I can't find anything in this forum about this "trial" ISO standard called TR16949, but if it is somewhere in this forum, let me know. I saw an article in Quality Digest (web version) where Steve Walsh (Ford) is quoted as saying that this ancillary document to ISO 9000 is an international automotive standard (it is currently out for review) and that suppliers will have a choice to be registered to either QS9K or TR16949. Has anyone else heard about this and is there any more information on it. This seems like a "bombshell" concept, but it was tucked away at the very end of the article.

I talked to someone who heard from the horses mouth as recently as Monday of last week, that the b3 intend on replacing QS9K with IS0-16949. I have a copy of this and it is not significantly different from QS. It is an attempt by the international automotive makers to have one automotive quality standard. So it combines all the VDA-6s and European standards into one automotive standard. Not a bad idea eh? The BIG bombshell came when he also told me the b3 wants to be the only registrar!!!! The Independant Association of Accredited Registrar's (IAAR) is fighting this of course, but the b3 want this to be the gospel by the beginning of 1999!!! He said he would pass along the minutes from that meeting so I can see for myself what was discussed.

A dumb question perhaps, but are you saying that Le Grand Trois want to be the people who are registering firms to this standard? If so, that is a bombshell!!! It seems that they are hard-pressed to keep up with the questions about QS from their suppliers! How in the world would they hope to register suppliers? This is another case of "Truth is stranger than fiction" in the automotive world. This sure does bring up a lot of questions (if things are panning out this way).
By the way, Marc, I did see the Search function after I posted this (I just didn't edit my message). Thanks. This is a great forum.

[This message has been edited by Roger Eastin (edited 09-03-98).]

No that's not a dumb question, because it seems so hard to believe. Yes the b3 are the one who want to registrar firms. It is the contention of the b3 that the registrar's "screwed up" QS-9000. Many firms that have no business being certified are being certified. This I agree with. The b3 also talked about "blessing" a couple of the more reputable registrars and giving them exclusive rights to registrar companies. Unfortuatly, the registrars they mentioned are the ones I hear the most complaints about, and they have been mentioned several times on this forum! These "reputable" registrars are very big and have a lot of money to buy those rights from the b3.

Marc- I'll keep ya updated. The draft document is pretty long and it was faxed to me so it wont fax well, but if you want "e" me your address and I'll send it to ya.

I heard the same thing Christian did just last night from the mule's mouth. However, I did not hear about the exclusivity part. That just tans my hide! It does add to the addage that money talks, no matter what you're saying!

It doesn't really surprise me with consideration to the money involved. I have never hesitated to say the QS thing has nothing to do with quality. Look what Dan Reid and the gang did with the Plexus thing. It has to do with money to the big 3. With consideration of registrar fees, I sure would like to be the only company allowed to register companies to QS. Jeez - probably make nearly as much as they do making cars - if not more!

They may 'blame' the registrars for 'screwing up QS9000' but they wouldn't take the heat for the crappy cars they build when the Japanese started to gain repeat customers - they BLAMED the Japanese for THEIR problems (my 1989 Mazda 626 just turned over 260,000 miles, by the way, with NO major repairs - best car I ever owned).

Registrars did not 'screw up' QS9000. The big 3 released a book of their 'common' requirements (and the latest and 'greatest' is no better in my opinion) which needed endless interpretations (and still does) to'explain'. In short QS9000 is a hack, has been, and still is. Can you imagine if all your customer requirements (and QS9000 is NOTHING MORE THAN a Customer REQUIREMENT) required pages upon pages of interpretations. The interpretations even needed interpretation! What does that tell us?

So - the big3 are expanding their business scope to include 'registrations'! I guess GM can't get rid of their 'extra baggage' so they may as well find jobs for them! Sounds like millions of cash money dollars (and yen and marks and pounds, etc) to me! Wonder how I can get a cut!!!!

Well, enough diatribe. I gotta pack so I can leave town right after I finish classes tomorrow. want to get home and 'holiday' with everyone else....

I just got done reading TR16949 and, for a while, I thought I was reading the 3rd edition of QS9K! However, it does have some interesting differences. I am not as aware of the other European standards, but apparently this document got some of its requirements from those standards. It is still hard to believe that they want this document applied by 1 Jan 99 and that the Big Three want to be the auditors!!!! Also, can it really be true that suppliers will have a choice between this document and QS9K (according to Steve Walsh) for registration?

Hey Marc!
The forum idea is just great. PS did you get any work from the Benz folks in Japan? They are strangely quite over there....

How can a simple guy like me get hold of a copy of the ISO (TR) 16949? Is this going to blow up in our faces later this year? I'm right in the middle of a major rewrite of all our documents in order to conform to the Third Edition. Think I should wait a bit? Or just keep going?
Thanks for the great site, you're such a big help to us all.
PS some pic at the top... 8=)

Mike Hilliard

well I have dredged through the copy, and don't see where the big three will be doing the registration, just that AIAG will control..(as they do now?) or am I missing something? Perhaps that was implied, and discussed elsewhere?

Looks similar ..... no great surprises there, just a few interesting notes.
Still hard to conceive that jan 99 will be the date of doom. who are the registrars of choice? Probably the ones that messed it up the first time....

Is the January 1999 date heresay or has someone seen it written somewhere? Am I missing something (which is likely)?

I see it is 'labeled' a "technical report".

Comments?

The only thing I know for sure is what I read in Quality Digest magazine. That is where I read Steve Walsh's comments on TR16949 (my first message in this thread). Since then, I have heard several individuals say various things, such as the implementation date of 1 Jan 99. I haven't seen anything else confirmed as of yet. I suspect the "TR" will come off when it has been reviewed and considered "auditable". Walsh said that would happen in November. Recently, I heard that only Ford was going to adapt it (for the near term). Welcome to the QS/ISO free-for-all...

looks like a viable replacement...an improvement actually......It will be interesting to see how it is phased in. As long as there are no exclusivity rights to registrars I'll embrace it

Since my first response to Roger's original posting, I have obtained the minutes from the meeting held 8/25/98 where the B3 first dropped this bombshell. It is all true about what the B3 plan to do. Nothing has been decided since then, but I will be sure to post anything that I see documented concerning their decisions.

What meeting was held on 8/25? Was this an AIAG meeting, ASQ meeting, or a B3 meeting with suppliers? It is interesting that one hears about these things through meandering communication lines (although I suspect that Christian has a straighter connection than others). An application date of 1 Jan 99 doesn't give suppliers much time to respond. I agree with Barb that the document looks like a good one, but in the ISO standards world, a turn-around time of 6 months (from the time I first heard about it anyway) seems almost like a time warp. Usually ISO likes to study these things for a lot longer time than this.
Areas like the B3 being the auditors (along with a select few others) and the fact that this document seems to merge QS with VDA6 more, take time for a supplier to assimilate (intellectually, let alone to one's Quality System). Should we have a folder for this new standard? 1 January is just around the corner...

This reminds me of the Plexus meeting a while ago. It's a matter of how close you are to the source. When this topic was posted I immediately e-mailed my 'close group'. One fellow wrote back saying "Yeah - we've been working on it for a while new" (note that 'while' was not defined). He sent me the copy that is posted.

Man - we must be pretty far down the feed chain. I'm trying to find a publication which catches these 'incidents' early.

Well, it's been a year now since this thread was started. How long you figure it will take QS9000 to die? Comments anyone?

By the way - the ISO folks e-mailed a complaint so the posted document was removed. Sorry about that!

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 27 November 1999).]

Marc:
Question #1 = Is that "Da Cheech Wizard" as it appears in National Lampoon magazine?

Reply #1 = I think that QS will be ending very soon, Chrysler is obviously going to go with ISO 16949 the perfect mixture between the US QS and the German VDA, why would GM and Ford continue to waste money and support 2 seperate standards that say basically the same thing?

Reply #2 = Why is the ISO group so touchy? Is it because they have become so out of touch with this ISO 9000:2000 that they had to bailed out by the automakers? Give us a break ISO.

Yeah - from NatLapCo back in the 1970's. And I remain a radical.

Reply #2 = Why is the ISO group so touchy? Is it because they have become so out of touch with this ISO 9000:2000 that they had to bailed out by the automakers? Give us a break ISO.Which ISO group and what do you mean by touchy?

