Does someone know if the second edition of TS was issue?, Where I can get it?
Thank you.

Sorry, Arte. It looks like it won't be issued until March 2002. However, if we can get some of our "Cove" folks to show us their DRAFT copy of the 2000 version of TS, then we might get something going! We've had 3 or 4 individuals state that they have a copy of the draft, but no one has coughed it up yet!! Any takers?

I received the following e-mail:

> I have just qualified as a TS16949 Assessor 1st addition.
> The second adition , modified to reflect ISO9000:2000 will
> be with us in March 2002.

I don't think this is a secret. I don't know if the person just wanted to be anonymous to everyone but me or clicked the wrong button. It was received from the 'Report this message' link which would normally be used by someone wanting to report 'abuse', vulgarity, etc. in a post.

Ummm -- second edition draft is out - it came 'around' last spring and is dated 29 March 2001.

Unfortunately, a few years back things were a bit 'looser' here copyright wise. Both the ISO folks and the AIAG were not happy puppy dogs when they came to visit (or someone reported the postings, which is most likely) - most standards were, at one time, posted here (I used to have them posted in the old pdf_files directory) - and both the ISO folks and the AIAG let me know about their displeasure in no uncertain terms. Alas, the internet is changing and the Cove Forums are now well known. This said, I am in no position to open the site to a possible lawsuit.

Maybe someone will be nice and and e-mail you a copy...

I wonder how one obtains a draft copy of a standard? Does a customer "float" someone a copy? Is there a standard list of those who automatically receive a copy? I've seen several folks who have written in this forum that they have a copy of the draft 2nd edition TS, but I've not seen one myself.

I received personal mail from one person here who has a copy - said they got it from their registrar! The specific registrar was not named. So... Get on the phone to your registrar, and if they say no or something, well... Not much else I can do.

My company has certified QS-9000 and the certificate will be expired in July 2002. In this situation, we are considering for more benefit whether we shall maintain QS-9000 or change to TS16949 second edition. Any comment would be appreciate.

Thanks, :thedeal:

It is my understanding from a registrar (who would not send me a copy, of course) that they are in possession of a 'Final Comment Draft' which is circulating for 'comments' which is newer than the 'Second' draft issued May 2001 (which I think everyone has a copy of by now...

I have in my hands the IATF Final Draft, dated July 26. I used a contact with a registrar to obtain it. There are, what I feel to be some rather disturbing things. For example: 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development requires vendors to be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by December 31st, 2003. This is similar to the sanctioned interpretation to QS.

Marc, I don’t know if this is the right thread for this post. If not, I’m sure you will place it where it best fits.

Dave B

This is getting almost humorous! I know that some must be counting on going to TS16949 just to get away their subcontractors having to be 3rd party registered. I wonder if this requirement will stay in the updated standard. If it does, then the wording is stronger than the Sanctioned Interpretations. With this wording, subcontractors have no alternative than to be 3rd party registered.

Let me begin by saying that I am not involved with the development of 16949! I'm just the messenger. I have received several messages wanting a copy. I went through a registrar to get my copy. I do not know of any place where they are readily available.

There has been some question as to what the draft actually requires. Please note that I have heard that the standard rarely is different from the Final Draft. With that in mind, here is the actual wording from 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development:
“As a first step, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third party certification body…

Note 1 Compliance to ISO 9001:2000 is required by 15 December 2003
Note 2 The customer may mandate alternative requirements…”


Dave B

Does everyone read "Note 2" as allowing customers to exercise the 2nd party audit as a replacement for the 3rd party audit mentioned in the text for their suppliers? If so, this is similar to the QS9000 Sanctioned Interpretation where OE-sanctioned 2nd party audits are allowed instead of 3rd party audits for suppliers and their subcontractors.:eek:

Roger,

That is my read as well. I am certain that will be my customers' read as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lessons of today are not appreciated until tomorrow.

Pat - are any of your customers from the Big 3? Or are you a tier 2 supplier? By the way, to modify your phrase about today's lessons, I would add: Many of yesterday's lessons are never appreciated or, as a friend of mine has said, "One thing you learn from history is that we don't learn from history."

Roger,

We have the honor of being Tier 1 for some sales, Tier 2 occasionally and in a few cases Tier 3. We are caught up in the spin offs and aquistions that have occured in the past 5 years.

As for my signature/closing remark. It was something I used to write back when I was learning to letter as a draftsman. The other choice phase was; College is a place where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed. Neither is purely accurate, but both beat the old; "The quick brown fox.....you get the idea.

http://www.transition-support.com/TS16949_Second_Edition.htm


Here is an interesting article about the 2nd edition and what it will contain.

