I haven't been in Detroit much as of late, so I'm not getting a lot of feed back as I do when I'm 'In Town'. But the rattlings I DO get haven't changed. Some topics are:

• There is still discord amongst the Big Three in time frame requirements. These are expected to widen as the auditor shortage continues unabated. Note that the auditor shortage is a lot like a bomb - As more and more people are drawn into the 'profession', more and more inexperienced, often power-hungry 'Induhviduals' are being entrusted with more and more decisions way out of their area of expertise. This is not to mention way out of their scope of experience. The QS 9000 document its self will not save you from a 'hungry' auditor, and most often neither will facts nor reason.
• The disparity between QS 9000 and what each individual Detroit automotive company wants is widening further. Note Ford's continued dependence on Q1. Ford continues to keep its self somewhat distant from QS 9000. Ford is along for the political ride. GM remains Republican, Ford maintains its Democratic position, and Chrysler is still the Independent.
• What will QS do when the ISO 900X series is updated in a few years? Since the QS authors decided in their infinite wisdom to break a VERY basic tenant of Documentation, they will soon be faced with a dilemma. Well, not really. They'll probably just spend $millions more for a QS revision. What Basic tenant of Documentation did they break? The Golden Rule = Don't Be Redundant - Reference External Documents, don't incorporate them into your documents.
• The FAX Interpretations committee has succeeded in pretty well totally muddying the waters. Here we have a document (QS 9000) which is so far from reality that an ongoing Interpretations Supplement is 'part' of the document. It's pretty much an 'Interpret as We Go' document. Now, folks, what does that tell us? When the auditor exams eliminate 50% to 80% of the candidates each exam, I suggest there is a serious problem (unrelated to any 'language' barrier). This is an albatross for us all... What other document do you know of which is this 'misunderstood'? Can you say REALITY? Simplicity? Understandability? Commonality? Purpose? Intent? Goal? To me QS 9000 shows a lack of these tenants. With time, many problems will sort themselves out.

The bottom line is the problems with QS 9000 are widening in their scope and detail as QS 9000 becomes more and more real to automotive suppliers. Now don't get me wrong - I don't think QS 9000 will hurt any company. And I really don't see QS 9000 as 'really hard' to implement. Most of the problems are management related with complications of a financial nature. Most are so busy fighting fires (which ISO 9000 and/or QS 9000 should reduce) that involvement in implementation is difficult to find time for.

For those who complain that ISO 9000 (not to mention QS 9000) caused a new business to develop.... The following is a site visitor comment:

• MORE NON-CONFORMITIES ALSO ENTAILS MORE RE-AUDITS (OR ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION COSTS) - INTENDED OR NOT. ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY INTENDED AS SUCH, ISO 9000 HAS CREATED ITS OWN INDUSTRY, AND COMPELLED ALL OTHER INDUSTRIES TO AVAIL OF ITS SERVICES FOR PROFIT.

OK! OK! I admit it! I DO charge for my services from time to time.... Flog me if you must! Yet I have to agree with the fella who wrote. I am taking advantage of the quest I began upon a number of years ago to know and understand ISO 9000 (and starting in 1993 QS 9000), auditors, registrars and, especially, the Intent of each sentence. In short, how to comply. Maybe shame on me, but (and I bet you've never heard this before) It's a dirty job, but Somebody has to do it! In fact when I first heard of ISO 9000 a number of years ago, the lady who introduced it to me frankly told me then - "It will be a money maker for those who know and understand ISO 9000 early in the game". She was pretty much on the mark. QS 9000 is even more so.

I hate to break the news if you don't already know it, but ISO 9000 and QS 9000 are, for each supplier, a new business process and as such a new business expense.

From about 960510:

'Word On The Street' is that both Ford and Chrysler have decided internally to ABANDON Supplier QS 9000 requirements (a good idea, I believe) within 3 years. If you have heard anything about this, please let me know via e-mail.
Responses will be kept confidential!

A recent audit to QS 9000 proved interesting in the Controlled Documents category. The IASG Interpretations are considered an External Origin MUST controldocument as is the QS 9000 document.
Not to mention the PPAP, SPC, APQP and other referenced documents...
Hmmm-m-m-m-m.... And the thick plottens!

960508
A wrinkle which may be a 'first crack'.
A supplier on the Chrysler Jeep project has been informed that although the AIAG APQP is still considered important, the Jeep project team has its 'own' APQP sequence. So - is the APQP now transmuting into a more general guideline or what? Anyone else heard any thing?

Musings 960508
Over the last 6 months or so I have heard, from different people at different companies, that Ford and Chrysler are (or 'will be') backing off QS 9000. The 'rumour' is prevalent enough to make me wonder if there is any truth to it. There are a couple of reasons why I believe there may be some truth to the rumours. One is that Ford, while involved in the effort of putting QS 9000 together, has played a real laid back role in requiring it. Ford is, if my information is correct, putting together their Vision 2000. Chrysler plays the role Chrysler traditionally has - they are - well, they're Chrysler. I don't want to get personal - let me just say it would not surprise me if Chrysler changed direction.

Now is there any truth to the rumour? That's why I posted the query - hoping to get some sort of reaction from the public at large.