Where can I get the copy of TR16949? I tried the pdf file, but there's nothing. Can anybody give me the idea?
One more dumb question. What TR and TS accronym for?

Thanks for help. My email address is
dewieo@yahoo.com

QS and all of their interpretations has been a real source of agony for me. When I first heard of TR16949 I almost had a panic attack. But after having read it, I thought it read better than QS. At any rate I have three Question 1)I'd like to know more about the "Plexus Thing" The Wizard spoke of.I have an opinion here but think I should save it so not to stomp on toes! 2)Who are the Registrars you were refering to? And 3)What is the opinion of UL as a registrar?
Thanks for the Input!

The Plexus 'thing' is at Plexus (http://Elsmar.com/obsolete/plexus.html)

I'm not sure which post your 2nd question is asking about (registrars.

Stay away from UL as registrar unless you're a masochist.

"The b3 also talked about "blessing" a couple of the more reputable registrars and giving them exclusive rights to registrar companies. Unfortuatly, the registrars they mentioned are the ones I hear the most complaints about, and they have been mentioned several times on this forum! These "reputable" registrars are very big and have a lot of money to buy those rights from the b3." This was what I was refering to. Which registrars were you speaking of?
Thanks for the "Plexus Deal" it was very enlightening to say the least. I still will refrain from voicing my opinion on this. But from what I understand we are looking into other options.
Thanks for the help!

I have the First edition (1999-03-01)2nd. printing.

Also includes.
File #1. QS-9000 3rd. Edition System Manual (85 pages)
File #2. QS-9000 3rd. Edition Procedures Manual (210 Pages)
File #3. APQP Procedure.
File #4. Control Plan Format.
File #5. Q.C. & Operator Work Instructions and Procedures.
File #6. Traceability Forms and Procedures.
File #7. FEMA Forms
File #8. Q-Fact Parteo. Used to track weekly and daily rejects & counts.
File #9. Customer Supplier Survey Format.
Plus many more user friendly forms.

there have been 30 registrars 'blessed' if you will.......to date. Criteria seems to be in numbers, not qualifications....1st requirement is to have 100 registered QS clients.
So what does that tell you?

I beleive it's all about politics and the all mighty buck. Maybe I should be putting as much time in to researching how to play the game as I have the rules of the game.I don't mean to sound like a B**CH, but today I'm feeling the part. The politics has really gotten to me. Anyone have suggestions, because I'm open at this point.

Has been from the beginning and hasn't changed except Dan Reid took the brass ring KPMG was holding out. Another winner was (is) Alex Chong and the Plexus franchise. And let us not forget the AIAG and other related 'organizations'.

I'd like to congratulate to Marc for the faster answer about a personal question of TS16949

I agree with you,Jackie -- to a point. It shouldn't be that way but it is.
Maybe it's time that we "the customer" have more input on what is required of these standards; ISO/QS/TR among others. I would suggest a BETA test , something like you would do for a new software program. Maybe a random sampling from each state. Those selected could then solicit ideas from other businesses within the state. Maybe then we could add some value to an otherwise value-less the process.

Hey Sam:

Many big companies do get in on the process. For example, Motorola was heavily involved in the last QS9000 update as well the more recent Semi-Conductor Sector update - they had a lot of input. Just like in government decisions, big business is there orchestrating (at least to some degree).

Was anyone out there in attendance at the AIAG roll-out of ISO16949 on December 13? I was scheduled to attend but was ill that day. I would like to get some notes from someone who was there, since AIAG won't ever release their presentation slides to the public. Possibly someone knows where there is a web page with this info?

See the topic in this forum on the Rollout meeting. A couple of folks were able to attend it.

I was at the TS rollout 12/13/99 and I have been "chosen" TS champion for my company, so I have been very close to this topic recently. A few of things I have "heard" -- the rumors came from reliable sources:

- The chosen registrars was purely political. It is a fact that the registrars with the 6th most QS registrations was not on the list. They have ~700 QS registrations.

- (Fact) Of the registrars I spoke to, NONE of them know or will say how they made the list. The registrars that did not make the list do not have a clue why they did not make the list.

- (FACT) The B3 never published the criteria for choosing registrars or auditors.

- (Rumor) Registrars not chosen are considering bringing a class action against the B3 for restraint of trade. Because they never made clear the criteria for selection of the registrars.

- (FACT) More registrars will be added to the TS party. Remember in 1993 when QS first came out and the B3 only belessed 5 registrars to perform QS audits? Well we know how that turned out!

- (FACT) There is a TS meeting in late January 2000 exclusive to registrars (all registrars are invited). I believe this is where they will find out how to get on the list.

- (FACT) The TS rules for registrars has not been finalized. Accredited Registrars have a higher power to answer to and the rules for ISO and QS have been in place for years. The rules for TS registrars are still in draft format, therefore the "approved" TS registrars are approved under a draft document!!!!! What is worse is that the EA (European Co-operation for Accreditation) disagreed with the latest Draft!!

Some of the above can be verified at the webpage chosen for the governing body for TS: www.IAOB.org (http://www.IAOB.org) -- Some links are conveniently "unavailable"

The reason for the "approved supplier list" of registrars is a matter of control. IMHO the B3 thought that the proliferation of registrars, including ones that did not meet their standards was getting to the point something had to be done. Politics plays a part in this decision, I'm sure, but this is in reference to a major shift of power from the RAB/RvA accreditation bodies to the b3. If there is some litigation, that will be the jist of it...just who's supposed to be in charge of the the ASL for Registrars?

Good points, Bill.

As I know IATF is on the way of updating ISO/TS16949 to ISO900:2000.
Have they finished their decision of registrars selection? Who are the winners?
Can anyone guess who might be the selected regitrars?

The winner will be the ones who is willing to pay the big buck$$$$$$... and the losers? Us all.

A colombian registar said us, that TS16949 is a requirement to european supplier´s, it is in change of QS9K, is it that true?

What european suppliers?

The only European company mandating ISO/TS-16949 is Fiat, by 7/2000

I attended a "Top 100 Suppliers" mtg. for Ford last week and they disclosed hat TR16949 is definetly an either/or to QS9000. They were also kind of discouraged that copies were not as yet available to us and A.I.A.G. was none the wiser.

I'm not sure why the Big 3 is discouraged about the lack of availability of TR16949. I thought that it had been available for some time now. Do they mean that the auditor qualifications are not available? Also, are the customer requirements for Ford and Chrsyler been published yet?

Just sent a request for quote to my registrar today, they are able to begin doing audits as of Monday. They tell me that there is already 1 company registered, its in spain

Marc sorry for my lately answer about european suppliers.
The suppliers are B3, (GM, and Ford) and its company associates. (like Opel).

I have leters from Peugot, Citroen and Renault that they want suppliers to work according to TS 16949.

I work for a multi-national producer of automotive and truck parts, and would be very interested in obtaining copies of any non-US customer letters stating a requirement for registration to ISO-16949. Our fax number is (217) 431-8934.

------------------
Quality_Man_9000

As you can see from this LONG, LONG thread, there are some folks that have letters from mostly non-US automotive companies that state the requirement for TS16949.

Well, you started this thread back in Sept 1998...

Problem now is will anyone FAX this fellow a copy of a letter.

The letters I have say that the OEM's want to work according, or are willing to accept registration instead of their national registration. There is no obligation.

Certification for Faurecia: a world first!

I know I started this thread, but I didn't think the thread would grow into a size 50 sweater! Anyway, it is interesting that, as Howard pointed out, the requirement for TS16949 has started (although I have never heard of that car manufacturer - I'm not much of a car connoisseur)! Maybe, they're opening the door...

From: (Manus)
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: General Motors
Organization: AOL

A couple of companies that I am associated with just received notification from General Motors that they will now have to comply with ISO TS 16949 instead of QS 9000.

In know that TS 16949 is the replacement for a number of automotive standards, but it was the stance that those manufacturers in the United States who supplied "the big three" were not going to have to comply. I received this information from a number of sources and they agreed with each other (including AIAG, and a couple of registrars).

Does anyone why GM is implementing this requirement?