I have a copy of the final draft...

I asked to our customers about what do they think about TS 16949, and when they will begin as a requiriment, and any of them know about ISO/TS.
Our customers are Renault, GM, (Toyota), and Ford and (Mazda) and D-Chrysler

(No requirements in TS)


REgards
Arte

Originally posted by db

I have in my hands the IATF Final Draft, dated July 26. I used a contact with a registrar to obtain it. There are, what I feel to be some rather disturbing things. For example: 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development requires vendors to be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by December 31st, 2003. This is similar to the sanctioned interpretation to QS.I have two drafts. One titled ISO / TS 16949 Second Edition 2002-03-01 with a watermark which says "IATF final Draft - July 4, 2001 (paper) and a word document of what looks to be the same. Both are numbered with the ISO 9001:2000 numbering system. But - I'm pretty deep into ISO projects right now and a Ford Q1 thingie going - so I haven't really taken a close look at them.

As far as 7.4.1.2, I can't get excited. Companies have been passing down the requirements anyway. This will just accelerate the process. Since this is a derivitive of QS anyway (not to mention ISO 9001 has picked up a bunch of QS garbage), little has changed in reality. What the heck. Maybe I'll get some new business.

I personally think they ought to just merge 9001 and 16949 and get it over with. That's the direction they're headed anyway.

In Dave's first post he states "registered" by Dec 31, 2003 - In the second, he quotes the document as saying "in compliance by Dec. 15, 2003". Does the new draft require certification or compliance?

Roger and Pat - I have never found that the notes allow for a (down direction) loop hole in the requirement. It is more likely that this gives the customer a facility to require certification even though the standard requires compliance. Also - and here I have not read the new draft - is this where a customer can require PPAP, APQP, SPC, and all the other manuals used in QS?

I hope you are right though because your way would help with my dilemma over the mom and pops.

Dave

Believe what you want, but this came to me via regular e-mail:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: XXXXXXX
> To: mbinfo@iso.ch
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:18 PM
> Subject: Information about ISO and ISO publications
>
> Is there an estimated completion date available for the updating of ISO/TS
> 16949 to complaince with ISO 9001:2000?

**************

> From: "ISO 9000 Enquiry Service" iso9000@iso.ch
> Date: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:05 AM
> To: xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Information about ISO and ISO publications
>
> Dear Mr. X,
>
> Thank you for your message and interest in the ISO 9000 family of
> standards..
>
> In response to your enquiry, please be informed that the relevant ISO
> standard is under updating procedure but still at the begining stage of
> development. An existing draft (WD) has the status of an internal working
> document and as a such is not available to the public. It may be expected
> that the draft of the revised versions of ISO/TS 16949 will become available
> by mid-2002 and the standard itself will be issued before the end of 2002.
>
> For further information on ISO International Standards which already exist
> or are in the making, regarding their availability, content, and technical
> interpretation, please contact directly your national ISO member body at the
> following address:
>
> American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
> 1819 L Street, NW
> US-Washington, DC 20036
>
> Postal address:
> 25 West 43rd Street , Fourth Floor
> US-New York N.Y. 10036
>
> Telephone: +1 212 642 49 00
> Telefax: +1 212 398 00 23
> E-mail : info@ansi.org
>
> Kind regards
>
> Zygmunt Pestrakiewicz
> ISO/IEC Information Centre

*****************************

On 11/7/01 4:28 PM, XXXXX wrote:

> Dear Marc,

> The attachment seems very contradictory, regarding the release date of the
> final drarft, verse the discussions within the forum. Am I missing something?

If you're missing anything it is possibly the understanding that this whole TS document is following an unprecedented development path within ISO and/or you believe that the person who e-mailed you back actually knows what the situation is - which may or may not be correct.

:( I must be the only person in the world that hasn't got a copy of the newest draft for TS 16949. I've searched the internet, asked everyone I know and I still can't get a copy. Please, please, please can anyone help me?

Dawn, must be the two of us, I don't have a copy either, but, like you, if someone could PLEASE help me out, it would be GREATLY appreciated! I have two and a half years to transition from QS to TS, but I want to do it next summer and I'd like a copy of the draft so that I can at least get started on a "mirror" system that I can build "on the side" then implement next summer

Dave Scott asked:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Dave's first post he states "registered" by Dec 31, 2003 - In the second, he quotes the document as saying "in compliance by Dec. 15, 2003". Does the new draft require certification or compliance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to remove your confusion, the answer is:

Yes!

