Hello to all,
I have two quick questions for the forum;
1- Is there any requirement or prerequisite in TS16949 that states an organization must already be either QS9000 certified, or a supplier to the automotive industry before that company can engage or apply for TS16949 certification?

2- I have seen this document called "ISO/TS16949", "TS16949", and the terms "Standard" and "Specification" used inerchangably. Is this document an International Standard? Or a Customer Specification?

Any assitance and clarification that can be provided is greatly appreciated.

1. The only requirement is that your organization be part of the automotive supply chain. This has to be an unbroken link from your organization to an OEM (meaning not supplying parts through a distributor or some such arrangement). If you are not currently an automotive supplier, you must at least be at the stage of quoting business to an OEM or a tier supplier, and you must demonstrate capability to meet all TS and customer-specific requirements, according to the IAOB.

2. The correct title is "ISO/TS 16949:2002" Technically it's not a standard, it's a Technical Specification. As far as we're concerned, it's a standard - it has requirements you have to comply to. Customer specific requirements refer to requirements over and above TS 16949 specific to a given customer (i.e. GM, Ford or Daimler-Chrysler Customer Specifics, or a Tier 1's SQA manual)

I'm about ready to hit the ol' Playstation 2 here, so someone else can tell you the difference between a standard and a TS, if you're interested! :)

Don Wood
Licensed Plexus Trainer/TS 16949 CB Auditor Examiner

First Part of Question is nicely replied by Mr. Don. For second part, I would like to add that If a Draft Documents gets more than 75% valid votes it is called as a Standard. In the year 1999 when Documents of 16949 was born, it couldn't get the required votes to be called as Standard hence it is called as Technical Specifications. Though in the year 2002 it has got more than 85% votes still it has been decided to keep as ISO/TS 16949 and not full fledge standard. I strongly belive in three years time when there will be more control of ISO on this document , automatically Specs word would be removed. Till than bear with this word of IATF.

Great to see you back again Don.

Might I recommend Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4 for the PS2 (and 3 for that matter).

Don,

Do all products the company produces need to meet all requirements of TS, or just the automotive products? A good example of a requirement I'm concerned about would be pre-lauch control plans for non-automotive product. Some jobs are a 100 piece run for the nonautomotive product. The automotive is usually substantial requirements, and the control plan section makes sense.

Laura

Laura I Don't know I shoud give the reply or not because you asked to Don only but since the same query was generated in my mind due to one issue regarding TS Certification in my plant and asked by me to TUV, I thought I sould reply.

Theoritically speaking As for as the System is concerned You Can't have two Systems one QMS for one product and another for other. You just imagine Management review, Corrective and Preventive Action, Control of Non Conforming Products etc. But yes If you segregate some equipments and Machinary which are nowhere related to your process from others that are under QMS to TS, I feel you can apply your Non-Auto logic.
We in our plant are manufacturing Aluminum Foils on one hand and Aluminum Alloy Wheels on the other. All commercials, such as Logistics, Purchasing, Stores, Warehousing, HRD was common and We were audited for all the fuctions, While we got certified only for Wheel manufacturing and not for Foil Manufacturing in TS Certification.

Laura,
From the "Rules", The scope of certification shall include all products supplied to customers subscribing to the certificationto ISO/TS 16949-2000.

Beyond that statement, think PROCESS not PRODUCT. If you have a process that produces both Automotive and non-automotive the process must meet TS2 requirements.
IMO the best place to address the issue is in the process definition.
Example:
1- Question - OEM
2- Answer - YES
3- Result - TS2 requirements
4- Answer - NO
5- Result - Non- automotive requirements.

Thanks Sam,

For clarrification, all requirements such as- business plan, quality planning, Corrective action, etc have been implemented for the whole company. Its just the sticky process control plan requirement where "pre-launch MAY be required." Is that on demand from the customer? Because the customer demanding registration has never even asked for pre-launch.