I guess the automotive world is becoming more global. There are suppliers which a suppling to the OEM in differnt places ofvthe world from different places. TS 16949 is supposed to become the common quality standard for the automotive world. So sooner or later each OEM will have to require compliance to the same standard.

This is what confuses me about the information "flying around" about TS16949 and QS9000. Christian Lupo mentions in the TS16949 forum that high-ranking GM official whom he knows told him that TS16949 is not a requirement. Then, you read this thread where some GM reps make TS16949 a requirement!!! This is beginning to sound like "Who's on first?!".

I guess to me it's pretty much business as usual. I expect nothing less than what we're seeing. We're all bitching because the bar is being raised (or changed) regularly. Not exactly Catch 22, but close. It's frustrating to meet a requirement and then, after a 'comfort level' is achieved (Ah! We've done it! Now - back top business!), we're again shaken with a revised requirement.

I didn't want to mention the GM official's name on a public forum, so I guess my comment is a little ambiguous. Since I'm close to the situation, it wouldn't be very PC for me to mention names, and I don't expect amnyone to give me the name of the SQA/E over a public forum. But, if anyone wants to contact me I will make sure it gets to GM. A lot of people are saying GM is requiring TS, but when I ask the questions, who, when, what, no one wants to answer. Its been difficult to get some action from GM without anyone really steppin' forward. My email address is in my profile, and I would be happy to discuss specific instances and what other actions are possible.

I JUST READ THE RQUIREMENTS OF TS/16949 EDITED BY GM ON ***DEAD LINK REMOVED*** AND LOOK LIKE IS FOR european suppliers, but no say anything about it implementation, someone have read yet?

thanks

I can't gain access to the info - the site is restricted. What do they say there?

on this site you can enter on public area, on developer suppliers, or engeenering area. So you can access all the info,
but this main thing is : they are required this rules as soon they are on the marketing and only for european suppliers...

please if you can access i would like your comments.

Thanks, Howard! As always we appreciate your help!

Now... Let us consider something quite 'interesting'. Read 4.2.11 "Other QS-9000 Requirements" Other requirements addressed in QS-9000 and not addressed in ISO/TS 16949, the Automotive certification scheme for ISO/TS 16949, Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition, or this document shall be applicable to suppliers. Where similar requirements are contained in both QS-9000 and ISO/TS 16949, the requirements in ISO/TS 16949 take precedence for suppliers choosing to use ISO/TS 16949 rather than QS-9000.I guess this means that you have to do the 16949 dance but you must also determine (like I guess I'd use a matrix to compare) what is in QS9000 but is not in TS16949 and comply with the extra stuff from QS9000 as well as the TS16949 requirements. Excuse me?

Say it ain't so, Joe! Dis ain't complicated enough!!!

Way to go GM! Please do confuse the issue(s)!

Also see GM's TS 16949 Requirements (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=223)

Also see:
http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000022.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000024.html and
http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000021.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000011.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000009.html and http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000006.html

Edited 25 December 2001

I can't re-lookup and change every old link to posts in the old forums. Most of them *should* still be there. If you want to find the post in the New forums, if the link to the thread in the old forums works (most of them should...), look at the thread (topic) title and what forum it is in. Then back here in the New forums - go to that forum and look for the thread topic title - OR - do a Search for the key words from Title (Note - you can search entire threads or just the 'subject' or 'title' - if you look in the Forums search page you'll see the options.

Call me lazy... :rolleyes:

Just yesterday I attended a workshop for TS 16949. There are 35 more shalls. Many to do with employee satisfaction, labs, audits (process, product) and process design requirements.
From what was said in the workshop the big 3 have not committed yet. However there is not a team rewriting QS but there is a team finalizing TS. I say in 3 years it will be the standard of the times.

Ohh No - Don't let Barb read this - (somebody's counting again http://www.qs9000.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.qs9000.com/ubb/smile.gif)

I've pryed the "count how many" keys off my keyboard

Jim

Yeah, it looks like a few (35?) more "shalls" in TS. But I wonder, like Marc, what's in QS that is not in TS? Has anybody looked at that? I guess we better figure it out if QS isn't going away for 3 or so years.

Has Ford or Chrysler given notice to anyone?

Ford (Europe)has publicly stated that suppliers have the 'option' of QS9K or TS, and that it will not require "Q1 suppliers in good standing to obtain 3rd party registration to TS"

What "good standing" means I haven't the foggiest.

[This message has been edited by Don Reid (edited 23 May 2000).]

See the OEM communiques at
http://www.iaob.org/

Ford sez:

Mr. David A Velliky
Ford Motor Company 17101 Rotunda Drive, MD 652
Dearborn, MI 48121

October 7, 1999

Dear Supplier:

I am pleased to inform you of an enhancement in quality processes which represent a major breakthrough in automotive industry quality system requirements. A new document, ISO/TS (Technical Specification) 16949, jointly developed by Ford and other automotive manufacturers details the harmonization of automotive supplier quality system requirements including QS-9000. This document is supported by a common global automotive registration scheme which will be accepted by Ford, and other automotive manufacturers (refer to the attached communiqué), as the international equivalent to QS-9000 3rd edition when coupled with company-specific requirements.

The new Technical Specification is an optional document. Suppliers to Ford have the option of using either ISO/TS 16949 or Qs-9000 3rd edition as the basis of their quality system. We will not require Q1 suppliers in good standing to obtain third party registration to ISO/TS 16949, consistent with QS-9000 practice (i.e., internal self-audit, gap analysis, corrective action effectiveness). We will only accept third party registrations to this new Technical Specification if achieved through the common automotive registration scheme - the approved certification bodies can be found on-line at http://www.iaob.org

For many suppliers, particularly those with multiple international automotive customers, ISO/TS 16949 may represent substantial efficiencies by allowing one audit to satisfy the quality system requirements of QS-9000. VDA 6.1, AVSQ, EAQF when coupled with individual company-specific quality requirements and the common automotive registration scheme. The new Technical Specification may become the single automotive industry quality management standard of the future.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact Steve Walsh at 313-845-8442, fax: 313-845-6138, e-mail: swalsh@ford.com or Mark Orosz at 313-845-5179, fax: 313-390-1080, email: morosz@ford.com.

Best Regards,

Dave Villiky

GM Sez:

General Motors
Worldwide Purchasing

November 9, 1999

To: All General Motors Global Suppliers

Subject: New ISO/TS 16949 and QS-9000 GM Customer-Specific Requirements

As a result of the harmonization efforts of the supplier quality system requirements of car manufacturers worldwide, GM, as part of the International Automotive Task Force (IATF), has agreed to recognize the new ISO/TS 16949 standard. This standard provides a supplier of several car manufacturers with a single quality management system recognized by all IATF-participating companies at a minimum. We also plan to have a third party certification process that IATF-participationg companies will recognize as satisfying their current certification requirements, effective November 1, 1999.

GM will accept, as optional to QS-9000, a third party certification to ISO/TS 16949 that meets the following conditions:

* The certification scope must include both ISO/TS 16949 and the accompanying ISO/TS 16949 GM-Customer Specific Requirements, which are available on the GM supplier Web Site.

* The certificaiton must be conducted in compliance with the IATF automotive certification scheme by a certification body contracted by an IATF trade association. e.g. VDA, SMMT, AIAG.

Note that GM does NOT require you to upgrade your QS-9000 certificate to ISO/TS 16949. However we strongly recommend that you use your next QS-9000 surveillance audit to upgrade to the ISO/TS 16949 with the above conditions.

Sincerely,

Bo Anderson
Executive-In-Charge

General Motors Corporation
30400 Mound Road
North American Headquarters
Mail Code 480-108-101
Warren, MI 48090

Chrysler sez:

DAIMLERCHRYSLER

Recognition of VDA 6.1 and QS-9000 Standards

Dear Supplier

It should be noted that every supplier of production parts to DaimlerChrysler must be third party registered.

Effective immediately, as part of our Global Procurement & Supply strategy at DaimlerChrysler, registration to either VDA 6.1 or QS-9000, including company specific requirements, will be accepted as quality registration from our suppliers.

Our recognition of both standards facilitates your Quality Management and thereby helps our Extended Enterprise® to enhance its competitiveness.