Here is part of my original post:

There has been some question as to what the draft actually requires. Please note that I have heard that the standard rarely is different from the Final Draft. With that in mind, here is the actual wording from 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development:

“As a first step, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third party certification body…

Note 1 Compliance to ISO 9001:2000 is required by 15 December 2003
Note 2 The customer may mandate alternative requirements…”

If you will notice, both registration and compliance is listed. The interesting thing is...if I read this in the right way, I must be compliant by 15 December. Registration is required, but not by any specific timeline....hmmm......

Dave B (the other Dave)

Thanks Dave B. for clearing that up :confused: I guess that's my point - both can't be required (other than if you are registered you MUST be compliant). Or do you think it is saying "in compliance" is required and registration is not? The statement "As a first step..." definately says registration is required. The "...shall be third party registered..." looks like that is the START point.

The "compliance by Dec. 15 ..." part makes it seem as though you have 16 days from the compliance deadline till the registered deadline of Dec. 31.

There is a big difference between compliant and registered so I guess my original question still stands. Does the new standard require compliance or registration (Yes is not an option - please pick compliance or registration).

Dawn and Xman - you are not alone. If I had a copy, I wouldn't have to ask all the dumb questions.:ko:

Dave (not the other Dave)

I think the issue here is how the automotive manufacturers will interpret "Note 2". This note seems to give the automotive manufacturers the leeway to allow second party audits much the same way the QS9K Sanctioned Interpretation was interpreted to allow 2nd party audits in lieu of 3rd party registration. To me, there is no doubt that the American automotive manufacturers will allow an "approved" 2nd party audit scheme for TS16949. I wouldn't jump through hoops getting prepared for a 3rd party audit quite yet (for 2nd+ tier suppliers).

I hear beautiful music this morning!

Thanks Roger:D

Dave

I have been wrestling with this since C-9 (The “Sanctioned Interpretation” that changed.). The folks who are authoring 16949 are representatives of Automotive Manufacturers, if I’m not mistaken. The reason for this proposed standard (and QS) is to harmonize the different requirements into one standardized set of mandates, once again if I’m not mistaken. They are saying something to the effect of “This is our collective effort. However, we all assume the right to disagree with the collective effort and set our own rules”.

Now the puzzler…Note 2 suggests to me that all is not well in the ivory towers. It seems to me that the language of Note 2 contradicts (undermines?) the entire philosophy of the standard.
Am I alone in this thinking?

Dave B

Originally posted by Arte
Does someone know if the second edition of TS was issue?, Where I can get it?
Thank you.


From my consultant the second edition will be published on late march 2002

"From my consultant the second edition will be published on late march 2002"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have heard the same. I guess the final vote is scheduled for JAn 22, which would place publication in late March (I believe)

On a different note, welcome to the Cove! I really encourage you to register. I sat on the sidelines for years before registering, and I now regret every second of it :ko:

Really, the more voices we bring, the more knowledge we collectively have, and the greater we learn.

Dave B

Dave and Dave,
Again, this is only my read on Note 2, but I don't think we'll see too many 3rd party audits required. The only exception to this might be if the supplier does not have enough resources to do a 2nd party audit. Nothing official, just my thoughts.....

A draft copy is just that, even though I agree the final draft is not often revised much differently than the final draft. With all this talk, there is still no stepping up with an offer to help get this in the hands of others. That is too bad. Not all registrars are as giving as the one who produced a copy.:))

Hi,

Does anyone know what probably will be the deadline for 3rd party registration ISO TS 16949. More specific:

Do you have to be ISO TS registred in december 2003?

.. or ...

Is it possible to registar QS 9000 until december 2003 and is the ultimate deadline for transition to TS in this case december 2006)?

Rogier Gerritsen

Hi guys the last draft is dated on october 31st/01, is near to vote and comments for commite TC176 on early december. the document is ISO/TC 176 N660R1.

You can get a copy from a member of ISO TC 176 commitee.

Regards

Arte

Rogier - Unless I've missed something (which is always possible!), there is no requirement to convert from QS9000 to TS16949. There have been "rumblings" and words of encouragement from the Big 3 about converting, but I don't think there has been anything official.

A have a copy of the TS-16949:2002 which was downloaded from the Ford Supplier Network. So anyone who has a Ford supplier code an access to FSN should be able to get a copy.

If Ford was planning on accepting TS why would they have it available for their suppliers. Also the big three are recognizing registration to TS or QS.

Tannas,

For those of us who do not have access to Ford's Supplier site, can you post it or email the file? I like to get a jump start on this.

