We lost Q1, so as you know, our QS9000 went on probation. Our registrar approved our corrective action for the issue, then dropped the bomb on us. According to them, there has been an unannounced one-month old requirement from the Big 3 that requires us to provide evidence that the customer also agrees to remove our QS9000 from probation.

Ok, no sweat. Our CA was very good. BUT....

Ford has used this opportunity to provide additional requirements on removal of the QS9000 probation status. They have required that we meet these unrealted requirements by a certain timeframe. If we do not meet them, we loose QS9000.

Ford has every right to manage Q1 and the business relationship between us. They have every right to deny or extend probation for the issue that caused our Q1 revocation. However, it seems absolutely wrong to me to add unrelated conditions and threaten our relationship with other customers in this manner.

Am I crazy? Has anyone else heard of the requirement or had a similar experience?

This appears to have been some time ago - can you tell me what the outcome of this was?

Okay, let me set this up correctly:

Our Q1 was revoked, so by procedure our QS went on probation. Our assumption was that the management of our QS9000 registration status was now between us and our registrar and that our management of our Q1 was between us and Ford. That was how it worked.

Shame on us for loosing Q1. But as most of you know, the only way to get any attention from Ford is to get into trouble. No one is there to help or answer questions, but they come out of the woodwork if they suspect you did something wrong. And then they email a half-truths or pieces of mis-information to everyone a Ford to justify their existence and it becomes totally unmanageable. But I digress…

So, we took the proper steps to correct the condition that cause the revocation. Our registrar reviewed the corrective action and agreed that we effectively corrected the issue, BUT…

Then they dropped the bomb on us. Unbeknownst to us, a meeting had just taken place between the Big 3 and the Registrars and basically there was an additional hurdle to clear. According to our registrar "probation can only be removed after receiving documented evidence that the OEM has removed the special status for which probation was initiated, or otherwise agrees to removal of the probation"

We were on probation because our Q1 was revoked. Technically, to remove the special status (Q1 revoked) you had to regain Q1. No longer was fixing the problem enough.

Well, there’s one problem right off the bat; According to QS9000, you have either 3 or 4 months (too lazy to look it up right now) to effectively address the nonconformity. However, once you loose Q1, you have lost it for at least 6 months, per their rules. Therefore any supplier that has their Q1 revoked cannot have the revoked status removed in the allotted time. It is up to Ford whether they will grant an extension. The impact if they do not is that you lose QS9000 registration and risk your relationship with all your other customers. That did not happen to us, but I would not want to leave this in their hands again.

There were 2 other big problems for us. The first was that the information regarding this new requirement was unavailable to us until we submitted the corrective action (near the end of the probationary period). The second was that we got caught between Q1 versions.

As we were already Q1 when the “new” Q1 was introduced, we did not have to have ISO14001 until July 2003. So our target for ISO14001 was July 2003. However, once we lost Q1, we had to have ISO14001 to get Q1 back. In other words, we did not have to return to the previous requirements; we had to clear another significant hurdle.

Instead of extending the probation to a reasonable timeframe, Ford gave us 3 months to implement an entire EMS and regain Q1.

The outcome? We made it. Whoohoo.

But I’ll tell you, every interaction with Ford is so abusive that I can guarantee that I will NEVER BUY A NEW FORD AGAIN. The same goes for any (many) of my co-workers that have been touched by their abuse.


Jay

The outcome? We made it. Whoohoo.

But I’ll tell you, every interaction with Ford is so abusive that I can guarantee that I will NEVER BUY A NEW FORD AGAIN. The same goes for any (many) of my co-workers that have been touched by their abuse.
Interesting and somewhat saddening tale, Jay. Being steamrolled by ones customer is not a pleasent experience. Many of us knows what it feels like, and it is clearly not limited to QS... I suppose it's more a big customer / small supplier syndrome? Have a look at this: Customer Requiring Environmental and Health and Safety Efforts (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7282)

/Claes

I had the same experience with Ford. I was a supplier for them for 10 years. I went in to sort some parts and was screamed at for 4 hours while my crew sat outside the office. At another Ford facility (sorting parts) we were kicked out by a union stewert to sort parts outside (snowing) in 10 degree weather. I have 10 years of stories like that. Needless to say I dont drive a Ford.



I had to add the best customer I have worked with is Honda. They were willing to help out with anything that happend, and everything was on the table no song & dance. :agree1:

Having been in the automotive business for 26 years, I cannot agree more that Ford is the singularly worst of the Big 2.5 in their treatment of their supply base. They talk a great line about "supplier partnerships", but when it comes down to crunch time, we suppliers take the hit, get screamed at, have to jump through hoops and document our butts off, :whip: but they can miss deadlines, forget to perform tasks, and basically do nothing to help themselves, and we're to blame. My father retired from Ford after 30 years [Program Engineer] and I still don't drive a Ford! :argue:

You could take just about everything written in this thread and replace "Ford" with "Visteon" and it would still be 100% accurate. We're moving from a QS9 system to a TS2 system and I've been advocating dropping Visteon as a customer before we do to save on the headaches - they're not that big of a customer to us, but we'd have to jump through more hoops for them with regards to a new TS QMS that I don't think there would be any value to continue supplying them.

...I don't think there would be any value to continue supplying them.
And that's really the bottom line...

LOL - "Management Scapegoat" - that's a good one!:lol:

It's up to me again to talk about insider information.
Unless your organization's officials have buddies in Ford you will fail as a supplier no matter what you do. On the other hand if the owner of your organization worked for ford and made freinds there, your company can sell them garbage at top dollar. Some of you already know this.
What I suggest is hiring some top level guy from Ford. This is proven. I will not give names.