Registration to ISO/TS 16949, including company specifics, will also be accepted as quality registration from our suppliers. This new Technical Specification may become the Quality Management standard of the future.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact:

Henry Gryn, P&S/SQ at 248-512-1452, Fax. 248-512-1423 in Auburn Hills, MI
Bernd-Martin Lembke, MEP/SP at +49-7031-90-88725, Fax. -88720 in Stuttgart, Germany

I am convinced that this is one more step on our common way toward delighting our customers with products of the highest quality which exceed their expectations every day.

Sincerely,
Gary C. Valade

DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive
CIMS 485-15-40
Auburn Hills, MI USA 48326-2766

Originally Posted By: Robert Burke

From:Adelaide, South Aust, Australia
Registered: Jul 2000
Posted 10 July 2000 at 11:45 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Update from Australia -- GM-Holdens rep on QS9000 task force [Mike Filazzola] acknowledges 16949 is on their agenda, and will replace QS9000 but timing indefinite. Past QS9000 timing would suggest Aussie suppliers will have one year after US deadline.

Adelaide workshop went well, attended by some 15 suppliers, now likely to be presented in Melbourne & Sydney -- dates to be advised.
RSB

I just received this today from BVQI "in writing":
"TS16949 will replace QS9000 as the quality standard for the international automotive industry. It is expected that QS9000 will remain active until the current ISO 9000/1994 standard expires within 3 years. TS 16949 and QS9000 will co-exist during this period allowing currently QS9000 Registered companies to adapt to the TS16949 standard. QS9000 will not be revised to meet ISO 9001: 2000 so the QS9000 standard will become obsolete in favor of TS 16949." Ta-Da (Sorry you had to hear it from me and not the Big 3 and/or your registrar.)

[This message has been edited by Dawn (edited 06 November 2000).]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is "BVQI"?

I got my first copy of 16949 in 1998. I said then what is proving to be true - QS 9000 is a dead document.

BVQI is a registrar.

Dawn: Could you please FAX me a copy of your letter? 513 777-3394 (my computer will recognize your FAX machine and receive it)

BVQI - Bureau Veritas Quality International (NA),Inc

Marc,
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. I will try to fax it tomorrow. It wasn't a letter though. Anyone can receive it simply by calling BVQI or any registrar and asking for information on TS 16949 certification. However, if I fax it to you maybe you could put it on here somewhere for all to see. I don't think BVQI would mind - it would sorta be like advertising for them.

I finally got hold of one of people from my registrar (ITS Intertek - here in the US) that has the direct line on standard status and I will quote them as stating: "The Big 3 DO NOT want to let go of QS9000. They like it and will fight, scratch, bite, and claw if necessary in order to keep it. While the international picture is clearly headed for TS16949, we here in the US seem to want to keep what we have. Not only does the Big 3 intend to keep QS9000 in place, but the 3rd edition is inteded to remain. No revisions are on the board at this time. If the QS9000 standard ever becomes targeted for obsolescance, we will most likely read about it first at the AIAG website."

So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation.

"Not only does the Big 3 intend to keep QS9000 in place, but the 3rd edition is inteded to remain. No revisions are on the board at this time."
"So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation."

I like your Theory, But, "Food for thought"
If QS9000 is not scheduled for revisions, then why would I have to comply with ISO9k2k?
It would not be part of the QSR.
***************
EDITORS NOTE: Added 'quote' to make easier to read. No other changes were made.


[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 30 November 2000).]

Just a thought provoking 2 cents:

As I understand the situation:
Qs & Ts incorporate references to specific wording in ISO9001:1994

When it gets "regrouped/renumbered" and becomes ISO9000:2000 - will this mean that companies will need to maintain and use where/as needed - invalid obsolete ISO 1994 reference versions in order to maintain compliance with QS??

We are investigating upgrade form 9002 here & I have somewhat promoted the move to do so - but if the compliance issues become complicated to this extent maybe I should re-think my position.

Regards
Jim

Marc,
I tried to fax the BVQI memo to you today, but kept getting someone picking up on the phone. It specifically states that QS will not be revised and TS will take its place.

Sam, Good question!

I read on our Certificate that our company has been assessed and approved against the following quality assurance standards: ISO 9002, BS EN 9002, and ANSI/ASQC Q9002-1994, and the quality system requirements of QS-9000, 3rd edition, blah blah blah.

What that tells me is that we are certified to both ISO and QS. With compliance to the new revision to ISO being mandatory in 3 years, regardless of what edition of QS we are at, I still have to comply with the current revision of ISO.
Now this is per my understanding of what the registrar stated.

Am I incorrect in my understanding? Does a QS-9000 certificate automatically cover my compliance to the current ISO by default?
If one standard, through revision, becomes more stringent, or at least much more defined than the other, why would I not have to comply with the totality of the two?
If the Big 3 are really content with QS as is, then they will end up with suppliers that will exceed their requirements per the statndard. Not a bad deal I say.

Your question raises doubt from a logical point of view, and I agree, but then I stopped using "logic" and "huge corporation" in the same sentence with any reality attached long ago.

Yeah - I had to be in Tampa - where I am now - I turn my computer off when I'm out of town. I expected the FAX last week so I turned it off when I left Monday.

I will be in Thursday afternoon and all day Friday if you can end it then.

So, even the registrars aren't sure what's going on, eh? This has been typical for QS9K since the "git-go"!! So what's next for the registrars - a recount? I don't see how QS9K can survive if it isn't updated to the ISO9000:2000 in some fashion. Also, all that I have heard and read has QS9K going the way of all the earth! Steve's message is the first I've seen of QS9K surviving the ISO9000 update.

There are no plans (currently) to replace Qs-9000 with ISO/TS. ISO/TS is an option for companies supplying parts to international OEM's. Any rumors to the contrary is just that....rumors. ISO/TS-16949 is not even a standard, it is a Technical Specification. The entire ISO/TS 16949 registration program is a pilot program, which implies that ISO/TS 16949 may not even be elevated to standard status!....That being said, you can bet it will be a standard someday. ISO/TS 16949 is being revised (as we speak) to follow the format of ISO9k2k, its scheduled release date is fourth quarter of 2002.

Yes, it is true QS-9000 is not going to be revised again. The B3 purchase the rights to use the text of ISO 1994 indefinately. The release of 9000:2000 has no bearing on a QS-9000 registered company. The only exceptions are those companies that have 2 certifications or a split scope of registration. Example: it is possible for a company to have one of their product lines certified to 9000:94 and another line certified to QS-9000. The line certified only to 9000:94 will need to upgrade their system to 9000:2000.

Will ISO/TS replace QS? I think so, but there is no official word. Will it happen within the next 3 years? probably not, even if ISO/TS does meet the 2002 revision deadline, there will still be a transition period a la 9000:2000.

If I were not certified yet I would probably get certified to TS if I had a choice.

Yeah, I guess there's the "official" word and what's really likely to happen. I can't imagine why the B3 would want to continue to manage QS9K when TS is so similar and wouldn't cost the B3 very much. As to the possibility of TS not becoming a standard, we'll be throwing snowballs in Puerto Rico before we see that happen. Also, our UL contact said that TS would be updated to ISO9000:2000 by the end of the 1st quarter 2001. He said TS has already been reformatted to the ISO format - now, it's just a matter of plug-and-chug. I still say we demand a recount of the ISO9000:2000 vote! HMMMMMMMM, I wonder how many pregnant chads were involved in this vote?!! Where are the Democrats and Republicans when you need them?

Christian Lupo wrote: "The release of 9000:2000 has no bearing on a QS-9000 registered company."

On page 3 of my copy of QS9K 3rd Edition, under Implementation, it reads, "Verification of conformance to ISO-9001(2)is a necessary condition for registration to QS-9000" There is no revision level mentioned in the requirement, which would imply whatever is current by default.
If 9K:2K provides clear definition in any area that has been left open and general by QS, (management review for instance), why then would we not be required to conform to the updated requirements?

Steve

Steve-

Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler (B3)purchased the rights to use ISO 9001:1994 indefinatly. This means they can use the text of the 1994 standard as long as they want to. Why would they purchase the rights to use this standard, if they were going to use 9000:2000? They (B3)wouldn't.

