Fellow TE Suppliers, take a look at this months Quality Progress, QP Mailbag, pg. 12, "What Happens to Those Registered to QS-9000 TE?", particularly the last paragraph of Dan Reid's response!

Hmmmm......:vfunny:

Surely one couldn't read this as "QS-9000 (not to mention the TE Supplement) was a flop. We didn't save squat." As another 'Miracle Cure' fades into the past. Will there be lessons learned? Nope. :thedeal: I started saying QS-9000 was dead meat in 1998....

I was merging a thread and goofed - I accidentially dumped two responses... The question was asked what Dan Reid's response was. It was:

I cannot confirm your suspicion about a supplement to TS 16949. Remember, TS 16949 was a deliverable of the International Automotive Task Force, and the tooling and equipment supplement was one of the DC-F-GM manuals.

I haven't heard of any new initiative designed to update the TE supplement at this time, but there could eventually be customer specific updates for companies requiring TE certification.

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. An easy alturnative may be for these customers to require their tooling and equipment suppliers to be ISO 9001:2000 certified.

After much research, I was finally told by my registrar today that no decision has been made as to the ultimate fate of TE.:confused:

He went on to tell me that an announcement has been made that QS9000/TE will remain recognized as a valid ISO certification through to the end of 2006.


What happens then has still not been decided.

I don't think the fate of TE should be such a big issue. As I read ISO/TS 16949:2002, I cannot find any place where TE companies will have an overwhelming requirement that they cannot meet. I think 16949 will be a natural replacement to TE.

If anyone knows of an area of 16949 that a TE company cannot fulfill, let know.

Dave,


My frustration is that there is no official word as to the direction we should be taking, and that there is conflicting information as to what the TE companies should be working towards.

I think that I will give up trying to be proactive.

Barb, I understand your frustration. One of the major complaints about the B3 is that they clearly don't practice what they preach. As one supplier stated: "Tell me what the rules are TODAY, and follow them. Don't complain if I don't follow a rule that you never told me about."

Oh how familiar that sounds!!!:eek:

We were given the initiative of getting Q1 under Fords F&T which required TE9000 and R&M. I questioned their people on how to show R&M progress when you deliver a die DESIGN not build, nothing else. We also are required to use the customer design standards to design their die.

Exact words from the Ford buyer. "I don't know how you'll do it, you figure it out and let us know how you did it." Followed up with "I'll be here every other Wednesday for a progress report".

As most know, a major input to R&M is developed from customer feedback, of which I got very little from Ford. We once requested to change a cable location (die standard) because it would be getting cut every other die hit or so. The cable would require changing that could take an hour. We were told to change the connection at the box to a quick disconnect to speed repair time!!!! (MTTR not MTBF). It still cut the cable, but the repair was reduced by 50%!

For my time and effort I'm moving towards TS. It fits, there's not a lot of change required (basically roll out design control to the processes), and it will be required sooner or later.


:bigwave: :bigwave:

I too am in a quandry. My company manufactures entire paint systems for the B3. From the time the raw part enters our system until it rolls out the other end all pretty, we build everything in between, sometimes even the building.

Our facility mostly builds all the sheet metal and material handling the balance is OEM equipment that's integrated into our system. It's easy to see how R&M fits, and I think we do it well. But as I see it, when the customer fails to supply us with failure data or other feedback, how can the B3 honestly expect us to continue providing R&M without anything in return?

I heartily agree with Marc! And I'll take it one step further, ALL automotive specific quality standards are doomed to failure if the automotive manufacturers continue to burden their suppliers with requirements they themselves ignore.

Us small 'Mom and Pop' TE type companies can not afford continuing in this manner and it will must come to a head before long.

The B3 should remove control of supplier quality from the hands of over burdened purchasing folks and consider placing the control into another group, QUALITY ASSURANCE, MAYBE!!!

:frust:

Wow! I feel a lot better! :vfunny:

Until clarification comes from these guys, I'm going to hold off on TS and just focus on 9001:2000. I think I'm safe in assuming I won't get burnt too bad going this route.

db said:

I don't think the fate of TE should be such a big issue. As I read ISO/TS 16949:2002, I cannot find any place where TE companies will have an overwhelming requirement that they cannot meet. I think 16949 will be a natural replacement to TE.