Also - by process is a good point. They machine various shapes and sizes of the same thing. My intent is to use the prelaunch CP in new applications of existing equipment - for example a metal they haven't machined before, or if they purchase a new machine. But not for every product brought in for existing equipement.

I'm pretty comfortable with how this all was handled under QS - I'm just looking for a little reassurance under the TS requirement.

Thanks - Laura

Sam and Manoj are both correct. If you have a distinct production line making non-automotive products, then that would be beyond the scope of TS2 audits. If you're running both automotive and non-automotive products on the same line, that line MUST comply with all TS2 requirements.

The question becomes, why would you WANT to divide your system? The additional requirements of TS2 over and above ISO 9K:2K are intended to improve quality and thus SAVE organizations money. If you're approaching TS2 (or ISO 9K:2K, for that matter) with the mindset of "Gee, I just need to comply with this so I can get the paper on the wall and the customer off my back", you're missing the primary intent of both standards - making it right the first time is the most cost-effective way to run a business.

I urge you to do just what we preach in the CB auditor classes (and all of Plexus' classes) - look at those requirements, and identify what the INTENTS are for each clause. Why are these requirements here? Why did the the writers of this document agree that this requirement would benefit organizations and their customers? The overwhelming majority of what's in TS2 is pretty darn hard to argue with.

I was forced to implement a split QMS back in the day, over my strenuous objections, and as I predicted it was nothing but trouble. Consider carefully before making the same mistakes I was compelled to make. BTW, about 4 years later that organization lost over 40% of it's sales, and ended up laying off or firing most of it's staff and being bought out by one of it's suppliers. Word to the wise.

Pre-launch control plans aren't an option in TS2 - check out 7.5.1.1 - that's a "shall". During development, typically a pre-launch CP ID's ALL the controls the MAY be needed to assure quality. The intent is, as the process is proved out and capability, run-at-rate, maintainability is established, controls are RELAXED in the production CP for the best of reasons - to save money while assuring the same level of quality. Who cares whether or not the CUSTOMER asks for it? It's a good idea for YOU! :)

Don Wood

Philosophically, Don, I do not disagree with anything you said. And I am NOT advocating for a split QMS I never have. However, some products are 100 piece runs turned around in 2 days from receipt of print and PO. That's the reality. Now - the processes (ie., type of mill, lathe, etc) may be used for automotive or not. There are no "lines" in this company, just mill and lathe machines. That's why in my statement above, I indicate that something new to processing would use a prelaunch - for example - if they had a contract for machining plastic and they have never done that before. Other products - made out of machines and materials that they have been running for years, would come in with standard process controls and we wouldn't have a prelaunch CP. They would also review these standard type products for unique features or tolerance different from the past. I would think standard diameters and tolerances become part of a "family" control plan. So back to the TS auditors - would they really be looking for what we did for prelaunch of every new product - or is the by process (machine/material) approach acceptable.

Feeling a bit like I need to defend myself, I/we do look at the intest of every clause. We changed many things there with my advice and their agreement. Being a small shop in the business of making some money, we also look at the practicality in application. In the 100 piece example described above - it would be easier (read cheaper) to 100% inspect a short run rather than using quality resources to create a prelaunch control plan. (Short run SPC is a way's off in this company, but we are discussing it.) A family pre-launch for all new processes is the current approach.

Thanks for the input.

Laura,
IMO it was wrong for the writers of the specification to assign a "shall" for a pre-launch CP. But htey did and we have to live with it.

"So back to the TS auditors - would they really be looking for what we did for prelaunch of every new product - or is the by process (machine/material) approach acceptable."

Not being a TS2 auditor I can only assume that since this is a "shall" the auditor will want to see evidence of a Pre-launch CP.

"That's why in my statement above, I indicate that something new to processing would use a prelaunch - for example - if they had a contract for machining plastic and they have never done that before. Other products - made out of machines and materials that they have been running for years, would come in with standard process controls and we wouldn't have a prelaunch CP. They would also review these standard type products for unique features or tolerance different from the past. I would think standard diameters and tolerances become part of a "family" control plan."