Now, keep that in mind and remember that QS 9000 (the requirements) is a trademark of the B3. It only applies to parts suppliers to the B3, it is (in fact) a customer specification (as opposed to being a standard, like ISO). Since it is a specification they can change (or keep it the same)it as they please.

Finally the B3 have announced several times that there is no planned revision for QS 9000.

It seems I may have been misled, & in turn misled readers -- if so, humblest apologies! I was in Detroit last week & spoke to Steve Walsh of Ford, who assured me that none of the US big 3 are planning to supercede QS9000 with ISO/TS16949, but all will accept it as an option. Some European OEM's however will accept only TS & not QS. Steve also referred me to the IAOB website www.iaob.org , which contains letters from each of the US 3. Suggest you read it, especially GM's, which says although they do not require you to upgrade, they "strongly recommend" QS suppliers use their next surveillance visit to upgrade to TS! Make of that what you will.
Happy Christmas to all, and I can only feel sorry for those of you condemned to a Michigan winter while we enjoy 30 deg C!

Christian - you know these ISO things better than I do, but I didn't know someone could buy the rights to an ISO standard. That sounds a little bizarre to me because that allows a company(ies) to "freeze" a standard in time. But, hey, it's great to learn new things. This situation does have some politics to it, though. If Steve Walsh can say that QS9000 will stay for the foreseeable future, yet conversion to TS is strongly recommended, then it seems QS will have a finite lifetime. The beat goes on...

You pay for rights to use the text, not to change or control the document.

I am currently awaiting a decision on QS 9K vs TS 16949 also.
Our accreditation body BSI have said their opinion is that a new updated TS 16949 will become a standard & will replace QS 9000 in practise over the long term.
Having only this year acheived QS 9000 after request from Ford (we are in packaging industry), this seems a little disheartening.

Would it be that hard for IOS to just make a definitive announcement?

Following on -

ISO/TS is the additional standard for automotive for ISO 9000:1994, when this becomes ISO 9000:2000 will it need changing, if so when??????

Interested because as a business we have committed to achieve TS by end of financial year in September.

It is my understanding that QS will not be revised, much less to align with ISO 9001:1994.

According to our registrar, it is foreseen that a revised ISO/TS 16949 standard will be published in March 2002 to align with ISO 9000:2000. No revision of QS, VDA, etc. are foreseen.
Certifications with the current ISO/TS will be valid the same period than the ISO 9000:1994 ones (I think it is until the end of 2003, but I am not sure.

Our registrar, KPMG, informed us last week that if we were going to have to start again with QS9000, we might as well go to TS16949. That, although the B3 haven't made official statements, the gist is we will need to be at that level in less than 3 years. So we might as well do it now!!

Hi Mary-k, if you need more informationa aboutimplementation of certification of TS16949, please see http://www.iaob.org - The link was --> /iatfpr/iatf_communique_1000_files/frame.htm
It is about communique of IATF, of October 4th/2000. This information Shows that QS-9K died sooner.


------------------

The 'big three' (now the big 2??) have, in fact, made statements. If you go to www.iaob.org/ (http://www.iaob.org/) (up a couple directories from the above link) you will find (at the bottom of the page) links to statements from:

* General Motors - November 9, 1999
* Ford - October 7, 1999
* DaimlerChrysler
* PSA Peugeot Citroen - 15 October 1999
* Renault - 15 October 1999
* Volkswagen AG - December 1999

KPMG gave you good advice. 16949 is it.

For all intents and purposes, the QS-9000 'period' lasted about 7 years and cost companies untold hundreds of millions of dollars.

A last comment... Nothing will really change. Where 16949 is not as specific and 'demanding' as QS-9000, customer specific requirements (Ford, GM, et al) more than make up for any 'holes'. Also Honda and Toyota (to name 2) are nowhere to be seen. As with ISO 9001, many companies don't buy any of this stuff.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 08 February 2001).]

Don't you just love the B3,

Does the statement "Not Invented Here" apply!

Many of the B3 can't even get their own internal "supplier" facilities registered.

Saginaw is a lovely city.

A Not Happy ASD...

If anyone requires additional information pertaining to the TS 16949 standard, feel free to contact me at acole@tuvam.com. Currently Ford, GM, DiamlerChrysler, BMW, Fiat, PSA Peugeot-Citroen, Renault SA and Volkswagon AG, all accept ISO/TS 16949. While it is not a mandatory requirement, becoming TS certified has certain competitive advantages. Additional benefits include:
* Improved process quality
* Reassignment of supplier resources to quality improvement
* Common quality system approach in the supplier development for consistency
* Additional confidence in global sourcing
* Reduction in 2nd party audits
* Common language to improve understanding of quality requirements
* Reduction of variation and increased efficiency
* Reduction in mutiple 3rd party registrations
TUV is the leading global Registrar within the passenger car industry, having certified and working closely with BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagon, Porsche, Audi, GM/Opel, Hyundai, etc. On August 18, 2000 TUV certified DaimlerChrysler AG to ISO/TS16949. Sorry to sound like an advertisement, but there's a lot of speculation out there!

Where can I find the customer specific requirements for Ford, GM & DaimlerChrysler?

Yup,
Talk about confusion regarding the coming of TS, I am employed by one of the B2 and, I have been informed by management that QS is dead but compliance to this standard will remain for the duration of current lifespan of present certification by VCA, ofcourse this makes sense yet, supplier compliance to Q1 status (yes it's Ford) will be replaced and, I have been informed that internal quality system compliance will be more important to business processes as the current production system (FPS) is being integrated with a customer focused six sigma initiative.
Wallace.

I have downloaded the GM requirements (free) from their web site (I also believe there is a copy in the FTP site) and the AIAG is now offering the DC/Ford requirements ($).

I have a copy of the GM specs if anybody needs it.

[This message has been edited by Al Dyer (edited 05 March 2001).]

There is a lot of confusion because the resources to do TS are affected by:

1. Costs of TS certification are thousands of dollars per auditor. Many independent or contract auditors are saying no.
2. Pass rate for TS exams is low, as low or lower than QS recertification.
3. Control of auditors and registrars with the approved TS registrar list is still in debate. This approved list was published in Quality Digest last year and rules governing control of registrars was expanded in the last QS IASG Sanctioned Interpretation of 2/29/00. This has passed control of the process from the accreditation bodies to the OEMs. Certain registrars are threatening legal means to stay in the business.
4. ISO 9001:2000 was a monkey wrench in OEM plans. Why register to TS when you have a new TS coming out in March 2002? Meanwhile you have to do ISO 14001. Everyone is stretched pretty thin for standards implementation, registrars and suppliers.

Is there anywhere to get this info from GM? Like from their website or something. I would like to get a copy of this requirement.

I don't know for sure. But, if QS remains as it is, using ISO9000:1994 as its base, then TE will remain too as it is. I suppose since the B3 bought the rights to ISO9000:1994 for the QS document, then they bought them for TE as well.

Question for anyone: The Big 3 have been pushing many tooling and equipment suppliers to register to QS/TE9000. Does TS16949 have plans for an equivalent TE Supplement? How will compliance with TE9000-type requirements be addressed and/or registered under TS16949? Will TE go away once TS16949 takes over?

Roger, I'll tell you what I was told a couple of years ago.

When the AIAG got together and wrote the QS-9000 requirements they illegally copied the ISO standard (the italics, as we all know) and published QS in that manner. Apparently ISO sued the AIAG and won claiming copyright infringement. The AIAG did wind up paying for the use of the ISO standard. So the AIAG, in all their wisdom, decided to stiff us TE companies any print only the TE changes to QS. That is why TE states, "The TE Supplement shall be used with QS-9000 as on document for the Tooling and Equipment Industry." From my understanding AIAG would have to pay ISO again to reprint their standard in the TE version of QS. I know it sure would make my life a lot easier if they printed it in one book instead of two, but I'll work with what I have.

Dan

I have never read TS16949 does it include environmental considerations (ISO14001) like VDA6.1?

Another thing that has been bugging me since my involvement with QS. Why aren't the damn auto dealers certified? After all its us, Jo Public, who are the end customer not the Big 3!

------------------
Alan Greatbatch

TS-16949 does not include ISO-14000

As for the auto dealers:

Are they suppliers to, or a customer of, the assembly plants?

