See Ford_4-6_Interp_Letter.gif in http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/

Thanks for the link Marc. I wonder when the Chrysler and GM letters will be sent?:cool:

Of course, Ford never required any supplier to be 3rd party registered to QS9000, so this letter is not too surprising (that they wouldn't require subcontractors to be 3rd party registered). I don't see GM and Chrysler necessarily following Ford's lead here. What may happen, though, is that GM and Chrysler allow tier 1 suppliers to have a plan as to when their subcontractors will be 3rd party registered. It's also interesting to note that we are starting to see more customer "visits" by the Big 3. Could it be that QS9000 or TS16949 is not enough for them?

> It's also interesting to note that we are starting to see
> more customer "visits" by the Big 3. Could it be that
> QS9000 or TS16949 is not enough for them?

For many companies I've communicated with, the 'visits' never let up in the first place. So to me this isn't surprising. Like before, however, their visits are (in my experience) more focused towards specific products or product lines.

I remember the days when the big 3 QS-9000 folks, and the AIAG, were heralding an end to visits from customers SQA "...because QS-9000 will eliminate that need...". I'll say the same thing now as I did then --> Not likely.

I heard from someone who works for a registrar that has quite a bit of experience with the Big 3, that they don't expect Chrysler and GM to follow Ford's 2nd party audit approach. Their strong sense is that GM and Chrylser will "tow the line" on the 3rd party requirement for, at least, tier 2 subcontractors.

Roger - I can't see how Chrysler and GM can do that. The original text and the IASG Interpretations both state "Assessment by an OEM ro an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1"

If a Ford supplier (who has been approved to audit a subcontractor) submits an approved assessment, how can GM say this doesn't meet the requirement? What if Ford decided they were mad at a certain registrar and refused to accept their certifications?

What you are describing has the potential to "split" the Big 3. The whole idea is they made joint rules - they have to learn to live with them or go back to the drawing board.

This could cause suppliers to be more selective in the OEM. We supply product to customers who supply all the OEMs. If one asks for a bid do we say "we'll bid on the Ford part but not the GM"? Also, how about the products the customer buys which are used for both his customers? At audit time is the supplier approved by Ford or not approved by GM?

The comment about "towing the line ... for, at least tier 2 subcontractors" also worries me. Does this suggest that enforcement of the requirements of the standard is/will be selective? Is this suggesting that implementation of this requirement becomes less of an issue as you move down the supplier chain? Is it suggesting then that the whole idea of certification really only applies to tier 1 suppliers and the requirement passed down through the supply chain is overkill? This could be one of the reasons for such inconsistency in the interpretations from auditor to auditor.

Maybe your source is right in their thinking - maybe there should be a difference in interpretation of the standard the further down the chain you go. After all, "mom & pop" don't sell to the Big 3, so nobody can accuse the Big 3 of putting them out of business. Maybe if the requirements didn't apply down here on our level we wouldn't be forcing them out of the industry either. I like that thought. Has a nice "apple pie" ring to it.

JMHO

Dave

D. Scott,

Outstanding and precise post. You've hit upon the correct points and can't disagree with any.

As I read, I come up with the thought that the big 2 1/2 can't have their cake and eat it too!

I truly think their lack of unity, considering AIAG/Sanctioned rulings, and multiple cross-purpose memos, is making them a laughing stock in the world of manufacturing.

Let the tier ones do their jobs!

Heck, QS-9000 was initiated, in part, to reduce the need for multiple customer audits, reduce personnel requirements, and associated costs.

What do we do, they ask for a 5% price reduction and try to force us to increase staff, or hire registrars to ensure that we ensure that mom and pops are top knotch Motorola type organizations?

To me it is a bunch hog hogwash, Tier ones are the last step of quality for products going to an assembly plant. Do any of us really think that any of the big 2 1/2 really have receiving inspection? No, they tear of all the traceability tags and send the product to the production line.

If something is wrong they call, ask for a sort operation, and say they don't have any traceability.