IMO the above statement is clear and demonstrates your intent to comply with the specification. The proof is in the objective evidence provided to the CB auditor.
Most people, including auditors, forget the "intent" of the control plan: Describe action and periodic requirements at each phase of the process to assure that all process outputs will be in a state of control.
The purpose of a P-CP, IMO, is to plan ONLY for those controls which you do not already have in place. To do otherwise is a waste of time and effort.
If this issue really becomes a "sticky Wicket" then I see no choice but for us to run a copy of the CP and save it a s a P-CP.

Don Wood said:

Pre-launch control plans aren't an option in TS2 - check out 7.5.1.1 - that's a "shall". During development, typically a pre-launch CP ID's ALL the controls the MAY be needed to assure quality.
Don Wood

I just got back to the part of the standard I was referring to with the "may' be required. Annex A indicates that "Prelaunch is defined as a production phase in the process of product realization which MAY BE required. after prototype build."

So if no prelaunch phase is required, then no prelaunch CP is required? Do we need confirmation from auto customers if prelaunch is required?

I'm convinced following this discussion that we will have a prelaunch phase during initial runs of ''new' processes - tighter tolerances, new materials, etc.


Laura

Laura,
Excellent point.

Don W.,
What is the IAOB take on this?

I hope I'm reading these responses correctly and that my post makes sense.

While the majority of our business is supplying parts for the automotive sector, we also run nonautomotive parts in our die cast machines and some machining centers. We DO NOT necessarily have PFMEAs and CPs for nonautomotive parts. We may perform those excersizes, dependant on the project. Many of our nonautomotive customers do not wish to pay the "exaggerated" piece price resulting from doing things the "automotive way". Because we have a QMS based on (and registered to) TS there is a "natural" improvement of quality, across the board, which carries over to nonautomotive parts. We do not have a "split" system but rather "Supplier Quality Manuals" from our nonautomotive customers which spell out their requirements.

Our registrar does not audit nonautomotive parts except in the vein of the "support systems" which carry across the company.

Bill

It's going to take me a bit to get a reply on this, I'm busier than Hades at the moment, and I can see this issue is going to require me to delve into APQP a bit. Please bear in mind though, I'm not the "voice of the IAOB", just a guy that does contract work for them certifying auditors.

It would help if I knew more about the nature of the business here - what are the products, and why are the volumes so low? 100 piece runs isn't exactly the norm in automotive. Are these parts going through PPAP? Does the customer require the use of the APQP reference manual, Project Management, or an equivalent? Are there a lot of customer quality concerns here which might be attributed to inadeqaute quality planning, or does the customer thing everything's just ducky? That's the real test - if the performance of the process meets ALL customer requirements, then it's funny how accomodations on issues like whether or not a pre-launch CP is needed can be worked out.

I AM uneasy with the notion that just because a product is being run on existing equipment with existing materials that pre-launch controls are unnecessary (but that's me). I've had some very painful experiences with that mentality in the past, though maybe it's appropriate in this situation. I just don't know enough right now. Auditing is tough enough on site - it's a real bugger from 650 miles away over a computer.

I do know one thing - TS2 isn't intended to make anyone's life **** (except maybe mine), or put anyone out of business. It IS intended to improve the quality of product going into the OEMs, and ultimately the quality of the vehicles coming out. I'm sure there's an answer here somewhere.

Laura, sorry if I sounded preachy there - I'm a trainer, it happens! :) But one of the things that REALLY frosts my shorts is the notion that APQP is a cost, or burdensome. Another is the depressingly widespread mindset of. "let's just do the bare minimum we need to to pass the audit." If I came across like I was laying my little idiosyncracies on you, I do apologize. Sometime next week I'll do a bit of research and see if I can get some more definitive info on this topic.

Don Wood said:

100 piece runs isn't exactly the norm in automotive. Are these parts going through PPAP? Does the customer require the use of the APQP reference manual, Project Management, or an equivalent? Are there a lot of customer quality concerns here which might be attributed to inadeqaute quality planning, or does the customer thing everything's just ducky? .....

