QS-9000 - R.I.P. (aka QS-9000 is Dead Meat and a 'Failure')

I can't find anything in this forum about this "trial" ISO standard called TR16949, but if it is somewhere in this forum, let me know. I saw an article in Quality Digest (web version) where Steve Walsh (Ford) is quoted as saying that this ancillary document to ISO 9000 is an international automotive standard (it is currently out for review) and that suppliers will have a choice to be registered to either QS9K or TR16949. Has anyone else heard about this and is there any more information on it. This seems like a "bombshell" concept, but it was tucked away at the very end of the article.

I talked to someone who heard from the horses mouth as recently as Monday of last week, that the b3 intend on replacing QS9K with IS0-16949. I have a copy of this and it is not significantly different from QS. It is an attempt by the international automotive makers to have one automotive quality standard. So it combines all the VDA-6s and European standards into one automotive standard. Not a bad idea eh? The BIG bombshell came when he also told me the b3 wants to be the only registrar!!!! The Independant Association of Accredited Registrar's (IAAR) is fighting this of course, but the b3 want this to be the gospel by the beginning of 1999!!! He said he would pass along the minutes from that meeting so I can see for myself what was discussed.

A dumb question perhaps, but are you saying that Le Grand Trois want to be the people who are registering firms to this standard? If so, that is a bombshell!!! It seems that they are hard-pressed to keep up with the questions about QS from their suppliers! How in the world would they hope to register suppliers? This is another case of "Truth is stranger than fiction" in the automotive world. This sure does bring up a lot of questions (if things are panning out this way).
By the way, Marc, I did see the Search function after I posted this (I just didn't edit my message). Thanks. This is a great forum.

[This message has been edited by Roger Eastin (edited 09-03-98).]

No that's not a dumb question, because it seems so hard to believe. Yes the b3 are the one who want to registrar firms. It is the contention of the b3 that the registrar's "screwed up" QS-9000. Many firms that have no business being certified are being certified. This I agree with. The b3 also talked about "blessing" a couple of the more reputable registrars and giving them exclusive rights to registrar companies. Unfortuatly, the registrars they mentioned are the ones I hear the most complaints about, and they have been mentioned several times on this forum! These "reputable" registrars are very big and have a lot of money to buy those rights from the b3.

Marc- I'll keep ya updated. The draft document is pretty long and it was faxed to me so it wont fax well, but if you want "e" me your address and I'll send it to ya.

I heard the same thing Christian did just last night from the mule's mouth. However, I did not hear about the exclusivity part. That just tans my hide! It does add to the addage that money talks, no matter what you're saying!

It doesn't really surprise me with consideration to the money involved. I have never hesitated to say the QS thing has nothing to do with quality. Look what Dan Reid and the gang did with the Plexus thing. It has to do with money to the big 3. With consideration of registrar fees, I sure would like to be the only company allowed to register companies to QS. Jeez - probably make nearly as much as they do making cars - if not more!

They may 'blame' the registrars for 'screwing up QS9000' but they wouldn't take the heat for the crappy cars they build when the Japanese started to gain repeat customers - they BLAMED the Japanese for THEIR problems (my 1989 Mazda 626 just turned over 260,000 miles, by the way, with NO major repairs - best car I ever owned).

Registrars did not 'screw up' QS9000. The big 3 released a book of their 'common' requirements (and the latest and 'greatest' is no better in my opinion) which needed endless interpretations (and still does) to'explain'. In short QS9000 is a hack, has been, and still is. Can you imagine if all your customer requirements (and QS9000 is NOTHING MORE THAN a Customer REQUIREMENT) required pages upon pages of interpretations. The interpretations even needed interpretation! What does that tell us?

So - the big3 are expanding their business scope to include 'registrations'! I guess GM can't get rid of their 'extra baggage' so they may as well find jobs for them! Sounds like millions of cash money dollars (and yen and marks and pounds, etc) to me! Wonder how I can get a cut!!!!

Well, enough diatribe. I gotta pack so I can leave town right after I finish classes tomorrow. want to get home and 'holiday' with everyone else....

I just got done reading TR16949 and, for a while, I thought I was reading the 3rd edition of QS9K! However, it does have some interesting differences. I am not as aware of the other European standards, but apparently this document got some of its requirements from those standards. It is still hard to believe that they want this document applied by 1 Jan 99 and that the Big Three want to be the auditors!!!! Also, can it really be true that suppliers will have a choice between this document and QS9K (according to Steve Walsh) for registration?

Hey Marc!
The forum idea is just great. PS did you get any work from the Benz folks in Japan? They are strangely quite over there....

How can a simple guy like me get hold of a copy of the ISO (TR) 16949? Is this going to blow up in our faces later this year? I'm right in the middle of a major rewrite of all our documents in order to conform to the Third Edition. Think I should wait a bit? Or just keep going?
Thanks for the great site, you're such a big help to us all.
PS some pic at the top... 8=)

Mike Hilliard

well I have dredged through the copy, and don't see where the big three will be doing the registration, just that AIAG will control..(as they do now?) or am I missing something? Perhaps that was implied, and discussed elsewhere?

Looks similar ..... no great surprises there, just a few interesting notes.
Still hard to conceive that jan 99 will be the date of doom. who are the registrars of choice? Probably the ones that messed it up the first time....

Is the January 1999 date heresay or has someone seen it written somewhere? Am I missing something (which is likely)?

I see it is 'labeled' a "technical report".

Comments?