I have knoledge about in an internal comunication of Renault in Colombia, that they planning the TS like a requirement in lates of 2003.
Regards
Arte

I have checked the Ford site but cannot find the TS16949 draft. Can you tell us where exactly on the site it is?

> Rogier - Unless I've missed something (which is always
> possible!), there is no requirement to convert from QS9000
> to TS16949. There have been "rumblings" and words of
> encouragement from the Big 3 about converting, but I don't
> think there has been anything official.

It's more than rumblings. I'm really not up to doing a search right now, but folks - Ford, Chrysler and GM have all released documents which say Bye Bye to QS. I think one or more are posted in the pdf files and I think a few posts have attachments in them.

In addition, Ford has never been a QS fan. Their trip is their QOS (Quality Operating System - which is little more than ISO 9001:2000) and 'achievement' of what they quaintly call their Q1 Award. :eek:

So - for those of you are still asking what the scoop is, I suggest you start by reading http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=456

and

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2805

and

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2796

You may not have to convert this year, but I bet by the end of 2003 you'll have no choice. :thedeal:

Originally posted by tannas
A have a copy of the TS-16949:2002 which was downloaded from the Ford Supplier Network. So anyone who has a Ford supplier code an access to FSN should be able to get a copy.


I believe the author may have confused TS16949:2000, which I can't find on the FSN website, with Q1:2000, which definitely is there.

I would also greatly appreciate a copy or reference as to whre I can get one. Thanks

The Ford Q1:2002 material is available in a password-protected section of Ford's FSN. With Marc's past experience with "copyright laws," I wouldn't want to attach a copy unless Ford agreed to it. I'm going to send a message to our STA to see if it's OK to share.

Seems to me that Ford would want as wide a distribution as possible -- to demonstrate to the world that Quality is once again "Job 1." :rolleyes:

Originally posted by David McGan

The Ford Q1:2002 material is available in a password-protected section of Ford's FSN. With Marc's past experience with "copyright laws," I wouldn't want to attach a copy unless Ford agreed to it. I'm going to send a message to our STA to see if it's OK to share.

Seems to me that Ford would want as wide a distribution as possible -- to demonstrate to the world that Quality is once again "Job 1." :rolleyes:If they say it's OK - it's OK with me.

One comment... We're talking about Ford's Q1:2000 document(s) here. The thread is titled ISO/TS 16949 Second Edition - The Latest Scoop?. I hope no one is expecting a copy of TS 16949.

Edited by Marc on 12/3/2001 at 2:48 PM.

Don't forget to visit the TS-16949 History Thread (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3848)

Yeah, Marc, I believe I might have led us astray on this topic. But, anyway, for those who are interested in the Q1:2002 documents, I'll try to figure out how to post a copy in the Q1 Topic area. My STA has given his blessing to making it as widely distributed as possible -- and what "wider" way could we get than the Cayman Forums?

Originally posted by David McGan
Yeah, Marc, I believe I might have led us astray on this topic. But, anyway, for those who are interested in the Q1:2002 documents, I'll try to figure out how to post a copy in the Q1 Topic area. My STA has given his blessing to making it as widely distributed as possible -- and what "wider" way could we get than the Cayman Forums? Sounds fine to me. You can post any document up to 800K in size as an attachment to any post - even if it's a thread (topic) starter post. If it's bigger than that you'll have to e-mail it to me as an attachment and I'll put it in the 'free' pdf files directory.

I am working on increasing the attachment file size limit to 3 megabytes, but I have a MySQL issue I have yet to solve. Note that you CAN attach zip files, if that helps should there be a file size issue.

Be sure to see http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4035

I just got an email from a registrar friend, that reads:
_______________________________
FYI TS 16949:2002 has passed internationally. Despite the USA voting NO, the world vote was significantly in favor YES. IATF will be reviewing input comments and feedback before finalized 2002 version released.

We expect some form of IAOB/IATF and/or OEM releases shortly - as to the new TS "rules" for the old and new TS versions, the 2002 process, new auditor training/qual rules, and any OEM requirements/mandates relative to TS16969:2002.
_________________________________
Okay this is unofficial, but it does come from a reliable source.

We have recently been informed that our company will be dropping QS and embracing TS after the release of 2002.

I was wondering if someone has seen a draft of TS 2002 and how
it addresses APQP and PPAP. This could prove to be interesting for us automotive suppliers.

It says something to the effect of "shall conform to product approval requirements dictated by the customer." My guess is ppap for B3 and what everyone already does for everyone else.

