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

[Marc]

From Quality Digest:

International Automotive Standard Gets Green Light

A new international automotive standard will offer a bridge to conformity among the many automakers in the United States and Europe.

The Big Three U.S. automakers, in cooperation with standards bodies from Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy, are developing an international automotive standard. Known by its working title, TR16949, the new standard encompasses U.S. automotive requirements QS-9000 as well as European standards such as Germany's VDA 6.1.

The International Organization for Standardization's participating members currently are considering approval of TR16949. A three-month voting period began in August; in late November, a final decision regarding the standard is expected.

So far, voter reaction is positive, according to R. Dan Reid, General Motors' representative for the Supplier Quality Task Force, the body responsible for drafting and maintaining QS-9000. If ISO voters accept TR16949, ISO is expected to release the final document, which it will also administer, in January 1999.

Although an international automotive standard was considered during an ISO meeting in South Africa several years ago, work actually began on the standard during ISO's October 1997 meeting in Rio de Janeiro, says Reid. At that time, ISO/TC 176, the ISO technical committee responsible for the ISO 9000 stand- ards, undertook a pilot project that addressed sector-specific needs in the automotive industry. The ISO/TC 176 Delegation Leaders' Task Group formed to consider ISO 9000-related issues and concerns, as well as the auto industry pilot in cooperation with the International Automotive Task Force.

"It's clear to TC 176 that sectors aren't interested in using ISO 9000 to replace their standard," notes Reid.

A new standard necessarily will affect both registrars and suppliers. So far, new registrar qualifications remain undefined. However, suppliers face a new requirement, which emerges from QS-9000, warns Reid. "Their quality systems have to be performing," he states. "We've moved that provision from the appendix and put it in the document itself."

A meeting was recently held between the International Automotive Sector Group, U.S. QS-9000 registrars, the QS-9000 Task Force and representatives from the Registrar Accreditation Board, RvA and other associations. They discussed stringent auditor requirements for TR16949, including a suggestion that auditors conduct a minimum of 10 audits per year to qualify for ongoing certification.

"This may end up shaking out a number of registrars, possibly some of the more reputable ones," commented one registrar representative from the meeting, who asked to remain anonymous. "It will definitely be a cost that is passed along to the suppliers."

The new standard won't mean the end of QS-9000 as a free-standing document, reports Steve Walsh, Ford Motor Co.'s QS-9000 Task Force representative. "Suppliers will have the option to be registered to one or the other," he explains.

So far, Asian automakers haven't participated in the international effort. However, during a Japanese Automotive Manufacturers Association meeting in Tokyo in January, Reid discussed the issue with them. They expressed interest in becoming involved with the effort in 2000 or 2001, reveals Reid. "They're interested, but for the longer term," he adds.

[Roger Eastin]

This article is very interesting. From the other thread, a discussion point was that the Big 3 themselves seemed to be interested in doing the auditing. This is conspicuously absent in this article. On the flip side of the coin, I heard from a QS9K auditor this morning, that the Big 3 want to start doing supplier "spot" audits. This auditor said this action is being taken because the Big 3 are dissatisfied with the QS9K third-party audits. One of the dissatisfactions (with the auditors) expressed by the Big 3 is that indivudual auditors are not doing enough audits/year to QS9K, therefore they do not understand the intent of the standard well enough. I see, according to this article, that they have taken care of that problem (for TR16949, anyway) with requiring auditors to do 10 audits/year. I think that that requirement will spill over to QS9K as well eventually. By the way, this auditor that I spoke with also said that they have moved back the application date (for TR16949) from 1 Jan. to some date later in the winter.

[Marc]

Has anyone heard anything else about the document?

I've heard that comments for its implementation have been favorable, and that its expected to be voted on in November. A meeting of accredited registrars is currently taking place in Houston, TX as I write this, I'm sure something will come out of that. I'll keep ya updated.

[Roger Eastin]

Christian,
When you say there is a meeting of accredited registrars, do you mean the ones that the Big 3 have asked to do these audits or do you mean all accredited registrars? I was just wondering if their (B3) strategy has changed since we last heard. I had also read in Quality Digest a couple of times that November was the month for some sort of decision. I also wonder if having TR16949 approved by an international coalition of automotive makers will affect the profileration of standards like VDA6,etc. We are having to deal with VDA6 now as BMW begins to put the squeeze on.

[Marc]

Where can I get a copy of the current VDA 6 (6.1 I believe)?

[Roger Eastin]

Has anyone heard whether TR16949 goes into effect on 1 Jan 1999? It's less than a month away and it's been pretty quiet.

[Marc]

I haven't seen anything lately. We'll have to look around. I haven't been proactive lately - been kinda busy.