TS 16949 - Who does this thing apply to? Raw material suppliers (steel)?

[SteelWoman]

Okay, so here I am all psyched up to switch from QS to TS - I ordered and received my brand new copy of the latest, greatest TS version - then I flip to page 1 and find out "This technical specification is applicable to sites of the organization where customer specificed part, for production and/or service are manufactured." Now, I know in QS there was a recognition that we're not all parts makers and some provisions for suppliers of raw/bulk materials, but if I read that right TS will only apply to parts makers, not folks like me who supply raw materials (steel) that is then formed into parts by someone else?

Should I cancel my "Transition to TS16949" training?

 

[db]

To go or not to go

…that is the question. There are two separate issues here. First, is one of your customers requiring TS. If so, then it is applicable. Secondly, can TS help your organization do a better job? If so, then at least compliance is applicable.

From a “part” standpoint, one could argue that the word “part” could conceivably be carried back to the raw material stage. After all, raw materials are just parts in their purest form.

 

[SteelWoman]

Actually I always liked the fact that QS understood there were some fundamental differences between parts suppliers and raw material suppliers - there are things that apply in one world but don't really translate into the other. The fact that no one takes our steel and slaps it on a car or a barbeque grill makes it NOT a part, in my simple mind at least, but a raw material from which a part is then formed.

We have no Tier 1 customers, so no we don't have any customer requiring this new standard. Still leaves me with the question, though, if not TS then WHAT, assuming that QS goes the way of the dinosaur.

 

[D.Scott]

I hate to beat a dead horse

But ----- The supplier development controversy in QS brought to light the fact that QS was never intended for suppliers lower than tier 1. Those companies are subcontractors as defined in the standard.

Compliance to QS was specified as a development project for the tier 1 suppliers to implement with their subcontractors. The confusion started when the tier 1 suppliers decided they would require certification to QS by all of their subcontractors.

Maybe by the time they do away with QS, the tier 1 suppliers will realize there is no advantage to requiring certification and we can all get back to doing business because it is right, not because it is required.

Dave

 

[SteelWoman]

HERE HERE! (or is it "hear, hear"?) ANYWAY, yes I agree completely, though I think us all getting back to what is right rather than what is required is going to happen shortly after world peace - as in not any time real soon...

 

[Roger Eastin]

SteelMaiden, SteelWoman and we used to have Spaceman Spiff! I feel like I am in a Marvel comic book! Anyway, to the topic-at-hand: QS may go away, but there comes the requirement in TS that organizations must insist that there suppliers be 3rd party registered to ISO9001 unless their customer specifies otherwise. Even if an organization stays with QS, there is the C9 sanctioned interpretation requiring their subcontractors be 3rd party registered to ISO9001 (with the same customer proviso). I think it is clear however that these subcontractor requirements stop at tier 2.

 

[swappyd]

From my companies point of view we are just replacing QS9000 with TS16949.

Our customers have not made too much of a noise about it yet but we are not wanting to leave it until the eleventh hour to switch.

By the looks of things if you have QS9000 go for TS16949 the differences are minor and I think it is more usefull to have with it replacing various separate requirements from the industry.

 

[Paul Simpson]

If it is broke .... do something about it!

Reply to D Scott's post.

"Maybe by the time they do away with QS, the tier 1 suppliers will realize there is no advantage to requiring certification and we can all get back to doing business because it is right, not because it is required. "

The reason QS came in was because there were problems with the existing 2nd party approval of suppliers. Yes I agree companies should pursue certification because they want to. In an ideal world we would all go for certification because we think it would improve our processes. The customers, however, want to transfer the responsibility (and the work!) to the "experts" for assessment and certification. They can then focus the SQA / STA activity where it does its best work ..... where the problems are.

 

[AndyU]

tier 2

I work for a company which supplies compressors which fit inside the air conditioning units which fit insde the car. We are tier 2?
Do we need to be TS16949 certified if:
1. we are tier 2
2. 75% of our products are NOT automotive but domestic?
Many thanks,

 

[db]

I work for a company which supplies compressors which fit inside the air conditioning units which fit insde the car. We are tier 2?
Do we need to be TS16949 certified if:
1. we are tier 2
2. 75% of our products are NOT automotive but domestic?
Many thanks,

Andy, I think the same things apply to you, as they did to SteelWoman. IF you supply parts going into a vehicle (regardless of tier), then TS can apply. It is mandatory only if one of your customers requires it.