Laura M.,

I think your guess is correct and in my opinion the B3 will be bulking up their requirements to fill in any gaps they perceive in TS-16949.

The final draft of TS16949 doesnt address PPAP or APQP specifically, but has a catch all clause that you must comply with customer specific requirements. Which may lead you to doing these things differently for each customer, but maybe the QS9000 supporting manuals will remain in existence ?

My guess is that the QS9K supporting manuals(PPAP, MSA, APQP, etc) will stay intact, with maybe a format change to accomodate TS16949. So it seems like the March 2002 release date is a "can-do". It will be interesting to see how much the B3 add to their customer-specific requirements, to compensate for what they see as "weaknesses" of the TS16949 2nd edition.

The latest draft I've seen is ISO/TC 176 N660R1 from 2001-10-31. Has anyone seen a draft more recent than this one?

No - I don't have it to send to anyone. Please don't ask and you know why.

Marc - What the heck is ISO/TC 176 N660R1 from 2001-10-31? This looks like something that NASA sent to Mars!!!

Originally posted by Roger Eastin
Marc - What the heck is ISO/TC 176 N660R1 from 2001-10-31? This looks like something that NASA sent to Mars!!! Well, technically companies are registering to an unapproved document which has not followed the path defined by ISO. ISO/TC 167 is the technical committee and the "N660R1 from 2001-10-31" is the document revision identification. The previous draft was N60R1 I believe.

I just came across a site with some information that you might find benefical:
http://www.transition-support.com/TS16949_Second_Edition.htm

Thanks Dave!
Looks like those who have used ISO9K2K as a standard will not have much difficulty with the rev. TS16949.

Mooser

I'm not sure if I should post this comment/question here or start a new thread, so I'll just have at it and let the group decide.

Background...my company is a registered QS9000TE supplier to the B3. We make finishing, waste water, and abatement systems. Example, we have recently completed a new paint shop for a B3 assembly plant(building, utilities, e-coat processes, air handling, material handling, etc.). Our in-house processes include: sheetmetal shearing and forming, welding, assembly, and painting (usually structural stuff). We purchase numerous OEM equipment (Fans, pumps, valves, controls, etc.) to complete the system. When then system is installed at the assembly plant, validation testing is performed and, when accepted, the turn-key project is turned over to the customer.

This was our first real test of the R&M process, a real pain, but the FMEAs (machinery type) are filed and ready to be revised and used again.

We have developed control plans and FMEAs for our metal forming and fabrication equipment, but there is really no formidable process control plan we can develop and is cost effective.

Using TE for the first time was an experience. I think it was meant for TE suppliers who produce a lot of the same types of production equipment or tooling, not a supplier of one-of-a kind production equipment.

Now TS16949, 2nd edition is upon us. The first edition followed QS9000 fairly well but it did not incorporate much from the TE Supplement Where did Machinery Run-off go? R&M? etc.

How does a company like mine justify registering to TS16949? Hell, we use smoke and mirrors when the auditor comes during surveillance time (he knows it) because half the stuff does not apply to us, but we have to have it so we are in compliance! I wish we could take exception to some of the clauses or be allowed to interpret them to our methods, which are sound.

The latest beef is with subcontractor development. Because we use countless subcontractors (vendors) to supply us their OEM equipment, does each one have to be compliant to QS9000TE? IAOB says yes. That means my little company has to perform compliance audits on them all or they must have 3rd party registration. We can't afford doing this. We are ultimately responsible for the quality of our systems, why can't the B3 just allow that?

Ok, I got it off my shoulder. Any comment, constructive or otherwise?

TE is just as applicable for one of a kind as high volume tooling suppliers.

Quote:
When then system is installed at the assembly plant, validation testing is performed and, when accepted, the turn-key project is turned over to the customer.

I would assume there is some warranty? Any service calls would be used to assess reliability. For maintainability do you provide a PM recommendation? Do you have feedback on how effective the recommendations are? Would you ever build a similar system that you could use field feedback on?

Also, it sounds like you did process FMEA's on you internal processes. Did you do a Machinery FMEA?

The subcontractor issue does keep coming up. Many TE's deal with distributors. This will have to be resolved.

For now, there is no requirement for TE suppliers to convert to TS16949. If and when it happens, I would guess that the R&M requirements will be considered customer requirements.

I think it is easy to find the "does not apply" but some companies have to search a little, and instead of looking for how it does not apply, and "ways out" need to look for how to comply.

