auto manufacturer (that I am aware of other than in Australia) in the world paid any significant attention to QS9.

Yup - TS16949 appears to be the future. It may be that QS9000 may make 8 years (came out in 1994) but that looks to be about it. There's too much invested in it for it to drop like a rock. It will fade away.

Marc, you hit it right on the head. The disparity in application within the same Registrar is alarming. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing auditors state "their understanding" of the standard - which leaves little to discuss. Our registrar does several plants within the corporation and I am amazed to hear the difference in application of QS-9000 between the different plants. When I first heard of TS16949 (then TR) sometime last year? I did believe that it was going to be the future, and I'me glad to see it happening. The B3 and AIAG are at fault for putting a stanglehold on the industry, and allowing things to go south they way they have with QS-9000. Could've been, should've been, but it all boils down to what it really is, and right now its a mess, in my opinion.

Aftr a couple of audits, one multinational client required their registrar to provide the same lead assessor at every audit at every plant (world wide). The disparities between auditors was so glaring it was impossible to get consistent interpretations.

This Daimlier/Chrysler guy seemed at first to blame the standard for the woes and travails of the B3, but it soon became clearer to us in the room that he (& his company) was frustrated by the 'apparent' lack of skill the auditors had in interpreting the standard. ("Interpreting the standard" is a phrase that has a clearer definition to the B3 than to anyone else.) To me, the requirements for auditors for TS16949 will be stiffer than for any standard so far, if the B3 has their way. I suppose that this may be the subject of a joint release by the B3 of customer-specific requirements. (Curiously, GM doesn't seem to be on the TS16949 bandwagon, yet.) That's an inference I've made from comments made by the Chrysler guy. By the way, I think, also, that putting the auto standard into ISO hands is a good idea.

We'll find out soon enough, I guess. Looked at TS16949.com:

-------snippo--------

Whois user[@<whois.server>]: ts16949.com

[rs.internic.net]
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

Registrant:
Steel Related Industries (TS33-DOM)
2000 Corporate Drive, Suite 580
Wexford, PA 15090
US

Domain Name: TS16949.COM

Administrative Contact:
Lake, Peter (PL1038) PeteCMG@AOL.COM
412.934.9000 (FAX) 412.935.6825
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
HostAmerica InterNIC Registrar (HIR-ORG) inic@HOSTAMERICA.COM
(800) 416-8078
Fax- (404) 237-3060
Billing Contact:
Clark, Jason (JC24444) webmaster@BUTLERWEB.COM
724-789-7200

Record last updated on 07-Apr-99.
Record created on 07-Apr-99.
Database last updated on 28-Sep-99 06:57:25 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.HOSTAMERICA.COM 209.235.112.20
NS2.HOSTAMERICA.COM 209.235.112.3

• Whois complete 9/29/99 7:31:42 PM •

-------snippo--------

But - I did snag 16949.com. Within a couple of days both 16949.com and qs9000.com will automagically transport you to this site.

I also checked out ISO16949.com. It's (somewhat recently) been taken by:

--------snippo-------

Registrant:
Smithers Scientific Services (ISO72-DOM)
425 West Market Street
Akron, OH 44309-2099
US

Domain Name: ISO16949.COM

Administrative Contact:
Domeck, Douglas C (DCD15) ddomeck@SMITHERSMAIL.COM
330-762-7441 (FAX) 330-762-7447
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
GWIS NOC (GN3-ORG) noc@GWIS.COM
330-656-5511
Fax- 330-656-5440
Billing Contact:
Domeck, Douglas C (DCD15) ddomeck@SMITHERSMAIL.COM
330-762-7441 (FAX) 330-762-7447

Record last updated on 26-Aug-99.
Record created on 26-Aug-99.
Database last updated on 28-Sep-99 06:57:25 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

DARCY.GWIS.COM 209.57.72.3
TAYLOR.GWIS.COM 209.57.74.25

• Whois complete 9/29/99 7:38:46 PM •

---------snippo-------

Obviously others are looking to cash in on the standard.

What was the conference you were at, Roger?