If anyone knows of an area of 16949 that a TE company cannot fulfill, let know.

db,

Dan Reids response to my letter was that, as far as the B3 is concerned, the cost and ROI of developing a TS 16949:2002 TE Sup is not warrented.

Not having read 16949:2002 I may be way off base but, Dan Reid's point in QP was that TS16949 addresses parts supplier (PPAP) issues for the B3 and that ISO 9001:2000 (no PPAP issues) will suffice for us TE suppliers, with possible "Customer Specific Requirements" TBD.


SteveTIB

I noticed in the recent (7/1/02) QS9K Sanctioned Interpretations that TE will be phased out like QS: by the end of 2006. What's not clear is whether TS will replace TE. I suspect, per Dan Reid's comments in this thread, that creating another TE document based on TS is too complicated. I'm not sure what that means completely, but you heard what da man said.

The official announcement from the B3 landed on my desk today, dated August 2002, that QS9000 will expire by December 14 2006, or earlier based on individual OEM customer requirements.

In July of 2002, Chrysler announced a deadline of July 1 2004. This leads me to assume that July 1 2004 is the real deadline to meet.

At the risk of repeating my concern earlier in the thread, months have now gone by, and still no news specific to us.

Has anyone heard anything recently about the plan for us in the TE world? Our company certified to QS9000/TE late in the game, and it proved stressful.

many thanks
Barb

The longer I spend trying to make sense out of this all, the more I wonder if the B3 went too far in issuing the TE. I can see where the B3 would want their production parts suppliers certified to QS9000, and I can see how R&M would be beneficial to them. But, is a separate standard really necessary for TE'ers?

The TE supplement is supposed to be a STANDARD QMS for TE'ers, then why do each of the B3 have so many separate specific requirements for their TE suppliers? Wouldn't it be better to include the R&M requirement in the Customer Specific Requirements and just get rid of the TE?

We're upgrading soon to 9K2K and I hope sometime down the road the B3, et al, relax the requirement to have TE'ers register to TS16949. I'm not implying it's a bad standard, but with all the added specific requirements each customer ultimately forces on us, what's the difference if we're registered to 9k2k rather than TS?

Peace to all.

John

Has anyone heard anything recently about the plan for us in the TE world? Our company certified to QS9000/TE late in the game, and it proved stressful.

Barb, we are TE certified and I have been in contact with Ford almost weekly in order to stay in the loop on this very issue. To date no plans have been made to "rewrite" the TE standard to comply to the TS.

However, during my "rewrite" of our system to comply with 9K2K & TS I have found no real problems with combining what we are currently doing in TE/R&M to the 16949 scheme.

Our annual review for our Q1 R&M for Production Die Design and the new Q1 review for our Production Checking Fixtures will be next month. I'll let you know if anything is mentioned. As it stands right now I wouldn't look for anything in the near future.

Randy,
Thank you for response. I would appreciate knowing how your transition to 9k2k and 16949 goes, as it sounds like we have some similar issues.

Barb

I was just informed by my registrar that as a non-production part or service part supplier we can not register to TS16949 rather to remain certified to TE. His contacts say the IAOB/IATF will have a TE type standard later in 2003 or early 2004.

Even the title of TS is Quality management systems—particular requirements for the application of ISO9001:2000 for automotive production and relevant service part organizations.

As in the military, hurry up...and wait!:mad:

Well, that's the first that I have heard that TE will be updated. There were indications otherwise in other material that I have seen. TE is a good document so I have been surprised to see reports that it wouldn't be updated.

Hey Roger!

I didn't mean to imply that the TE Supplement was to be revised rather IAOB/IATF was working on an ISO/TS standard for us TE'ers. Sorry 'bout the confusion.

You going to the reunion?

Hmmm.....did your registrar mean that the TE supplement will go away and another ISO/TS document will take its place?

I understood him to mean exactly that. The TE would go away as stated by the B3 in 2006 however, in the interim, a new ISO/TS standard for tooling/equipment suppliers would hit the streets replacing the TE. Just as 16949 replaced QS9000.

It's important to remember that this info was garnered through the grapevine so as to its credibility, I can not vouch for.