You hit on on a point I hadn't thought of, will the TE be replaced separately? If so, TC176 better have something in the works. As of Dec. 31, 2003 the QS9000 and TE go bye-bye!:D

I love my job...I love my job...

After years of MIL-STD and 10CFR50 you think I'd be used to it all, then the B3 have to stir the pot. I know it'll all come out in the wash, but I sure wish someone with authority would clarify this issue.

How do you consultant types read all this? If 16949 will be used for all automotive suppliers, will we, the registrees, be allowed to take exeception to or amend clauses on an as needed basis? As it is now, the B3 already have different requirements for TE suppliers, and I know of other non-B3 automotive manufacturers with even different requirements. Maybe TE suppliers should just remian ISO9000 and just comply with the customer's specific requirements. I would hate to comtinue adding supplements to an already significant QMS that no one, except the Quality Group, cares about!

Sorry, it's Friday afternoon and I have a cold. :frust:

Has anyone heard any more about the release of 16949? See http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=27255

We just got off the phone with our contact at the AIAG. We were told to look for publication around Mid-April. We are checking with our registrar contacts to see if one can get a copy earlier than that.

I can now attest that some registrars do in fact have copies of the 'released' standard and it is dated 1 March 2002. But... I still haven't seen any official announcement.

Hi,

Could someone send me a copy of the draft for TS 16949 2nd edition,

Regards

Igor

Me too?

I have tryed to get a copy for some time. In Sweden we must be a little late. :biglaugh: Got a reply from the registrar in Sweden that the only copy that I could buy from them was ISO/DTS16949 is it the right one? I remembered from ISO9k2k that final draft is supposed to be called FDIS ? If it is'nt the right one ...Is there someone who knows where I could get a hold of a copy.
Thanks from the Swedish blond:confused:

Draft is available for purchase from BSI/CEEM:

http://www.ceem.com/automotive_standards.asp

We're looking for the 'release' version, however I believe the last draft closely approximates, if not mirrors, the release version. I haven't had a chance yet to take a thorough look through the release version to affirm this, however.

I have not been able to lay hands on the released version either...I keep trying to find it at places such as global doc or nssn sites. For me it is only nice to look at until such time that QS actually goes away so I may have several years to "locate" the released copy.

Folks, if you have the last draft form September - October, it's the same as the release version that I have seen. But... I still have not seen an official release notification anywhere. :thedeal:

I just got my hands on a copy of ISO/TS 16949, dated 2002-03-01. I twisted the arm of a registrar contact of mine, but promised not to divulge who I got it from. It appears to be the same document from July. Looking at the two, I can see no differences other than a reference to the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association’s (JAMA) involvement.

I cannot make copies of this (for obvious reasons), and will post any differences I see between the Final Draft and what I received (time permitting). I will also attempt to answer any specific questions you might have (other than how to obtain a copy).

In the draft of the new TS it states that as a first step, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third party certification body. My question is what if the supplier you purchase from is the only source for something and they have no intention of spending the resources to get certified to ISO? What do you do and how would you address this potential problem?

This question is for anyone that has a suggestion or an answer.:confused:

Tom, you pose an interesting question. The greater question is how strong will registrars be on enforcing this? I see this as pure conflict of interest! Registrars will aggressively hit this because they stand to gain new customers!

On the QS side, the sanctioned interpretation that started this is already being watered down by the Big 3. Now it is out of their hands and into the hands of the registrars. BTW, don’t try to exclude this under “permissible exclusions” because 16949 only allows 7.3 as a permissible exclusion!

I guess I don’t have an answer for you Tom, only additional questions.


:confused: :mad:

To continue Tom's thought to another area, does Note 2 under 7.4.1.2 allow customers to specify a 2nd party audit option IN LIEU OF the third party requirement in this section? This is what QS9000 sanctioned interpretation C9 allowed. It is not as clear here, but Note 2 does seem to allow customers to propose "alternative" requirements. I guess the question is, does Note 2 apply to the first sentence of 7.4.1.2? If so, it seems to allow other options than 3rd party registration.

Roger, good point. For those who do not have the standard Note 2 reads:

"NOTE 2 The customer may mandate alternative requirements"

It might allow some flexibility, however, I would think the customer's "alternative requirements" only apply to the suppliers for that customer's products. So if supplier A supplies parts for customer 1 and 2, and customer 1 has an alternative requirement, but customer 2 doesn't, then registration is still a requirement. I think?

I agree with you db, this sounds like a way to try to make ISO and TS last and work. True ISO can benifit an organization, but if they want it to. It struggles to help a company if the company is forced to go through it. I think it is a crazy idea to think that companies will only purchase from ISO registered companies. It would be nice to get to a point in business that larger companies could say NO and it would not affect their business. (like that will ever happen).