Probably a hazy area, considering service ramifications and if the dealer is independently owned, but I see them as customers of the assemply plants.

On another note, automotive plants that suppliy parts and service to the assembly plans need to follow the QS-9000 standards. I'll need to research some more to see how TS-16949 would fit into the picture.

I am most familiar with GM so I'm not sure about the nuances of the other companies.

ASD...

A customer of ours recently told us that their Tier One customer is requiring compliance to TS16949 by July, with registration by December. Is this just a vicious rumor or has anyone else heard this? I have looked everywhere on the internet and not been able to confirm this.

------------------

I just read in Quality Today that UL granted DaimlerChrysler ISO 9001:2000 certification. If that's not another nail on the coffin for QS I don't know what is.

Never heard that before, but who is the tier 1 supplier?

Chrysler????

ASD...

I was recently shown an e-mail from GM to - well, someone who prefers not to be cited as the source - which states GM will soon be requiring a switch from QS-9000 to TS 16949. As I understood it we're looking at a year - not much more.

Has anyone else heard this or seen anything?

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 28 June 2001).]

From a just received e-mail:

> Marc,
>
> We recently had a QS9000 audit conducted by our auditing body DNV. He has
> heard from a good source that by year 2004 QS9000 will be phased out and
> that compliance to TS16969 will be required.
> Best regards,

Anyone else hearing these 'rumours'?

BSI has informed us that QS9000 will continue to use ISO9000/1994 as its base. That being said, we still intend to change up to ISO9000/2000 with appropriate relevant references to the 1994 version. No sense letting the BIG 3 hold us back on that issue.

Are you going to use the matrix idea for identifying your "old" procedure numbering (ISO9K:1994) to the new ISO9K:2000? I guess anything that's mentioned by the ISO9K:2000 standard is in QS9K anyway, eh?

I guess here in Asia, we still have yet to see that QS9K thing although in my profession as Injection Machine Engineer being required by a Singaporean Company to be get familiar with.

Had a meeting with our registrar last week, I asked them if they had heard anything about the big 3 and their plans to adopt TS16949. It seems he has seen a draft communication from Chrysler which is expected to be issued Sept/Oct. He also claims GM are also in the works and their communication will follow Chryslers announcement.

It's in the Autumn of its years...

1.2 QUALITY
Quality System Requirement
Suppliers must be QS9000 certified and have evidence of this with a current certificate available for review. Delphi will move to ISO TS16949 with the rest of the industry when official. Compliance to ISO TS16949 means compliance to QS-9000. From Delphi At http://delphi.covisint.com - The link was --> /A0280/Public/US-english/PDF/adgp_supplier_guidelines.pdf - Delphi Supplier Guidelines

I found this!!

QS-9000 Does not advances migration to ISO 9001:2000...

AIAG (which consist of representatives from Ford, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors...) and the QS-9000 Task Force has no plans to migrate QS-9000:1998 to ISO 9001:2000. Latest, retirement schedule for Dec. 15, 2003.

ISO/TS 16949 is a standard applicable world-wide for the automotive industry sector, an alternative to QS-9000. Suppliers already migrating to ISO/TS 16949. Registrations to the current ISO/TS 16949:1999 concurrent with ISO 9001:1994 strategy is to be valid through 2003. ISO/TS 16949 will migrate to the year 2000 version of the ISO 9000 series and published by March 2002.

Note, our statement of early 2000: We, at BULLTEK LTD, speculate that QS-9000 will maintain effectiveness until year 2003 when ISO 9001:2000 audits goes into "full" effect - implies that ISO 9000:1994 series is "fully" superseded.

Again, QS-9000 wil be retired in December 15, 2003.


http://www.bulltek.com/English_Site/ISO9000_Introduction_English/Automotive_English/QS_English/QS-9000_Gone/qs-9000_gone.html

I wonder what will happen to all those QS9000 Sanctioned Interpretations? Will they also phase out with QS9000? I had someone tell me that a company converting to TS16949 from QS9000 will no longer have to have their subcontractors become 3rd party registered to ISO9000:2000 (as they would if that company maintained their QS9000 registration according the C9 Sanctioned Interpretation).

I just received my copy of the October issue of Quality Digest. On page 16 is a brief article reporting that Ford Motor Co. announced that it will transition from requiring its suppliers being QS 9000 registered to register to ISO/TS 16949. It goes on to state that until the transition is complete, Ford will accept either QS or TS. Ford didn't have a "drop dead" date regarding when QS would no longer be acceptable.

Of course when I approached this subject with my company, the immediate response was, "well, we are not a tier one supplier, and this must be intended for first tier only". Seems things always have to be a battle when it comes to changes.

Has anyone heard anything else or more on this one? Timing? Tier depth? etc, etc, etc?

Thanks, Steve

As I gaze into my crystal ball I see both QS and TS being eliminated. Emphasis will be placed on registration to the ISO series of standards.
Reason:
1- ISO 9000 is a good basic quality system and will allow each OEM to specify their own needs.
2- Will shift the responsibility of standards control (QS) from AIAG to the ISO allowing AIAG to focus on other OEM interests.
3- TS will not work for the same reasons that QS does not work; Too much variation in requirements from each OEM.

IMHO

Sam - you may be more of a prophet than you realize!! But then, there is the side of me that sees these automotive standards having 9 lives. Maybe the frustration from the Big 3 of the not seeing gains from QS/TS9K will win out and they'll go the way Sam says. Of course, maybe we'll be throwing snowballs in Puerto Rico, too!!

And now.... Nearly a year later... Just a thought. And don't forget to see the Evolution of TS 16949 (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3848) thread.

From: Steven Truchon
To: Marc
Subject: This Just In
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:36:00 -0500

Hi Marc,

I couldn't find a place to post so thought I'd send it direct to you. In an email discussion group in which I participate (PMA) someone posted information on an extension (12/05) given to QS 9000 registered companies for transitioning to ISO 9K:2K and said it had been verified by RAB. I contacted RAB and the following was the response. If this is old news, no problem, but if it is worth passing on to the Forum you would know the best place.

Regards,

Steve Truchon
Precision Resource - Ft Lauderdale

Dear Mr. Truchon,

There is not an extension for transition to ISO 9001:2000. QS-9000 has been given the OK to continue to use ISO 9001:1994 in the QS-9000 standard; therefore, QS-9000 will not be upgraded to ISO 9001:2000. If your organization is wanting to continue your certification to ISO 9001, your organization will have to transfer to ISO 9001:2000 by 12/15/03. QS-9000 would be above and beyond this transition. The automotive industry task force is working on how to address QS-9000 certificates, etc. Hopefully some guidance will be coming out in the near future. If you could please let me know where you got the information below, I am very interested to see how this is getting confused in industry. You are not the first person with this concern.

Regards,

Lori Scheid
Manager, Registrar Accreditation

I wish Lori would respond to the registrar selection post!

I extended the invitation to her to visit the Forum. She said she would check us out.

-Steve
:smokin:

I am gambling but I say it is
DEAD

Is there life after death????
:vfunny:

Originally posted by Al Dyer
I wish Lori would respond to the registrar selection post!Why don't you call or write her?

> Is there life after death????

This sucker will be like a rich old uncle. It may not be much good to anyone anymore, but there will be a few companies which will cling to it like a child's well worn security blanket.

Dan Reid's comment was most telling...

> The effort required to develop and come to a consensus on
> a common manual is substancial, and the appetite of
> companies to invest this much effort given the payback is
> definitely on the wane.

It's the first admission I've seen that makes it clear that the money saved isn't sufficient to sustain it (read FAILURE).

See http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=28008

For our company I see it as an issue of, "we have the QS cert on the wall in all 6 divisions and it is [working] for us as is, so until [they] tell us we have to change to TS or whatever, the resources will not be spent on the unneccesary".
Its my compiled paraphrase of corporates attitude. Everything I could introduce would be viewed as theory and speculation. Im sure I am not alone in this canoe.

