I was searching, trying to get any additional info on if the 2002 draft was on schedule to be relased in March. I came across this:

"Good news? ISO/TS 16949:1999 will be around for longer. Why? The December 2001 US TAG ISO/TC 176 "disapproved" the draft of ISO/TS 16949:2002. This action resulted in that the upcoming edition of the "International Automotive Standard" most likely will be delayed past the pre-committed date of March 2002. We will keep this page with news on the progress of ISO/TS 16949"

From "Bulltek LTD". Does anyone have any info? How reliable is this source? Our company is looking to get registerd to the 2002 version ASAP, and we would like to know if the March date is Definatly not going to happen for the official release. :bonk:

Wouldn't this be a fine of kettle of worms? I would be interested to see what they disapproved of!

According to my information, a presentation at http://www.autotrain.org
(you can see these for free)
According to ISO rules a TS- Technical specification can only be valid for 3 years and if it is not approved by spring 2002 then it falls and they need to begin again.

This could prove interesting... :thedeal:

Some slight corrections after more checking:
ISO/TS Technical Specification
A normative document representing the technical consensus within an ISO committee

The way it is done

a) A TC/SC may decide that a particular work item should result in publication of a technical specification. Normally this decision should be agreed at the outset, i.e. simultaneously with approval of the NP. The text is developed through the preparatory and committee stages at the end of which the text shall be submitted for a three month vote by the P-members of the committee to approve publication of the document as a technical specification. Acceptance of the document requires approval by 2/3 of the P-members. If the acceptance criterion is satisfied the document shall be sent to the Central Secretariat for publication as an ISO/TS.

b) In cases in which a committee had decided to produce an International Standard, but subsequently discovered that there was insufficient support for the publication of a standard, the committee may agree, by the above process, to publish the document as a technical specification.

c) Any P-member or category A or D-liaison organization of a committee may propose that an existing document be considered for adoption as a technical specification. The process for approval is as described in a). NB: A-type liaison: participation by an organization in a TC or SC which can make an effective contribution to the work of the committee. D-type liaison: participation at the working group level only or contribution to a specific project

NOTES

As defined above, technical specifications essentially replace the existing type 1 and type 2 technical reports. (As described later, this latter type of publication is retained for purely informative documents – formerly, type 3 technical reports.)

Technical specifications may be processed in one language only.

Competing technical specifications offering different technical solutions are possible provided that they do not conflict with existing International Standards. (A TC/SC may decide to revise an ISO standard to allow conflicting technical specifications.)

Technical specifications shall be reviewed at least every three years to decide either to confirm the technical specification for a further three years, revise the technical specification, process it further to become an International Standard or withdraw the technical specification. After six years, a technical specification shall either be converted into an International Standard or be withdrawn.

ISO member bodies may adopt technical specifications and publish them as documents having the same level of authority as the ISO/TS.
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/whowhenhow/proc/deliverables/iso_ts.html

Below is an answer to Marcs previous question as to the time table.

Howard sent me this:

<center>http://16949.com/gif/img5_1.gif</center>

> The way it is done

Supposedly...

You should know that ISO/TS16949 is now being revised in line with ISO9001:2000. Due for publication in March 2002, it is currently in final draft status and will be issued as ISO/TS16949:2002 - so hold any of your horses just yet.

My boss contacted the IAOB yesterday, and H. Hodder said that the draft was still due to be finalized in March of 2002, so it seems that things are still on track....or that's what they want us to believe...:frust:

If it is approved, does anyone know what the registration scheme is? Is there a "table H" (from QS equivalent) on required "man-days."

Laura

We are talking about the 2000 version or so I believed

Man days
http://www.iqualitys.com/img13_1.gif

We have to be talking about the updated ISO/TS 16949. I don't think anything else makes sense. I have to think that the quote from "Bulltek" or whatever is wrong, unless the US rejection was for something relatively minor, that can be corrected by March 2002.

I've seen the position paper by the US TAG 176 secretary rejecting the latest draft of TS16949. Most of the issues were related to what they consider poor alignment of the current draft with ISO9001:2000. There was also an objection to the requirement that subcontractors had to be 3rd party registered to ISO9001:2000 in order to comply with TS16949. The argument here was that ISO9001:2000 contains no such requirement itself (of having to be registered). I guess the ISO committee will have to answer these issues before this TS draft can go much further.

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.

If the USA voted no does that mean the big three voted no, and if so does that mean we will be stuck with QS9000 ?

Greenway,

I'm not sure they can say no. They have already stated that they will accept 16949 in lieu of QS. Some have used even stronger language. To turn around now and say they will not accept might bring on some liability from companies that spent large $ to switch. It does make some interesting conjecture, however. Kinda reminds you of a soap opera don’t’ it.

Will the Big 3 abandon their step-child?
Will ISO make the changes the US wants?
Will the Big 3 customer base revolt?
Will Luke find Laura?
Who shot JR?
:eek:

Tune in tomorrow, same bat-time, same bat-channel?

Here is the scoop on ISO/TS 16949:2002. The draft was voted on late last year and received 79% approval (30 out of 47 member countries). There were 8 "No" votes and 9 abstaining countries. 22 of the voting countries made comments (some apparently substantial) on the standard, 14 of these
countries voted "Yes". I have not had any luck getting my hands on documentation that covers what the comments were but I am going to keep on trying. The Automotive Task Group (I am unsure who this is made up of) are supposed to review the comments in January and revise ISO/TS 16949:2002
before it is published. So, in a nutshell, the document was approved but we will probably see some changes to it based on the comments. I am being told that the target is still March of this year.

Cheryl,
Please let ue know when you have heard something. I at first heard that the US was the only country to vote NO. I guess that was wrong. Anyway, I would be interested to see what some of the other NO-voting countries had to say about the draft. I have a copy of the position paper by the US and, if the other NO-voting countries had similar positions as the US, I could see several things changing in TS - 2nd edition. If so, I wonder if March is a probable month for release?

Thanks Cheryl!

The Automotive Task Force you mention is probably the International Atuomotive Task Force, which is at www.iaob.org/ but unfortunately they are slow to give news or information on their site.
I wish their was a place on the web to get this news sooner.... I don't know what I would do if I didn't have this forum to find this stuff out. Thanks everyone!

Mooser