I am going to contact an auditor friend of mine and see how he looks at this. I will give you his input once I get it.:bonk:

The greater question is how strong will registrars be on enforcing this? I guess the even greater question is how this will be interpreted by the auditors and how many variations they come up with? :eek:

As of today ISO 16949: 2002 is available for purchase from the ISO website (www.iso.ch). $116 swiss francs (about $70). I have not seen it availiable from ANSI or AIAG yet.

I guess that pretty well says everything!

I ordered a copy this morning, and the PDF file just arrived via e-mail. I have not had a chance to read through it yet, but it is dated 3-1-02.

Just a reminder - there's a cross reference matrix linked in http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4215 It's a pdf file you can download from www.QualityDigest.com

Not only can you buy it but:
Edition : 2 (Monolingual)

Edition : 2 (Monolingual)
Number of pages : 34
Price code : Q
Technical committee / subcommittee : TC 176
ICS : 03.120.10; 43.020
Stage : 60.60
Stage date : 2002-03-14

Stage 60.60 means International Standard published
As can be seen at http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/widepages/stagetable.html

Originally posted by tomvehoski
I ordered a copy this morning, and the PDF file just arrived via e-mail. I have not had a chance to read through it yet, but it is dated 3-1-02.Thanks, tomvehoski. That's the date on my copy.

Thanks for the link Howard. I hadn't seen that page before. Interesting.

I received my pdf version of the released standard from ISO.ch. Although I have not done a thorough review of the standard, there are some interesting differences from the final draft. For instance, the supplier registration requirement (to ISO9001:2000) in 7.4.1.2 has been modified so that it is more like the C9 sanctioned interpretation from QS9K. This opens a distinct door for the Big 3 and others to specify a 2nd party scheme in lieu of the registration requirement mentioned in the text. I'll look at it more next week. Anyone see anything else of interest?

Looking over my new copy, direct from IOS, I noticed there was a change in 7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management development.

They now say that “conformity” is the first step, not registered. They do say:
“Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party body .”

Gives us some room. Also the December 2003 date was also removed.

Not too bad, but I'm still not thrilled.

If I go to the ISO site and purchase the ISO/TS16949 version that they have for sale, am I getting the actual released standard for use in registration? I am currently working with about three diffrent versions, but they all are drafts or old copies. Is the version for sale the right one?

HELP!!!:bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

Originally posted by Tom W
If I go to the ISO site and purchase the ISO/TS16949 version that they have for sale, am I getting the actual released standard for use in registration? I am currently working with about three diffrent versions, but they all are drafts or old copies. Is the version for sale the right one?Read Howard's post just above. It states:

Stage 60.60 means International Standard published

This clearly indicates it is the 'release' version - not a draft.

I ordered through IOS (ISO) on Thursday. I received the electronic copy and it states ISO/TS 16949:2002. It is the real version!

See http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=28392

ISO PRESS RELEASE

New version of ISO 9000 requirements for automotive industry rolls out

A successful partnership between ISO and the international automotive industry has resulted in the publication of a new edition of ISO/TS 16949, which specifies quality system requirements for suppliers in this sector.

It is expected that the technical specification (TS) will become the common and unique basis for the automotive industry's quality management system requirements worldwide, gradually replacing the multiple national specifications now used by the sector (e.g. QS 9000, AVSQ, VDA6.1 and EAQF). ISO/TS 16949 therefore has a substantial potential market comprising more than 30 000 companies currently certified (registered) against one or other of the national specifications.

ISO/TS 16949:2002, Quality management systems - Particular requirements for the application of ISO 9001:2000 for automotive production and relevant service part organizations, costs 116 Swiss francs and is available from ISO national member institutes (see complete list http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/isomembers/index.html with contact details), and from ISO Central Secretariat ( sales@iso.org ). ISO will also publish a French language version.

MORE: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2002/Ref818.html

Could we still use the same checklist for the 2002 version?

Without knowing what checklist you are referring to, I can't give you a good answer. If you are talking about 16949 that was based on ISO 9001:1994, I would doubt it, unless you were willing to make some dramatic modifications based on the new version. Any other checklist will not contain the same requirements.

Remember there is no “shall” that requires any specific checklist. Although a note at the end of 8.2.2.4 states: “Specific checklists should be used for each audit.” The word used is “should”, not “shall”.