-Steve :frust:

We are paddling away like mad but it feels like we are headed toward the falls. :frust:

Dave

FYI ISO/TS 16949:2002 Rollout Workshop
April 24,02 Double Tree Hotel
Romulus Michigan
8:30-1;00
$75.00 AIAG member
$ 125.00 non-member
Hank Gryn-Chrysler
Russ Hopkins-Ford
Joe Bransky- GM
Members of SQRTF and IATF

A moment of silence please...

QS9000 officially dies on December 14th, 2006.

So a three more years lease of life?

Does anyone have anything official they could share on this announcement ? From what I have hear, there was a meeting yesterday 4/24/02 at AIAG for some sort of announcement or something ? Since I wasn't invited, maybe someone could enlighten the rest of us.

thanks, I'm anxious to see something official.

Terry

Terry, The next meeting is May 23rd in Detroit.

Sam said:

Terry, The next meeting is May 23rd in Detroit. Will anyone be there to give us feedback?

Don't forget:
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2757
and
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4485

December of 2006? Is that an official date? What is the theory behind that? Is it when their contract with ISO runs out or was it a date that the dart hit on the dart board?:lick:

December of 2006? .iam just as curious to know why the Big 3 selected this expiry date? Does it have any significance?

One year for each of the BIG 3 = 3years= Dec 2006 instead of Dec 2003.:thedeal:

This is as good an explanation as you will get.

Isnt that the end of the world in the old Mayan calendar :biglaugh:

This was just delivered to me by our registrar. In effect you will no longer be able to have a split registration for ISO & QS after Dec. 2003. In order to retain this type of registration you will be required to have seperate ISO9000 & QS9000 registrations. The only alternative is to upgrade to ISO/TS16949. The official issue is below:

Sanctioned Interpretations Section R8:

Because of the expiration of ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9002:1994 on December 15, 2003, certificate language modification is required for QS-9000 certificates to be recognized as valid after December 15, 2003 (07/01/02)

Any new or renewed QS-9000 certificate issued after July 1, 2002 shall not reference ISO 9001:1994 or ISO 9002:1994 other than in one of the following statements which must be included on the certificate: "Registered to QS-9000:1998 (Based on and including ISO 9001:1994)" or "Registered to QS-9000:1998 (Based on and including ISO 9002:1994)". All QS-9000 certificates with expiration dates extending beyond December 15, 2003 shall comply with this wording by December 15, 2003. [All other aspects of Appendices G.A.13, I.18, and I.23 shall remain in effect.]

The Registrar may provide a letter to suppliers indicating that the above statement confirms the supplier is certified to ISO 9001:1994 or ISO 9002:1994 until December 15, 2003.

By the way Dec. 2006 is the officail cutoff date for QS 9000. Straight from my registrar.

Russ,
Is this a new sanctioned interpretation. If so, what are the other requirements of this interpretation.

Regards,

Andrews-
Yes this is a sanctioned interpretation. Not sure what you mean by any other requirements.

Okay, so QS has 4 1/2 years to live. Has anyone seen a mandate from the OEMs of when they expect suppliers to be registered to TS16949?

New QS9000 Sanctioned interpretations available at www.qs9000.asq.org/sancl.html (http://qs9000.asq.org/sancl.html) or http://www.aiag.org - Look for /forms/07-01-02Final.pdf

Will the forms themselves change? Such as CP, FMEA and Process Flow?

Sara - I wouldn't look for a change in the forms used with the current QS. They are covered under seperate documents and not really a part of QS. I am sure they will change eventually so everyone will have to buy the new revision but I don't see them changing just yet.

Dave

FYI: Now posted to www.aiag.org is the mandate from DCX. Their suppliers must be registered to TS16949:2002 by July 1, 2004. This is the first such mandate I've seen. Has anyone seen anything from GM or Ford?

Interesting - DCX has over ridden the December 2006 expiration date of QS-9000. If you are a Chrysler supplier, your QS is no good after July 1, 2004.

Is this still another signal that the Big 3 is splitting apart? The IASG Interpretation is NOT the final word or so it seems. DCX is making their own rules.

Dave

It seemed like it was (is) a fragile alliance to begin with.

Mandating ISO-9000 - 2000 to be effective in Dec. 2003 and/or mandating certification to ISO/TS earlier than Dec 2006 was hinted at during the first rollout meeting. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

I agree Sam but those hints were before the extended date of 2006 were published. My surprise is that DCX is cutting 2 1/2 years off that date for their suppliers. You would think they would honor the date set by concensus of their own committee. This is what causes me to wonder if they are really in union with the rest of the big 3.

Dave

I agree dave, they should honor their committments.
As I see it, one of the problems could be with the CB's. They have been selected and approved by the IOAB, their auditors have been re-certified but hey are not getting calls from industry for TS certification. Industry could wait until sometime in 2005 before considering TS certification. If this happens that means that auditors will have gone 2 years without performing a TS audit, in which case thet would need to be re-certifed. It would also put a burden on the CB's, which in turn would create delays for 2006 implementationm.
What a tangled web we weave, when at first . . . . .

If you remember the roll-out Sam, Ford and Chrysler sat on one side of the podium and GM was on the other. You would think, if they were in complete agreement, they would have sat together and not have had different requirements for the same things. Three separate voices were heard.

Harmony among the Big 3 is only a fantasy. Each has their own little world to worry about and wish to do things their own way.
It was a bold front they tried to put on but it sure wasn't a unified one.

Now, if they were planning on merging...



Of course, that's my opinion and I could be wrong.... :D

HELP!!! I'm just been given the task of transfering our QS9000 manual over to TS. While I'm doing this I've to slim down the manual. I would love someone to give me advice on how to do it!!!

Pls advise of how to proceed procedure of statistical techniques policy.

Shirley Szabo said:

Pls advise of how to proceed procedure of statistical techniques policy.
I'm not sure what you mean.

I think Shirley pushed the worng button by mistake:
Shirley Szabo ( mailto:vninkumvongs@lear.co.th ) has reported this post:


http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?postid=37585#post37585

This is part of this thread:
QS-9000 - R.I.P (Official?)
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2796

This is the reason that the user gave:

Our plant is cut and sew trims cover in Thailand under Lear corp. Currently, will be assessment QS9000 on early next month and would like the deatils of statistical techniques and how to do and train to operators to measure of their routine task.

Shirley, I think you want to start a new thread (topic) in the statistical techniques forum and ask this question there. This thread is about a different topic. If you need help, e-mail me or one of the moderators.

December 6th was when the famous Babri Masjid in india was demolished and a ground breaking ceremony for building a new RAM temple was carried out.
Just one incident i know on dec 6th before this.
It is a black day in india:bonk:

I just received a joint letter from the big three telling of the demise of QS9000 on Dec.15,2006. TS16949 will be the certification the big three are requiring after that date. I have attached the letter for all to read.

Since lot of QS9000 registering firms only spoiled this standard is there any note on this particular topic in TS19649.

Sam said:
As I see it, one of the problems could be with the CB's. They have been selected and approved by the IOAB, their auditors have been re-certified but hey are not getting calls from industry for TS certification. Industry could wait until sometime in 2005 before considering TS certification. If this happens that means that auditors will have gone 2 years without performing a TS audit, in which case thet would need to be re-certifed. It would also put a burden on the CB's, which in turn would create delays for 2006 implementationm.
What a tangled web we weave, when at first . . . . .

Is this happening?? Are TS auditors finding little / no work?? Or are they getting paid a premium? Or both?

At last count (before quality digest starting charging for their service) there were 150 ISO/TS 16949 registered companys' in the world.
I don't know if this was TS2 only or a combination of both the old and new release.
I have heard rumors that CB's are not backlogged with requests.

This was just delivered to me by our registrar. In effect you will no longer be able to have a split registration for ISO & QS after Dec. 2003. In order to retain this type of registration you will be required to have seperate ISO9000 & QS9000 registrations. The only alternative is to upgrade to ISO/TS16949. The official issue is below:

Sanctioned Interpretations Section R8:

Because of the expiration of ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9002:1994 on December 15, 2003, certificate language modification is required for QS-9000 certificates to be recognized as valid after December 15, 2003 (07/01/02)

Any new or renewed QS-9000 certificate issued after July 1, 2002 shall not reference ISO 9001:1994 or ISO 9002:1994 other than in one of the following statements which must be included on the certificate: "Registered to QS-9000:1998 (Based on and including ISO 9001:1994)" or "Registered to QS-9000:1998 (Based on and including ISO 9002:1994)". All QS-9000 certificates with expiration dates extending beyond December 15, 2003 shall comply with this wording by December 15, 2003. [All other aspects of Appendices G.A.13, I.18, and I.23 shall remain in effect.]