The following is quoted from an aritcle by Chris Lupo in NSF-ISR's publication Register, Summer 2002 edition:
"On April 24, 2002, Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force (SQRTF) representatives and Harold Hodder, Executive Director, International Automotive Oversight Bureau (IAOB) conducted a rollout of the long-anticipated release of ISO/TS 16949:2002. "
Among the topics discussed was TE Supplement to QS-9000.
"Tooling and Equipment Suppliers cannot achieve ISO/TS 16949 certification, and the TE Supplement will also become obsolete in December 2006. There is no TE Supplement to TS 16949, and the task for has not yet decided on requirements for tooling and equipment suppliers. The task force is considering options such as creating a TE Supplement to TS, using ISO 9001:2000 or ISO 9001:2000 with customer-specific requirements. TE Supplement suppliers are encouraged to maintain their current certification until further notice."
Chris is the Techical Manager for NSF-ISR, and the quotes are included here with his permission. He also offered to answer any questions he could if you contact him at their AnnARbor, MI office.

Thanks for the info, Tom! I will give my registrar this info so the next time someone asks he'll at least have ammunition that's backed with dry powder.

It's hard for me to believe that the B3, et al, could come to a consensus in developing a common TE Supplement to 16949. I suspect each will develop their own TE requirements based on ISO9001:2000. And if that's the case my QM and procedures will require beau coup revisions!

We haven't seen Christian Lupo's name around here for awhile. He used to be a regular contributor. Anyway, I think John could be right, although it could be a variation on a theme again - a TE common supplement with separate customer requirements. That seems to be the current "wave" now.

Chad Kymal of Omnex attended a ISO/TS 16949 Rollout session recently and posted a PowerPoint presentation of his notes from the session. They are available on the Omnex Web site. According to his notes Ford and DaimlerChrysler are already working on a TE Supplement to ISO/TS 16949:2002 and claim it will be available before the Dec. 2006 drop dead date for QS-9000. I also have heard this from some other sources.

On the IAOB's website www.iaob.org , there is a link to a letter from the task force indicating that they (the task force) has decided NOT to have a TE supplement to 16949.

FYI

Thankfully dropping TE makes sense. I did not think they would create a new one - there are only a couple hundred companies certified to TE. Never like the TE Supplement - unless you were making the assembly line you had to justify so many exclusions you were back to ISO 9000.

Tom

Amen!

Although we're a TE 1st and 2nd tier supplier, registration and subsequent surveillance audits have been dreadful...Ford wants their own specific R&M data with QOS, DCX something different, and GM something else.

I would have preferred ISO9000 alone and then add the Customer Specifics. TE was a B3 dream that turned into a nightmare for a lot of the TE suppliers.

We build paint systems (booths, ovens, air handling, WWT, paint handling, and material handling systems). Our shop fabricates and assembles systems designed in-house. Our PM Team installs and launches each unique system on site.

R&M w/ LCC was about all that applied to us (with the exception of the standard ISO9000 elements) and everything else required for TE had to be 'created' to meet the requirements (Prototyping, accelerated life testing, etc.), and most of those 'created' requirements were not value added to either our product or our operation.

I know there are not many of us TE'ers out there, and even our small cluster of tier 1 and 2 suppliers are uniquely different. Consummable tooling vs. capital equipment. Two significantly different commodity markets trying to comply to a standard that just lumped us together as if we were simply second thoughts.

I hope that the B3 recognizes this dichotomy and allows us to just register to ISO9000 and their unique Customer Specifications, and call it a day.

This, I believe, is a more realistic strategy that will work for both the customer and supplier.

hurray for small gains!!

I am immenseley relieved, though I am now wondering how quickly we can move on to ISO 9000:2000, and leave QS9000 behind.

Barb

This is direct from the grapevine whose well fertilized roots grow in Detroit...

Ford has directed a certain consultant (I can not mention at this time) to create a new standard for TE suppliers.

The new standard is to be based on ISO 9001:2000, will include ISO 14001:1996, and incorporate QOS requirements among other things that were not specified.

DCX and GM are showing a lot of interest but are watching from the sidelines and may jump into the game when the bulk of the new standard is completed.

Thought you might like to know...;)

I heard the same thing John, but the rumor I heard came out of Windsor. I have found that in some cases the breeze blowing from across the river is much fresher than the stale hot air coming from Dearborn!:vfunny:

Hmmm...Windsor / Detroit...the grapevine roots must burrow beneath the river. Let's hope that something happens soon so we have a little time to prepare documents and register.

When do you suppose the new standard will hatch?

BTW...you an ex-swab? I spent six years punching holes in the Pacific (Submarines). Pearl Harbor 1974 - 1980