One thing I do not understand whats the benefit of having an International Standard .. TS 16949 in place of QS 9000 when every Customer is coming up with their own Customer Specific Requirements (CSR)? If the suppliers have to follow lengthy CSR from each customer than whats the use of TS 16949?

I think you will find customer specifications and requirements above any certification of the quality management system no matter what type it is. They (customers) have always had their own interpretations or desires out of these standards, so they feel the need to document them.

I think in a different thread some time ago a discussion was taking place on moving in a circle with the quality standards. It started out each customer had their own set of requirements, then they tried to concolidate it into QS, then came TS for the international requriements, but these are just the standard minimum (if you will) requirements. Each customer is always going to have their own requriements that did not get absorbed into TS. This is JMHO but I don't think we will ever get away from customer specific requriements above the standards. :frust:

The thing that concerns me more is how CSRs are moving from just regular requirements, to micro-managing. Ford and Visteon come to mind.

It is not enough that you provide me with acceptable product, but you also have to meet these non-product related requirements. And I see it getting worse.

The thing that concerns me more is how CSRs are moving from just regular requirements, to micro-managing. Ford and Visteon come to mind.

It is not enought that you provide me with acceptable product, but you also have to meet these non-product related requirements. And I see it getting worse.
:agree:
I totally agree. I think when a company gets so large that they have to justify their complicated systems and demands on their customers. Ford is famous for unrealistic demands and non-value added requirements. Most of those requirements are well over due for revisions and changes.

:agree:
I totally agree. I think when a company gets so large that they have to justify their complicated systems and demands on their customers. Ford is famous for unrealistic demands and non-value added requirements. Most of those requirements are well over due for revisions and changes.In all my years as Quality Manager, I NEVER "required" a supplier to change or modify its Quality System, but I did make suggestions that would be of universal benefit to them and their other customers.

In my mind, "suggestions" about QMS are completely different from "requirements" about documentation of quality inspections or SPC charts, for example. However, in my defense, these were always "up front" requirements in a request for proposal or quotation.

I have noted a disturbing trend among some very large organizations to impose retroactive conditions upon suppliers without compensating them for extra cost. The arrogance of such actions is intolerable. The difficult part for the supplier is that he is already committed in assets (human, equipment, and inventory) before the customer "springs the trap."

In the past (more than ten years ago), Ford at least put all its requirements up front, before the supplier committed to a price. Do they still do that?

I've been in the quality field for 24 years. (Some people never learn... :bonk: ) The only thing that I see as different from the 80's is that, so far at least, we are not having 2nd party audits by different customers every week.

Other than that we have 99 customers, 62 with their own requirements: from record retention to PPAP to EC to name your own item.

Our registrar is telling us that in subsequent audits there MAY be requirements to audit 1/2 day per CSR. So my registration audit of 5 labor days could go as long as 35 for the next visit if each plant had all customers. :truce:

Is anyone else hearing about this requirement?

I've been in the quality field for 24 years. (Some people never learn... :bonk: ) The only thing that I see as different from the 80's is that, so far at least, we are not having 2nd party audits by different customers every week.

Other than that we have 99 customers, 62 with their own requirements: from record retention to PPAP to EC to name your own item.

Our registrar is telling us that in subsequent audits there MAY be requirements to audit 1/2 day per CSR. So my registration audit of 5 labor days could go as long as 35 for the next visit if each plant had all customers. :truce:

Is anyone else hearing about this requirement?
:yes: Never heard it, registrar would sampling check CSR compliance. you know for TS compliance, they sampling checked your system running evidence also.

Our registrar is telling us that in subsequent audits there MAY be requirements to audit 1/2 day per CSR. So my registration audit of 5 labor days could go as long as 35 for the next visit if each plant had all customers. :truce:

Is anyone else hearing about this requirement?

If this is true, TS can become prohibitively expensive. Now, I'm not doubting you, but rather your registrar's interpretation. If you have 100 customers and even if we keep it at 1/2 per customer, that alone is 50 days of additional auditing! Wow! I need to change jobs! :eek:

I agree that audit would be too $. What I expected (and got this time) was a sampling of the CSR's. This just did not make much sense to me. I could see the Big3 as additional checks since they always went their own way even with QS.

Please note the word MAY :bigwave: . They were not sure that it would be required of ALL CSR's or what proportion of CSR's it would apply to or if it was the requirement for the sample.

So many of the CSR's are very similar other than a few specific items I don't see a problem with sampling say 10% in a day, IF the auditor is familiar with the 10% before they arrive. If their not, then I can see it taking a lot longer.

:biglaugh: Certificate is certificate! Practice is practice!
No matter it is ISO, QS or TS. CSR is driven by the practice and action not the certification!

We have only one customer, Visteon and the TS2 auditor ear-marked one full 8-hour day to review and audit the CSR. So much so for rexlee's practise is practise (practice!!).

Is it practical to audit 1 full days on CSR when we produce only one part item to Visteon or is the auditor get the kick out of it to read each and every word and discuss whether the organization has scrutinise every comas, periods, full stop and marks!!!

CSR is too much for us!! The auditor is killing the benefits of TS2. Read the goal and objective of TS2. Get the heat off!