I do know one thing - TS2 isn't intended to make anyone's life **** (except maybe mine), or put anyone out of business. It IS intended to improve the quality of product going into the OEMs, and ultimately the quality of the vehicles coming out. I'm sure there's an answer here somewhere.



The 100 piece runs are usually the non-automotive. They do supplement production of a major OEM. We do PPAP for new products from the OEM. In some cases, they have done PPAP in case they get an order, even tho there is no outstanding requirements. The customer (the one demanding TS, by the way) has not required all the APQP requirements. They have even waved some PPAP requirements. They have been known to receive product from the customer, and turn it around, including the PPAP as required, in a few days.

They have very few customer complaints. That makes the thought of generating a sheet of paper to satisfy an audit even more difficult to digest.

Hello,

I am in the last stages of being certified to TS16949:2002 This facility supplies Automotive, Medical, electronic and appliances. I have set the plant in its entirety on this program. One system, one idea for all.
I figured it would cut down on confusion and everyone would learn the same system. We have 20+ customers around the world. If we perform the same criteria on all customers it will cover the basic requirements for some and maybe an over kill on others but, we will have improved our over all system and no really caused extra work......now or in the future.
We are trying to maintain a certain level of improvement for all customers. It will also make training in the future easy. Everyone will have been practicing the same set of Procedures and QMS regulations. The door is wide open for opportunity.

Not sure if this helped. It was more of a statement I guess.:bigwave:

So you do all the APQP requirements on appliance customers?
I guess it depends on the longevity of the programs. The company I'm talking about may get a PO in the AM, and have a machine set up and ready to go by second shift. Their planning process is to look at the last run, identify any problems they had (if any), obtain the right gages, inserts and retrieve the old program and go. If its a new part - they spend a little more time on developing the process.

I like the idea of one system, but its just not practical. EVen the automotive products have quick turn around and almost all of the are interim PPAP because hte customer wants parts with PPAP to follow.

Hi,

Remember the levels Your EMS : Level I Quality Manual, then your Level II procedures. Your procedures are the Defines who what and when. Your Level III Job instructions answers how .....a,b,c or 1,2,3 steps in order of importance. It should not matter the turn around time. You still go through a process. Every process can be mapped. You need to establish process controls.
I like to cook. Even cooking in a process, it takes a specific sequence to proform this task. first gather ingredients, measure them out, put them in in a specific order, stir for a certain time.....cook at a particular temp for a certain time period. Level 4 is record your results, etc.. Know I could map out a flow and make a PFMEA. If you want the same result. If you are creating some thing a dFMEA would be in call.

There is a point to all of this I can asure you. If you get into a habit it comes easy, it will also lead you to past problems and history of that product or program. The PO you mentioned is just a trigger to run parts or materials for the customer.
:) one set of stds. One idea. Any program should go through the APQP process. Automotive requires it. Others will if not already. Be pro-active in your approach.:bonk:

Hello,

I just went through ISO901:2000 & TS16949:2002 registration audit. There is not a direct must to start TS before not having any QMS in place. It just states you must have 12 months data specified in the TS guidelines. I had 18 months data. No previous ISO or QS at this facility. However the Company I work for tried to send documents to other plants to hurry and get TS. This did not work for them and they failed. They thought only papers got them pass the audit not the practice of the system. TS deals with more of the Customer and the employees at the supplier. Basically it hold the Management's feet to the fire.( here is the problem what are you doing about it) SHOW ME THE "Continious" not continual progress. Big difference there....... :eek:
I recommend that you look heavily on the TS 7.1, 7.2 , 7.3 & 8.5. All rest follows ISO/QS fairly well.
Some food for thought(saw on web site), as far as PDCA approach to problem solving in TS system: Plan- Resource Management
Do- Product Realization
Check- Measurement Analysis & Implementation
Action- Managers Responsibility

:evidence: