My company is planning the launching of a new manufacturing facility in the US. Accordingly, we are including the planning of Certification.

Can someone tell/explain me if some requirements in the TS16949 Standards imply that the facility must have been running for some period like 6 or 12 months prior to being eligible for certification ?

[This message has been edited by PGeorges (edited 12 September 2000).]

I don't think there is a requirement like that in the standard. I guess it's really a matter of how quickly you can implement your ISO-based system in your new plant. 6-12 months after completion sounds pretty fast, but then, if the facility is small or you have some "modular" system's approach...

No such requirement that I am aware of.

Has anyone had to go through this kind of situation already?

(I imagine that as TS16949 is recent, other's esperience on either TS or QS9000 would be interesting)

Although TS is new, QS9K or ISO9K is not, so there should be plenty of good experience here. Although some "packaged" approaches feature implementation times of 60-90 days, I think the general timeframe is more like 9-12 months. However, I don't know how many of those experiences are from a start-up perspective. My experience with implementing these systems (in a start-up phase) is in the 9-12 month range. Anyone else?

From a slightly different point of view, I believe it will depend on the registrar's 'system' requirements. My experience has been that they expect a 4 to 6 month period of time that the system has been operating. Auditors often want to know the 'turn on' date for the system so they know how far back they can audit. Other thoughts?

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:
Although some "packaged" approaches feature implementation times of 60-90 days, I think the general timeframe is more like 9-12 months.
That's very interesting. Would you know where to get such "packaged" approach. This approch would require extra care for time required by registrar for running conditions as described by Rick Goodson. This last item would mean that this time is registrar dependent, am I right ?

Originally posted by PGeorges:

> Originally posted by Roger Eastin:
>
> Although some "packaged" approaches feature implementation times of
> 60-90 days, I think the general timeframe is more like 9-12 months.

That's very interesting. Would you know where to get such "packaged" approach. This approch would require extra care for time required by registrar for running conditions as described by Rick Goodson. This last item would mean that this time is registrar dependent, am I right ?
__________________________________________

The September issue of Quality Digest has a buyers guide for consultants starting on page 58. Be very careful in choosing one of the fast track packaged plans. They generally provide very little value added benefit for your company. Quality Digest only lists consultants so there is no evaluation or endorsements. You can reach them at www.qualitydigest.com (http://www.qualitydigest.com)

Best Regards,

Jim
------------------------
Edited to correct html formatting.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 14 September 2000).]

Originally posted by Jim Evans:
The September issue of Quality Digest has a buyers guide for consultants starting on page 58. Be very careful in choosing one of the fast track packaged plans.On the other hand, should you decide to consider a consultant give me a call. I dare say I have the experience and am probably significantly less expensive than the 'big boys'.

By the way - Implementation_ISO9K.pdf in the pdf_files directory may be of interest to you.
www.16949.com/pdf_files/ (http://www.16949.com/pdf_files/)

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 14 September 2000).]

Jim - yeah, I agree that packaged plans have considerable risks with them and you mentioned one of the risks. I think there is something to be said for a more methodical approach to implementing an ISO-based system. It should include a wholistic management approach, emphasizing the value-added portions of the standard. However, if you are under the gun to get a system installed quickly (by your customer), I guess a packaged approach might work. By the way, I've read in one of the Cayman forums before that Perry Johnson is one of those companies offering packaged plans. I'm sure there are others out there willing to offer the same thing. But, as has been stated before, "Buyer beware!!"