From my review of the 2002 version, I think you could use the 1994 checklist and get about 80% of the 2002 requirements. However, having said that, missing the other 20% could hurt you. It depends on what part of the standard you talking about. At any rate, you are taking a risk using the old checklist. Usually, someone from this forum has or will develop something soon, if ISO doesn't come out with something themselves. Do you need it now?

This is just my personal guess at what the AIAG will do. When they release their version of 16949 this (next?) month, I think they will either at the same time, or shortly thereafter publish their version of the QSA for 16949. Just a guess.

well I have ISO/TS 169494:99 checklist

Cause of this question is, at the ISO/TS 169494:99 certification audit, the auditor told us that we should use this checklist.:bonk:

That would be the appropriate checklist for the older version of ISO/TS19494. When you update/upgrade to the 2002 version, you will have to update the checklist as well. As I said before, without major modification, the older checklist is mostly incompatible with the new standard. Having said that, you will still need to use your current version of the checklist until you update/upgrade.

Note, it's a "should," not a "shall." Sometimes, you have to watch those auditors and not necessarily follow exactly what they say. I agree that you would cover the majority of requirements using a 1999 checklist, but you will probably also overlook some nuances of the process-oriented requirements of 2002.

I also agree that some entity will probably soon come out with a checklist, as it will be another revenue source. You could also make your own. That probably would be a good study exercise to help you more fully understand the requirements.

Well said David. One of the reasons I discourage buying any "off the shelf" checklists or any quality documentation, is you deprive yourself of the benefits of really making sure you understand the requirements.

One additional benefit of generating your own checklist is you can also add questions based on your organizational documentation. The checklist is not unique to your needs and system. Should be a much more powerful tool.
:smokin:

:rolleyes: I have a copy of the 2nd final draft (how do you like that...my high school english teacher would have a fit.) it's dated Jan. 25th, 2002. We received it in a training class we attended by an outside source...

Final 2nd draft, eh? Hmmm, that's a first for me...I don't know where that came from! It must have been a "limited edition". Anyway, you can buy the released standard now. It could be that you could make some money for it some years down the road at an auction!

Hey Roger, how's things down there in beautiful "Grin"ville South Carolina????
I left Charleston in '93 and have kicked myself in the rear ever since (even made it through Hugo). I was born & raised here in MI but I've been looking to get back to SC for awhile. Now I wouldn't have to miss hockey!
:bigwave:

I have a an ISO/TC 176 N660 IATF final TS16949 2002(E)draft as well.
dated 2002-3-01. Any new drafts out there???:confused: :vfunny: :bonk:

Where is the madness!!:bigwave:

You can get TS16949;2002 off the AIAG website now for $75.00.

I just talked to a registrar last week who said the official Y2k wasn't done yet. The meeting on the 23rd I guess is the official rollout?

$75.00 - ouch.

Originally posted by Laura M
I just talked to a registrar last week who said the official Y2k wasn't done yet. The meeting on the 23rd I guess is the official rollout?I can't see why this is all so confusing to the registrars. If the ISO folks are selling it (see link below) I should think it is final and released (with interpretaions to come). Why would a registrar say the official Y2K version isn't done?

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=27812#27812
See tomvehoski's post on 14 March.

$75.00 - ouch.
Quite!

Ford already has it posted in their library. If you have access to the Ford hub you can download it from the RLIS site. AIAG members can purchase it for $25.00.

AIAG appears to be hard copy only. I'm glad I bought the PDF file from ISO for $4 less - at least I can keep it on my PC and palm computer now and don't have to haul around another 40 pages of paper.

Can anyone help me out here??? Just completed our 3rd TE surveillance audit and added a new site to the scope. During the discussion prior to the closing meeting the question was asked concerning closure to minor issues specifically if we were going for an upgrade to TS did the QS issues carry over? If QS requirements are obsoleted do the Sanctioned Interpretations still exist?
One more thing. Has anyone heard of a "Rules of the Road" for the newest 16949? If not, does the older version still apply?
Thanks
:bonk: :confused:

There are new rules
especially for the upgrading
to have ISO9000:2000 is benificial

Thanks, I'll review these and see what I can make out of them.

I would think - this is my opinion, not something I've seen or read - but reason tells me if you drop QS and the earlier nonconformances are against something that is not carried over to TS 16949 and is/are not a customer requirement that it would be dropped as no longer being a requirement. It would make little sense to carry through with a corrective action for something that is no longer a requirement.

Marc,
That makes too much sense, but I like the thought and would agree.

u can get the manaual from www.aiag.org

Ummmm... What's the point of reviving a 4 year old thread like this?