It's up to me again to talk about insider information.
Unless your organization's officials have buddies in Ford you will fail as a supplier no matter what you do. On the other hand if the owner of your organization worked for ford and made freinds there, your company can sell them garbage at top dollar. Some of you already know this.
What I suggest is hiring some top level guy from Ford. This is proven. I will not give names.


This is a little limited in scope. It is obvious you have had some bad experiences, and Ford certainly causes issues to its suppliers, but there are many good suppliers to Ford who are not working under the table or hiring ex-Ford people.

It is not valid to draw an analytical conclusion based on one or two data points.

Having been in the automotive business for 26 years, I cannot agree more that Ford is the singularly worst of the Big 2.5 in their treatment of their supply base. They talk a great line about "supplier partnerships", but when it comes down to crunch time, we suppliers take the hit, get screamed at, have to jump through hoops and document our butts off, :whip: but they can miss deadlines, forget to perform tasks, and basically do nothing to help themselves, and we're to blame. My father retired from Ford after 30 years [Program Engineer] and I still don't drive a Ford! :argue:


My previous post was somewhat defensive of Ford, but I agree what Dsmith says seems to be true. I have often thought the same thing, seeing what they put their suppliers through.

Toyota is a lot more collaborative with suppliers...and their cars are better...hmmm, is there a linkage there?

This idiocy makes me wonder why ANYONE would ever want to make parts for Ford!!! We fought for months to keep our Q1, and all during this time ford kept demanding more and more... for a process that existed for six years without incident! If I had it to do over again, I'd go back 26 years and go into the porn industry. It would be less dishonest and less mentally debasing than being in the automotive supply chain.

This is a little limited in scope. It is obvious you have had some bad experiences, and Ford certainly causes issues to its suppliers, but there are many good suppliers to Ford who are not working under the table or hiring ex-Ford people.

It is not valid to draw an analytical conclusion based on one or two data points.
What are you talking about?
I was working with the organization who's owner worked for Ford as an engineer! You wouldn't believe how easy it is to push Ford around if you're with the right people.
Did you have a bad experience that you would like to share with us?

Unless your organization's officials have buddies in Ford you will fail as a supplier no matter what you do. ?


My comment was in reply to this part of your post. I don't have any direct issues working with Ford. My comments are based on what my auditing clients go through.

I like Ford, and GM, DC, etc. But, unless they wake up and collaborate with suppliers, they will continue to destroy their base and market share.

They tend to abuse or smoze, neither is appropriate, fair, nor will it lead to success.

Been in this industry for 26 years; some major improvements, yet some of the same stupid mistakes. Ford leads this charge, shaking down its suppliers for pennies and wasting dollars themselves. There is much benefit in building relationships with suppliers, "partnerships" was the Ford buzz word, but Ford is content to berate and beat up its supply base instead of working with them to resolve concerns. I say this from a knowledge base of five different Ford-direct supplier companies and the aforementioned quarter-century plus, not based on one or even two incidents.

As we have to acomplish that...
:o Can anyone tell me where can I buy QS-9000 Forms Diskette- Version 4
(Usualy I by it at Carwin but they work :nope:)

:thanks:

As we have to acomplish that...
:o Can anyone tell me where can I buy QS-9000 Forms Diskette- Version 4
(Usualy I by it at Carwin but they work :nope:)

:thanks:

You can get a CD (not a diskette) with the current (in alignment with the 4th Edition AIAG PPAP manual) forms here (https://mows.aiag.org/source/Orders/index.cfm?section=unknown&task=3&CATEGORY=CORETOOLS&PRODUCT_TYPE=SALES&SKU=APD%2D0105&DESCRIPTION=&FindSpec=PPAP&CFTOKEN=33772852&continue=1&SEARCH_TYPE=FIND).

Just to add another data point to the Ford supplier eval that seems to be going on in here. I worked for a tier 2 and made checking fixtures for Ford never really had a problem with them that was not legitimately a quality or requirement issue that originated within our own organization. And even with those they were very supportive and even helpful in its resolution and investigation. Both places were fairly small and neither had an ex Ford employee. And we were not Q1. QS and TS are automotive standards put in place by groups of auto manufactures it has always made sense to me that they could and would remove our QS status back when we had it. Neither of those companies are QS anymore but are now ISO. If you do not meet CA requirements from the customer it could still hold up your ISO cert. Not a huge issue in my mind. Sorry.

As we have to acomplish that...
:o Can anyone tell me where can I buy QS-9000 Forms Diskette- Version 4
(Usualy I by it at Carwin but they work :nope:)

:thanks:


I am curious why you are working on QS9000 when it dies and is no longer acceptable in 3 months. I would thinkyou would be going directly to ISO/TS16949:2002.

Ralph,
Sorry this post is an old one I read as a result of a search. I just thought that the indignation at having Ford hold the cert was interesting and added my experience to the Ford ragfest that I saw there. I thought Ford was good to work with (I just do not like their vehicles).

Ralph,
Sorry this post is an old one I read as a result of a search. I just thought that the indignation at having Ford hold the cert was interesting and added my experience to the Ford ragfest that I saw there. I thought Ford was good to work with (I just do not like their vehicles).

No need to be sorry. It always helps to find out about other experiences. Especially with Ford due to the recent shakups. We are talking with new people in some functions. Thanks for your input:agree1:

Happens all the time, Jay - TS is just as volatile. And they wonder why their supply base is looking elsewhere?!?

"Nothing is constant except change" but some change more than others.

We are ISO/TS 16949 certified but we have to acomplish our clients requirements and some of them are QS9000...:confused:
And others want VDA requirements...
Ann others want their own requirements...
And we have to acomplish... :bonk:

Thank you for the answer.