Marc - What was the "16949.com" message about? I didn't understand a lot of the text in that message. Were the companies listed those that are linked, in a business sense, to registering companies to TS16949? Anyway, the conference that I was at was a quality standards conference which had as one of its topics QS9K & TS16949. Hence, the involvement of the Chrysler guy...

The 16949.com thing is just that I just 'leased' the domain name. Above are the two companies/people who got TS16949.com and ISO16949.com

Who gave/sponsored the conference you were at?

Actually, it was a registrar training session and as part of that training, they had the Chrysler guy (I can't remember his whole name) address the new Sanctioned Interpretations coming out in Jan 00 and TS16949.

Boy, I can't wait - more interpretations, more stercoraceous occular linearity. Should be a good string of conversation when they come out - that is, if we don't experience y2k meltdown. Interesting, I just attended some training and the instructor was fairly adamant in stating QS-9000 was pretty much cut and dried - no need for interpretations! I liked her approach, which seemed to be that there is a level of reasonable to everything, and that's how auditors should approach a process or system when auditing.

I have to admit that so far the interpretations have been reasonable and few. But then, after 5 years a lot has been hashed out. I'm going to with hold my complaints until I see them. Other in one other message in another forum today, I didn't know another round was coming.

You folks haven't heard from me before, but I am very impressed with this site (thank you, Marc) and I will be a regular contributor, if you are willing to hear what I have to say. As a user of ISO 9000 and QS-9000, this whole discussion of TS 16949 has been very interesting. I have lead one company to ISO 9001 certification and am in the process of leading a second to ISO 9002/QS-9000. Consider how within these systems you handle engineering prints from customers. I doubt many of you put into production an unreleased print. If you do so, you know and accept the risks. That's the way I am treating TS 16949. Until it is released and my customers want it, and my registrar is involved with it, it is nothing more than a lively discussion piece.

------------------
David A. Guffey, CQE, CQA, CQMgr
Director of Quality Assurance
Great Lakes Metal Stamping, Inc.
4607 Rambo Road
Bridgman MI 49106
616-465-4415
616-465-0805 (Fax)
dguffey@GLAKESMETALSTAMPING.COM

According to my registrar, TS 16949 is no longer. ISO 16949 has been released. Does anyone have any recommedations on how to obtain a copy? I am also being advised to do nothing until the certification process has been defined and the customers are mandating the standard. Neither is the fact yet.

You can obtain a copy of the TS or ISO 16949 from AIAG. I am also sure you can obtain it from ASQ or the ISO.ch site. Yes, you are right to wait until the Big 3 put some more "meat" behind the standard. From the meeting that I mentioned above, it seems that after the audit criteria are detailed (and B3 specific requirements), there will be strong push to go to 16949. The guy from Chrysler stated that QS9K has been too hard to manage and that (their feeling is) 16949 will help alleviate some of those headaches! The B3 has not seen the gains from suppliers that they thought QS9K would give them. The Chrysler guy stated that the auditors (and registrars) have been too sloppy in their auditing. He stated that auditors have not audited the "value-added" features of QS9K well enough! They've looked at too many of the details of the elements and have not had a systems approach as the B3 intends.

Doesn't surprise me that the big3 want out. I was at a registration audit Monday and Tuesday - ISO - but I got to talking to one of the auditors and I estimated 4 years for QS to 'fade away'. Maybe it'll go away sooner!

Another transition to come!

just talked to some colleagues overseas...all the registrars that do not have over 100 QS clients will no longer be able to audit/register to QS...so guess who will push this new std all the more.....add them all up there are plenty out there with less than 100, and if they have happy clients, then that will drive this as well.

David:
You can get a copy of TS 16949 from the ASQ, cost is about $22.00

hi Marc.
This site TS16949, it´s so interesting. But What is the future? What´s the way? ISO 9000:2000, QS9000, or TS16949

I ordered the TS-4PAK from the AIAG. When there was a delay in getting the order, I called and the person I spoke with told me the Customer Specific Requirements manual, Checklist, and Rules for Certification had not gone to print yet, and that my order should never have been taken - BUT SHE WOULDN'T REFUND MY $. For some strange reason I get this feeling I've been "HAD!" But I did get a copy of TS/ISO(?)16949, and maybe someday I'll get the other items I ordered.