The Registrar may provide a letter to suppliers indicating that the above statement confirms the supplier is certified to ISO 9001:1994 or ISO 9002:1994 until December 15, 2003. Now that it's six months later... Is this still holding true?

Yes. According to a letter last week from our registrar (NSF-ISR), we will be receiving an updated certificate that drops the ISO-9001:1994 from our QS-9000:1998 / TE Supplement registration. The QS-9000/TE is valid until December 2006 (TE is a supplement to the 1998 version of QS). I have not heard any more updates regarding a replacement to the QS9000/TE for Tooling and Equipment suppliers. If anyone else has, let me know.

Rob, check the "Can We Drop the TE Supplement" topic in this thread. I have been talking to Ford concerning the new TE.

Marc,
We have our 1st surveillance for TS and 11th for QS/TE on Oct. 9 - 10. My discussions with our registrar has been confusing to say the least, so I trust that when we get a face to face that I can make a little more sense out of it.

Thanks Randy. I already had checked that post (slight memory lapse).

Blast from the Past!

1998 to 2003! Quite a thread!

In two weeks, QS-9000 will be officially obsoleted. Somebody in Detroit should erect a monument to QS-9000. Fortunes were made. Careers were built. The presses kept running. Tradeshows, seminars, courses, training consulting, auditing, books, websites, sanctioned interpretations, billions of man-hours spent on meaningful and meaningless discussions.


Adios
http://elsmar.com/jpg/qs_logo.jpg

I'm thinking out in front of AIAG headquarters would be appropriate...

I'm thinking out in front of AIAG headquarters would be appropriate...

Agreed. When I was up there in mid-September for some internal auditor training they still had the QS-9000 wall clocks up in many of the classrooms.

In two weeks, QS-9000 will be officially obsoleted. Somebody in Detroit should erect a monument to QS-9000. Fortunes were made. Careers were built. The presses kept running. Tradeshows, seminars, courses, training consulting, auditing, books, websites, sanctioned interpretations, billions of man-hours spent on meaningful and meaningless discussions.


Adios
http://elsmar.com/jpg/qs_logo.jpg




QS-9000 came out to help improve the supply chain.

Let's not forget that during this 12 year period, quality performance went from atrocious to many companies performing near to 0 ppm and 100% delivery, month after month.

Cars are much better, and the Big 3 came much closer to the vaunted Japanese quality levels.

Other than that, I suppose QS was a failure...? :notme:


PS: Now, if only the Big 3 could figure out their problems are actually being caused by themselves, not the suppliers...., we could tackle that part of the equation.

QS-9000 came out to help improve the supply chain.

Let's not forget that during this 12 year period, quality performance went from atrocious to many companies performing near to 0 ppm and 100% delivery, month after month.

Cars are much better, and the Big 3 came much closer to the vaunted Japanese quality levels.

Other than that, I suppose QS was a failure...? :notme:


PS: Now, if only the Big 3 could figure out their problems are actually being caused by themselves, not the suppliers...., we could tackle that part of the equation.

You seem to recognize the problem (OEMs treating their suppliers like enemies) while simultaneously ascribing remarkable curative powers to QS-9000. How can QS-9000 possibly be seen as a logical (and causative) antecedent to improvements in design? There is simply no basis for believing that (A) PPM levels are a reliable indicator of anything*, or (B) that improvements in them wouldn't have happened without QS-9000.

*Improved PPM levels are often achieved through increased sorting by suppliers, not by process improvement. So long as PPM is measured only on the customer's dock, it will never be a meaningful statistic. QS-9000 did nothing to improve process control in any demonstrable way.

You seem to recognize the problem (OEMs treating their suppliers like enemies) while simultaneously ascribing remarkable curative powers to QS-9000. How can QS-9000 possibly be seen as a logical (and causative) antecedent to improvements in design? There is simply no basis for believing that (A) PPM levels are a reliable indicator of anything*, or (B) that improvements in them wouldn't have happened without QS-9000.

*Improved PPM levels are often achieved through increased sorting by suppliers, not by process improvement. So long as PPM is measured only on the customer's dock, it will never be a meaningful statistic. QS-9000 did nothing to improve process control in any demonstrable way.


Well, I suppose you can cling to whatever opinions you wish, I won't debate opinions. It doesn't get anywhere.

But that fact still remains that thousands of companies have improved.

I personnally have observed several hundred companies who have improved significantly during the period of their QS certifications. While I would not argue that QS was magical, or the sole cause. I expect that some improvement would have continued to occur, even without QS.

However, THEY (the companies I refer to) generally and openly credit their QS-9000 based programs as the system that helped drive them to their current levels of performance.

Don't quibble with me, I'm just the reporter. If you don't want to believe the news, I suppose that is your prerogative.

PS: at least we agree on the customers...

Well, I suppose you can cling to whatever opinions you wish, I won't debate opinions. It doesn't get anywhere.

But that fact still remains that thousands of companies have improved.

I personnally have observed several hundred companies who have improved significantly during the period of their QS certifications. While I would not argue that QS was magical, or the sole cause. I expect that some improvement would have continued to occur, even without QS.

However, THEY (the companies I refer to) generally and openly credit their QS-9000 based programs as the system that helped drive them to their current levels of performance.

Don't quibble with me, I'm just the reporter. If you don't want to believe the news, I suppose that is your prerogative.

PS: at least we agree on the customers...

I've said this before here, and I'll say it again: after having reviewed thousands of PPAP submissions from suppliers, I can say with confidence (and data) that submissions from QS-9000 registered suppliers have been uniformly less likely to meet the requirements than submissions from non-QS-9000 suppliers. Please explain to me how QS-9000 suppliers have improved their processes without any widespread evidence of understanding even basic concepts of process control. I can say with a fair amount of confidence that (A) for many suppliers who were registered to QS-9000 in the initial push of the late 1990's--especially GM suppliers, who faced a realistically absurd deadline date--the skids were greased, and (B) most of the QS-9000 suppliers I've dealt with should not have been registered.

I've said this before here, and I'll say it again: after having reviewed thousands of PPAP submissions from suppliers, I can say with confidence (and data) that submissions from QS-9000 registered suppliers have been uniformly less likely to meet the requirements than submissions from non-QS-9000 suppliers. Please explain to me how QS-9000 suppliers have improved their processes without any widespread evidence of understanding even basic concepts of process control. I can say with a fair amount of confidence that (A) for many suppliers who were registered to QS-9000 in the initial push of the late 1990's--especially GM suppliers, who faced a realistically absurd deadline date--the skids were greased, and (B) most of the QS-9000 suppliers I've dealt with should not have been registered.

Well, there is probably truth in both our viewpoints, and they don't necessarily cancel each other out.

There are certainly some companies who got certified to QS, who probably should not have. You have had disappointing performance from some QS registered companies.

However, that does not make them all bad.

I have seen very significant improvement from several hundred companies, and seen gradual improvement in the performance of their incoming suppliers. My direct clients numbered in the 200+ range, and their suppliers would go int several thousand.

However, that does not make them all good.

Lastly, when you talk to OEM representatives, they generally agree their suppliers are far better than they used to be, and quality stats and metrics have improved tremendously. And, J. D. Powers data seems to back that up as well.

When it is all said and done, I have to conclude the supply base in QS-9000 improved significantly over the last 12 years. However, there is further room for improvement, which is where TS comes in.

PS: even though there are PPAP issues with your suppliers, you can't be suggesting the quality performance today is where it was 12 years ago, are you?

hjilling,

Its probably a moot point, but with the demise of QS 9000 , the T & E supplement dies also.

Are there any plans to ressurect T & E for another standard?

hjilling,

Its probably a moot point, but with the demise of QS 9000 , the T & E supplement dies also.

Are there any plans to ressurect T & E for another standard?

I have not heard of any plans. I have heard some suggestion to simply register to ISO-9001. I assume Reliability from T&E could be an overlay on that.