Is there any news about acceptance of TR 16949 by the Big Three?

Hey
I´am a qualitymanager from Sweden and I have a question to you people i US.
Is there any news about TR 16949?
Have it been acceped by, Ford, Chrysler and GM?
I have just read it and I think I´ts OK.
But what happening ?
Please, If someone can give me some answers?

Best regards
Bjorn Andersson Sweden

I think the most recent thread is:

TR16949 - Thread 2 - 1 More Spec - More Costs?

It's in the QS9000 Issues forum where you posted this message.

I am the ISO 9000/14000 Management representative who has been and continue to work aggressivly on upgrading my ISO 9002 system to ISO 16949.
I have had the tr since June 1998. Since then I have upraded my manual, all associated level 2 procedures, all associated level 3 procedures, operated under the system for 5 months, and undergone a "gap" audit by my registrar (with 14 minors yeah). My registrar is in the know and I spoke with him today, he says the "official" release will be in the fall of 1999.
I have 2 issues that I am struggling with as a Japan/US 50/50 joint venture whose Japan parent does all of the designs and has parts in production for about a year prior to us even seeing the prints:
1. How do I do the 5 required steps for a non design responsible company. I mean we get from Japan here's the design, we have commited you to build it, do what you need to do.
2. How do I do process benchmarking both inside and outside my sector?

------------------

1. How do I do the 5 required steps for a non design responsible company. I mean we get from Japan here's the design, we have commited you to build it, do what you need to do.

Click to expand...

Which 5 steps? Can you cite the section/paragraph you are loking at?

2. How do I do process benchmarking both inside and outside my sector?

Click to expand...

I'm not a benchmarking pro, but do cite the paragraph where the requirement is stated and maybe one of us can help. I admit this confuses me too, but probably more from my ignorance of benchmarking. I assume they are saying that if you are a metal forming business and you sell to automotive supplier and 'other sectors, to benchmark both the competing automotive business(es) and one or more 'other' sectors you sell to.

Hopefully one or more of the other contributors hee on the forum can shed some light on this issue.

I sat in on a 1/2 day presentation by a company selling management services, one of their services was benchmarking. There are two types of benchmarking, your competitor's processes vs yours, and similar processes outside your sector.

The first one usually involves determining your competitor's costs (if lower than yours) and how they manage them. Also any type of known advantage they seem to be enjoying, shipping, lower complaints, etc. To be avoided here is their processes, since it is usually already old to them. (See the Ford / Camry story in another thread.) This is only a little tricky, since you certainly do not want to appear "spying." But information in this regard is usually available in some form or amount.

The other, more frequently used benchmarking technique is to find someone outside your arena that does something similar, and exchange information with them. Example, you may have a very good JIT delivery system, or a terrific order entry system, but you need to improve your mixing in a particular department. You might contact a bread manufacturer that has a reputation for excellent quality bread, and exchange information. This is non-competitive and can benefit both parties. In the bread example, Strohman bread used to advertise "no large holes." OK, so how do they do that?

An enhancement of the second example, there are companies that network multiple businesses so they can get together to exchange / benchmark information. Company A needs Company C's information on mixing, but can't offer Company C anything. However, Company B has information for Company C and can learn something from Company A. The benchmarking network company gets these businesses together. The company that organizes this usually agrees to some percentage of the profit gleaned from the improvements as payment.

This is what I remember of this company's presentation.

Now, my company has actually done little of this. We have done some customer satisfaction stuff, that was enough for the auditors. Benchmarking can be an improvement tool.

To Marc Smith:

The five phase of APQP that I am referring to are those listed on page 2 of the APQP manual under Manufacturing only. They are as follows:
1. Feasibility - this is the hardest for us, we are a captured supplier and as I said before, the design has been manufacured for perhaps a year in Japan. Just because there are capability problems in the US, if its not a problem in Japan the tooling will not be adjusted.
2. Process design and development
3. Product and process validation
4. Feedback, assessment, and corrective action
5. Control plan methodology - No problems here for us

Benchmarking -
Page 9 section 1.3 in the APQP manual

If you are not design responsible you comply with the parts of the APQP process that DO apply to you. You have run-offs and submit capability studies, control plan, Process FMEA, do a layout, maybe submit an appearance report if such applies, etc. in the 'model' of a PPAP.

At some point you receive a print, typically at quote stage. This is typically part of contract review at the quote stage which you have to address.

Next - what about when you get a print 'update' (read ECN - Engineering Change Notice)? You have to have a defined system to handle ECNs. You have to show someone (ummm, well, it may be a list of people for that matter) reviewed the print. Is the change feasible?

1. Feasibility - this is the hardest for us, we are a captured supplier and as I said before, the design has been manufacured for perhaps a year in Japan. Just because there are capability problems in the US, if its not a problem in Japan the tooling will not be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here but if a design came in which was (worst case) impossible to make with the current equipment, what would you do? I wouldn't tie capability so closely to feasibility.

You define (design) your process (flow diagram), etc.

Again, have defined systems to deal with your part in the development process (If you deal with prototypes, do you have a system to address prototypes?) and the production process.

I'll stick with Batman on the benchmarking.

Have I confused the issue or does this help?

--> ...pdboilermaker Lurker (<10 Posts) posted May 01, 1999 09:42 PM
-->
--> Some help, I have also been looking at some QS 9000 companies that I
--> deal with, they have been very helpful also. To me, this whole
--> feasibility issue seems like smoke and mirror paper work that has no
--> value added for my company but I must do it only to comply with the
--> standard. I know that I am not the only one in this situation, {I
--> hope registrars and ISO is listening, lets be pracmatic businessmen
--> about this standard}. PS. If anyone needs ISO 9002 or ISO 14001
--> help, just ask. I have led my company to successful registrations to
--> each of these standards and wish to help the cause anyway possible.
-->
--> pdboilermaker...