The direction as I see it:

I believe ISO 9000 will remain as a 'process' in manufacturing in general because it forces (along with discipline to other areas) 'Good Manufacturing Processes'. The automotive and aerospace industries have practiced (or at least have been aware of) Good Manufacturing Processes for quite a while. Many, many businesses, however, still don't understand the trilogy of the PFMEA - Process Flow Diagram-Process Control Chart. Not to mention the most important part - the earliest planning including the DFMEA. How many can cite the specific relationships between each, the sequence of preparation, etc., not to mention the experience to produce a 'good' set of documents? I personally believe ISO 9000 will be with us for some time to come - at least the next 10 years. QS 9000 is all together another 'animal'.

ISO 9000 is non-specific. Banks, universities & colleges (including Course Design), and just about any business can utilize ISO 900X. QS 9000 is specific to the Big Three. While they have some common ground in QS 9000 benefits, they are still different companies with different philosophies. Ford has its 'vision' of achieving 'quality' while GM and Chrysler each have their own. One facility I worked with thru an ISO and then QS effort has, in fact, an ex-GM supplier auditor as their registrar's lead auditor. He saw everything in terms of GM's GPs (eg.: GP-12) and Targets for Excellence. Chrysler has a quite different approach to quality, as does Ford, but the point I'm really trying to get across is that by knowing GM's old Targets requirements, I pretty much knew what he wanted.

We must also remember ISO is a European Community document which made it here because American firms want to sell to the European Community. The significant part is that the ISO document is applicable to about everything but (and I know paper companies who have embraced ISO 9000) toilet paper. QS 9000 is specific to automotive which is why the extras to ISO. And it is specific not only to automotive, but it is specific to 3 companies (note that there are 20+ auto manufacturers, including 11 in Japan alone. While the 'press' says many of the other auto companies are 'jumping on the band wagon', I suspect this is more hype than reality.

The extras to ISO include attempting forced (not always a bad word) coordination of suppliers with their customer. The scope of reference exceeds ISO's common systems approach. It is my belief QS will not prosper because individual companies to a large degree need to be autonomous. QS in many ways forces suppliers to become 'satellites' of their customer. I'm not sure this is good. As it is, it's hard to turn a behemoth like GM (yupper, the old ocean liner cliche). How will this affect the ability of a smaller company to effect change?

The stated goals of QS 9000 are valid, but if you look closely the requirements are not so broad to see tightening them will lead to increased control of individual companies (suppliers) by going so far as to require planning from the business plan on for working with the 'Big Three'. Taking tightening to the max, one can see where the Big Three could reach a place where they essentially have few line personnel. Focus it to get smaller companies to interact to provide 'modules' with their personnel on the 'line' to install the module. The benefits will be enormous to the 'Big Three'.< P> This all being said, why would Ford and Chrysler (and probably GM) abandon the QS document? The very nature of the document is that it takes some common wants (ISO 9001), tailors these common wants thru adding to the ISO 9001 body, adds industry specific requirements, and ices the cake with individual customer requirements. This yields a bastard document deviating from the intent of its source (ISO 9000).

The ultimate intent of ISO 9000 is to have common general ('Quality') systems to address liability (responsibility) issues. The key is Documented Systems. Key words include 'common' and 'systems'.

The intent of QS 9000 (unstated) is to tie the supplier to the customer through numerous links, only one of which is through common 'quality' systems requirements.

So the Big Three have a common document. If Ford decides to amend a specific requirement it has another layer of documentation (not to mention committees, etc.) to wade through including need for cooperation from it's competitors. If Ford decides to change something and QS was just revised, it either: 1) Ignores QS and informs companies individually [immediate], or 2) Submits a revision to QS [possibly a year or more wait]. Folks, Ford isn't going to wait what may be 2 years.

If Ford, GM and Chrysler each decide to make a change a year, you have a new QS document to buy and reinterpret each year [don't get me started about the Fax-Your- Questions- Here- But- Don't- Try- To- Talk- To- Any- Of- Us 'Interpretation Committee'...]. The document ties competitors together. The specificity makes this extremely touchy. Bottom line is it ties the competitors together as well as to the suppliers. I am not convinced the Big Three are ready to merge into the Ford-GM-Chrysler Company.

Those of you who stop by now and again and have read some of my opinionated writings know I believe in ISO 9000 and that I believe QS never should have happened. I believe they should have embraced ISO 9000 and kept their individual requirements (TFE, Q1 and Pentastar) amended to cite or reference ISO 9001 where appropriate. They were (and are) good documents. ISO 9000 is a world standard applicable to every industry. The QS 9000 document should at the very least have NOT included ISO 9001, but should have referenced ISO 9001 where appropriate. The disparity in the intent of ISO 9000 and QS 9000 will, in my opinion, cause QS 9000 to fade into oblivion in a few years. I believe Ford and Chrysler know this. I'm not sure if GM does, yet.

Back to the Latest WOTS

Forums and Site Provided and Maintained by Marc Timothy Smith

This page last reviewed or edited: Sun, 2007-02-04 5:14 PM EST USA (Coordinated Universal Time [ZULU] -5 hours)