Not surprising. No refund, even if we screw up.

My experiences with the ASQC are quite similar. Things like this are why I have little respect for the ASQC or the AIAG. They're as bad as car salesmen.

This site TS16949, it´s so interesting. But What is the future? What´s the way? ISO 9000:2000, QS9000, or TS16949Let me get my crystal ball out... The answer is.... QS and 16949 are not that much different. 16949 will probably win because I suspect the auto makers would like to phase out QS support and things are 'becoming more global' with consideration to some national requirements like VDA6.1 (and the rest of the VDA series, for thqat matter).

Thanks for helping me Marc, this topic (ISO 16949) its new to me.
Where I can Get the latest copy of this standar?. 16949 its a official ISO document?
is it in development?

The AIAG I believe - www.aiag.org (http://www.aiag.org)

You can get it, as Marc states, from AIAG. You can also get it from ASQ or ANSI. AIAG offers the whole thing (customer requirements, etc.), but, except for the standard itself, nothing else is published. You just have to wait until they publish the rest of it. When will it be published? The last I heard was 4th quarter 1999! We'll see...

I have just received a copy of a communique from IATF which I received through Renault and PSA( Peugot and Citroen).
15 oct 1999 launch
" compilance with ISO/TS 16949 ..... is accepted as the international equivalent by IATF participating organisations..."

Please e-mail me with a fax number and I will send to anyone interested the full communique.

Howard:

FAX me a copy if you will, please. Or Scan & e-mail.

Marc (513 7773394)

Subject: Howard Atkins: ISO 16949 - IATF communiqué
Date: 09 Nov 1999 04:52:39 -0500
From: Richard.Sadler@vickers-systems.com
To: Forum_Mail@qs9000.com

FAO: Howard Atkins

Howard,

I've just read your post in the ISO16949 forum and would be interested in getting the entire communiqué.

I've been working with my quality systems manager, towards QS9000, but I'm trying to get some buy-in towards ISO 16949. We are presently ISO 9001 and looking to go to QS 9000, or similar in the next couple of years. The more backing I can get from the big-boys (Big 3, Renault, etc,) the better.

The work you guys are doing on this forum has been really useful in getting us to the stage we are. I really appreciate the information you pass on.

Richard Sadler Fax: +44 (0) 1705 487110

Regards
Richard Sadler
Manufacturing Quality Engineer
Eaton Corporation - Vickers Industrial Products

Howard - please e-mail the announcement to me as well. I imagine it won't be too long before we get something more official from the Big 3 as well.

Howard scanned and e-mailed it (faster than FedEx!!!) and it is posted at The Cayman pdf Files Zone (http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/) as IATF.gif and IATF.PCX

My thanks, Howard!

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 09 November 1999).]

He stated that auditors have not audited the "value-added" features of QS9K well enough! They've looked at too many of the details of the elements and have not had a systems approach as the B3 intends.

That was the message from Roger Eastin on October 21st, i picked it up on my second read and it buzzed around in my head for a few days.

It struck a cord because i would completely echo the view of whoever said that (I think it was someone from the big 3). I will no longer even bother making any apologies for not fully understanding any of the ISO standards. I will continue to use it as a background method of inforcing discipline (I dont know anything else that can do the same job) but present it as part of a wider programme of company improvement.

The Japanese laugh at our attempts to solve quality problems with standards, they believe that only peoples attitude and approach will really create progress.

It sounds like the Big 3 have recognised the problem, but are trying to solve it with yet another standard.

I know ive seen this before on this site, but it doesnt hurt to repeat it on this thread;
Founder of Matsushita;
'We are going to win and the industrial west is going to lose out. There is nothing much you can do about it because the reasons of your failure are within yourselves'


------------------
Andy B

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:

Marc - What was the "16949.com" message about?The changeover has begun!