QS-9000, TS 16949, Ford's Q1 - How They Interrelate

[Howard Atkins]

I had a long talk yesterday with a Ford quality man and asked him what is going on with all the standards.
His answer was basically that with QS and or 16949 Ford does not have any control whereas with Q1 they can take this away immediately at an on site visit. If this happens then per QS 4.1.6.1 you need to tell your registrar within 5 days.

This control aspect is as far as I could understand the reason that they are pushing the Q1.
He further said that it was obvious that one should wait for 16949:2002 for accreditation.
As to customer requirements, see thread http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4056 etc. they will push their own APQP reporting system. Also they have specific Ford requirements for FMEA.
This might explain some of the questions that have been raised by others as to Ford.

[Sam]

If you are a Ford supplier, you can have access to the Ford supplier network. Online tutorials are there for FMEA ansd APQP, among others.

Q1 also incorporates the 5S, MMOG, QOS and controls for pass through characteristics.

[Howard Atkins]

So now we have Powerway http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=848 for Daimler/Chrysler and Intergral Solutions for Ford.

Attention Ford Suppliers: APQP SRG Software is the ONLY software package approved and recommended by Ford Motor Company for meeting the Ford's APQP status reporting requirements.

http://www.integralsolutions.com - Link was: /webroot/software-srg_overview.asp


What do GM want????????

[Roger Eastin]

So much for the standardization that QS9000 brought, eh? It looks like entropy is taking over again. except in the standards arena now. Are we back to (or did we ever leave) customer visits and the quirks that the OE "auditors" brought with them? When the OE's first introduced QS9000 to their suppliers, I know they were looking for payback. Guess they never saw it....or is it that the Big 3 just doesn't know how to manage their own costs? After all, who is repsonsible for the laying off of 35,000 employees? Is it the "high cost" suppliers?

[Howard Atkins]

Howard Atkins said:
What do GM want????????

Bulletin Subject: APQP Web-based System
Date Posted: 10.MAY.2002

Message: To: GM Direct Material Suppliers
As announced previously, General Motors has selected Powerway.com as a Web-based APQP application to enable tracking and reporting of APQP data. General Motors is actively working on systems integration activities to connect internal legacy systems to the Powerway.com web application. The target for implementation is the third quarter of this year, and all suppliers involved in NAVO programs must participate in this initiative.

Powerway.com is Covisintï¾ï¾’s chosen technology provider for communicating advanced quality planning activities. It enables communication and connectivity within the automotive supply chain, organizes key APQP information (GM 1927 requirements), and provides an easy means for sharing quality information and displaying part quality readiness between customers and suppliers. The system also allows each supplier to use the system to track APQP with its supply base.

Powerway.com’s service requires a minimal monthly per seat fee based on the number of users, and a one time licensing fee for each supplier based on the number of manufacturing locations. Powerway will contacting you directly regarding enrollment.

Suppliers involved in the GMT305 program will need to be enrolled by June 1, 2002, as this program has been chosen as a pilot. More detailed information on the NAVO implementation, and regional rollout information, will be communicated within the next few months.

[Hermann]

Ford has approved all tier 1 suppliers to perform second party audits of subcontractors (re Supplier Development, 4.6.2.1) for some time now.
In a letter dated April 17, they recomend that Tier 1 audits of subcontractors be based on their Q1 Manufacturing Site Assessment or QS9000 / TS16949. Auditors should be trained in Q1 2002 etc.
I'm just waiting for GM and Chrysler to accept Q1 2002 "certification" inlieu of 16949.

[Roger Eastin]

Maybe I'm a little behind the times here, but will GM and Chrysler accept a Ford initiative like Q1? I have not seen much "crossover" like this. QS9000 is the most agreement that I have seen between the Big 3 and, even then, Ford seem to do their own thing with Q1. Again, I may be behind the times here.

[Marc]

As far as I know there is no reciprical recognition.