ISO/TS 16949 Second Edition - The Latest Scoop!

[db]

I just came across a site with some information that you might find benefical:
http://www.transition-support.com/TS...nd_Edition.htm

[mooser]

Thanks Dave!
Looks like those who have used ISO9K2K as a standard will not have much difficulty with the rev. TS16949.

Mooser

[John Swartz]

I'm not sure if I should post this comment/question here or start a new thread, so I'll just have at it and let the group decide.

Background...my company is a registered QS9000TE supplier to the B3. We make finishing, waste water, and abatement systems. Example, we have recently completed a new paint shop for a B3 assembly plant(building, utilities, e-coat processes, air handling, material handling, etc.). Our in-house processes include: sheetmetal shearing and forming, welding, assembly, and painting (usually structural stuff). We purchase numerous OEM equipment (Fans, pumps, valves, controls, etc.) to complete the system. When then system is installed at the assembly plant, validation testing is performed and, when accepted, the turn-key project is turned over to the customer.

This was our first real test of the R&M process, a real pain, but the FMEAs (machinery type) are filed and ready to be revised and used again.

We have developed control plans and FMEAs for our metal forming and fabrication equipment, but there is really no formidable process control plan we can develop and is cost effective.

Using TE for the first time was an experience. I think it was meant for TE suppliers who produce a lot of the same types of production equipment or tooling, not a supplier of one-of-a kind production equipment.

Now TS16949, 2nd edition is upon us. The first edition followed QS9000 fairly well but it did not incorporate much from the TE Supplement Where did Machinery Run-off go? R&M? etc.

How does a company like mine justify registering to TS16949? Hell, we use smoke and mirrors when the auditor comes during surveillance time (he knows it) because half the stuff does not apply to us, but we have to have it so we are in compliance! I wish we could take exception to some of the clauses or be allowed to interpret them to our methods, which are sound.

The latest beef is with subcontractor development. Because we use countless subcontractors (vendors) to supply us their OEM equipment, does each one have to be compliant to QS9000TE? IAOB says yes. That means my little company has to perform compliance audits on them all or they must have 3rd party registration. We can't afford doing this. We are ultimately responsible for the quality of our systems, why can't the B3 just allow that?

Ok, I got it off my shoulder. Any comment, constructive or otherwise?

[Laura M]

TE is just as applicable for one of a kind as high volume tooling suppliers.

Quote:
When then system is installed at the assembly plant, validation testing is performed and, when accepted, the turn-key project is turned over to the customer.

I would assume there is some warranty? Any service calls would be used to assess reliability. For maintainability do you provide a PM recommendation? Do you have feedback on how effective the recommendations are? Would you ever build a similar system that you could use field feedback on?

Also, it sounds like you did process FMEA's on you internal processes. Did you do a Machinery FMEA?

The subcontractor issue does keep coming up. Many TE's deal with distributors. This will have to be resolved.

For now, there is no requirement for TE suppliers to convert to TS16949. If and when it happens, I would guess that the R&M requirements will be considered customer requirements.

I think it is easy to find the "does not apply" but some companies have to search a little, and instead of looking for how it does not apply, and "ways out" need to look for how to comply.

[John Swartz]

You hit on on a point I hadn't thought of, will the TE be replaced separately? If so, TC176 better have something in the works. As of Dec. 31, 2003 the QS9000 and TE go bye-bye!

I love my job...I love my job...

After years of MIL-STD and 10CFR50 you think I'd be used to it all, then the B3 have to stir the pot. I know it'll all come out in the wash, but I sure wish someone with authority would clarify this issue.

How do you consultant types read all this? If 16949 will be used for all automotive suppliers, will we, the registrees, be allowed to take exeception to or amend clauses on an as needed basis? As it is now, the B3 already have different requirements for TE suppliers, and I know of other non-B3 automotive manufacturers with even different requirements. Maybe TE suppliers should just remian ISO9000 and just comply with the customer's specific requirements. I would hate to comtinue adding supplements to an already significant QMS that no one, except the Quality Group, cares about!

Sorry, it's Friday afternoon and I have a cold.

[Marc]

Has anyone heard any more about the release of 16949? See http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=27255

[db]

We just got off the phone with our contact at the AIAG. We were told to look for publication around Mid-April. We are checking with our registrar contacts to see if one can get a copy earlier than that.

[Marc]

I can now attest that some registrars do in fact have copies of the 'released' standard and it is dated 1 March 2002. But... I still haven't seen any official announcement.