I guess I'm getting off of the subject, so just let me say, we that supply the auto industry are the ultimate masochists! Although it is always a challange and no two days are the same.

I just wish they would not call on Friday at 3:00 PM with a complaint, and usually on a holiday.

Hopefully back in form.

I have been in contact vis email with a person at AIAG and my latest question centered on the letter from Ford referenced earlier in this thread. The latest response states that the supplier audit and approval goes one tier below the QS9000 certification. This means that as a tier 2 and 3 position in the supply chain and being QS certified (with trained and approved auditors), we can audit and approve our first tier suppliers to the stated requirements in lieu of them having to become certified to anything. She didnt indicate whether or not it was just limited to Ford.
The email also indicated that she was going to be in contact with the B3 for clarification on this issue in the next week and if she learned of anything different than what she wrote to me, she would notify me.

Regards,
Steve

Thanks - Steve please keep us informed - (often even with our ISO registration) - the QS - B3 interpretations tend to become part of our auditing firms and our customers requests.

Regards
Jim

Good stuff from everyone!! Mr. Scott (I'm not sure what your first name is) - I understand your comments and your perspective is reasonable. I am not sure however, that the Big 3 are quite so harmonious in their relationship to accept each other's results (why didn't Ford issue a joint memo with Chrysler and GM on C9). For instance, we continue to get customer visits. Sometimes they are related to specific customer problems, but other times they are looking at our systems. We have not had a case where GM has requested a visit (or rather told us they were coming) and we were able to talk them out of it by saying that Ford came and they should accept their results. My interpretation of the interpretation is that an acceptable OE second party audit is an audit sanctioned by that particular OE, not by another OE. Again, that's my opinion. I expect GM and Chrysler to take the position that Tier 2 (and however many tiers below that) subcontractors will have to be 3rd party audited regardless of whether Ford has sanctioned a 2nd party audit or not (after all Ford never required anything but compliance to QS9K). What Steve brings up is interesting because it shows, once again, that registrars may have yet another interpretation. It's good that Steve's registrar is checking with the Big 3 SQA for clarification.

Roger,
Unfortunately our registrar remains a bit foggy on this matter which concerns me. At any rate it isnt our registrar that I have been getting the information from, it's a contact at AIAG. I have been trying to get as close to the source as possible on some issues and have been reasonably successful as of late through this contact.
Regards,
Steve

I guess that I read into your other message what I wanted to see! I looked at your previous message and, sure enough, you said that you spoke to someone at AIAG. Sorry about that... Steve, is your contact someone from the Big 3 who works at AIAG (a "borrowed employee")or an AIAG employee? This registrar that I spoke of was basing his opinion on information that he received from other sources.

Roger - Your skills as a moderator are unquestioned and your knowledge as a quality professional are exemplar. However, you will never cut it in the detective field. LOL - My name, Dave, is on the bottom of all my posts.

Seriously though, you make a good point and it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I guess the point I was trying to make is that someone will have to make another interpretation of this interpretation and so on and so on.

The notion that QS-9000, as written, is fine for the direct suppliers but needs to be tempered and tweaked as you go down the line becomes more and more reasonable with every new interpretation we get.

Dave

My contact is and AIAG employee tasked with responding with answers to questions received. I also understand that AIAG is the arm responsible for QS "training". Although they often need to get clarification from the B3, I feel better about their input than opinions and speculations of registrars that I know. :)

Dave,
I think you're too kind about my other skills, but I've always been a believer that 100% inspection is never better than 25% (for me, anyway - even though the norm is 85%!)!!! I get your serious point, though. Interpretations for QS9000 always seem to lead to more "interpretations".

Steve - your point is well taken about your AIAG contact. It's just that registrars seem to hold the stick here. For instance, another registrar that I know of is going to start their 3rd party registrations for 2nd tier suppliers shortly. I know that some 2nd (& lower) tier suppliers have pursued this registration anyway, but this registrar is doing it as a response to the Sanctioned Interpretation.