Implementing TS16949 from AS9100 and NADCAP

[speck]

I have tried to find info on this and there are some vines and topics on heat treaters and TS16949 but I did not see enough substance to satisfy the question. We are a commercial heat treater registered AS9100 and NADCAP. Our QMS is very stable and process is very basic (compared to others). We are entertaining the thought of pursuing TS16949 in hopes of breaking into gathering enough market shares to account for the lack of market in the NADCAP area that we have been able to attract in the last 5 years. After studying here on the cove and reading the TS standard it appears that it would be very difficult to implement in a heat treating environment. Many of the requirements of planning and monitoring would fall more in the engineering and sales areas which we do not have as we are design exempt. TS16949 is intended to control the process of manufacturing. It appears many of the design clauses of TS are not exemptible. I am familiar with CQI-9 and understand it is a "Substitute" in the automotive world for NADCAP in the aerospace world for controls for special processes (heat treating).

The questions are, is it worth pursuing if Ford, GM, Chrysler etc are not beating down our door now and how difficult is it to convert a Aerospace heat treating facility focus to automotive focus?

Has anyone been down this road before? I am unsure if just by being associated with TS16949 we will realize any real measurable market gains or doors opening. This topic is in the very infancy stages among top management here and I wanted to get some thoughts from a wide array of professionals that have probably been there and done that.

Thanks for your input and thoughts.

 

[Jen Kirley]

I don't understand the constraints you describe. Testing to customer requirements and/or industry standards can be done in-house or by a contracted facility. There need not be design capability to do that.

 

[speck]

Over the past 6 years the percentage of Aerospace production has not yielded a return on the investment we have hoped for - or not enough. We have several non aerospace product lines that are high volume customer parts that we do very well and excel at heat treating those types of customer parts (injectors - crankshafts - gears etc.) Aerospace is usually very small lot size, documentation intense, always unique and creates too much confusion with employees when you don't do it every day (or week). With a 90-10% commercial to Aerospace production percentage there is always a huge hick-up and relearning curve for special process involved which leads to processing hurdles. We are a small company (<25 employees) and do not have a marketing and development team.

The question we are exploring is, what will we gain by focusing on TS16949 rather than Aerospace which is a different "Type" of parts which we are more suited for as an organization. Specifically for heat treaters is TS16949 worth it. When I came to this company 7 years ago I was hired to implement ISO - AS9100 and then NADCAP because the owner "had a goal and direction".

It's not just a different kind of cert or paper it is a different line of parts typically associated with it. Now that I am wiser (Debatable) I am trying to avoid the "If you build it, they will come" mentality, or at least be able to say I told you so.

Is TS16949 it worth it for heat treating - so much of it is written for manufacturing the parts, CQI-9 is really the meat of the process controls for heat treating that automotive companies would look at I think. I am trying to refocus our efforts and resources and align them with what we seem to do the best.

 

[Jen Kirley]

It seems a cart-before-the-horse approach. Have you identified a real or potential customer base that insists on TS16949? This standard focuses on customer requirements and the core manuals for FMEA, MSA, APQP etc. Who will be your customers and what are their requirements?

 

[Kales Veggie]

I have tried to find info on this and there are some vines and topics on heat treaters and TS16949 but I did not see enough substance to satisfy the question. We are a commercial heat treater registered AS9100 and NADCAP. Our QMS is very stable and process is very basic (compared to others). We are entertaining the thought of pursuing TS16949 in hopes of breaking into gathering enough market shares to account for the lack of market in the NADCAP area that we have been able to attract in the last 5 years. After studying here on the cove and reading the TS standard it appears that it would be very difficult to implement in a heat treating environment. Many of the requirements of planning and monitoring would fall more in the engineering and sales areas which we do not have as we are design exempt. TS16949 is intended to control the process of manufacturing. It appears many of the design clauses of TS are not exemptible. I am familiar with CQI-9 and understand it is a "Substitute" in the automotive world for NADCAP in the aerospace world for controls for special processes (heat treating).

The questions are, is it worth pursuing if Ford, GM, Chrysler etc are not beating down our door now and how difficult is it to convert a Aerospace heat treating facility focus to automotive focus?

Has anyone been down this road before? I am unsure if just by being associated with TS16949 we will realize any real measurable market gains or doors opening. This topic is in the very infancy stages among top management here and I wanted to get some thoughts from a wide array of professionals that have probably been there and done that.

Thanks for your input and thoughts.

The first thing I would say: can your company compete in the automotive market? Can you meet the price points? Marketing / Sales should be able to find this out. Start contacting the Tier 1 and Tier 2 automotive suppliers in your area that require heat treating of parts.

If not, it is not worth to pursue.

I do not think it is that hard going from AS to TS. Your company is not design responsible and you are familiar with NADCAP for Heat treating and CQI:9.

Items to think about: schedule attainment, EDI / labeling, containment process, volume and mixed parts. (some random items that came to mind).

 

[Big Jim]

One big factor that has not been mentioned yet is that you cannot get certified to ISO/TS 16949 unless you are actively producing parts for new car production.

You need need to find a customer and start heat treating for them before you can become certified.

That would not keep you from getting prepared, but it is not a matter of getting certified and then hoping that will attract customers.

So start looking for customers now and then determine if your customers will require that you become certified. Being AS9100 & NADCAP should make you attractive enough if you can meet their price needs. Automotive is EXTREMELY price competitive.

 

[DAC19]

One big factor that has not been mentioned yet is that you cannot get certified to ISO/TS 16949 unless you are actively producing parts for new car production.

You need need to find a customer and start heat treating for them before you can become certified.

That would not keep you from getting prepared, but it is not a matter of getting certified and then hoping that will attract customers.

So start looking for customers now and then determine if your customers will require that you become certified. Being AS9100 & NADCAP should make you attractive enough if you can meet their price needs. Automotive is EXTREMELY price competitive.

I have a question that is related to the thread above: We are both certified to AS9100D and to IATF9001:2015. We do not have a NADCAP certification but we do have CQI-9 certification. The part that is involved is for an aerospace customer. Can we use the CQI-9 certification for our HT process since we are not NADCAP accredited? My thought is that if the customer would agree to this approach, that would be satisfactory. Am I correct?

 

[Big Jim]

I have a question that is related to the thread above: We are both certified to AS9100D and to IATF9001:2015. We do not have a NADCAP certification but we do have CQI-9 certification. The part that is involved is for an aerospace customer. Can we use the CQI-9 certification for our HT process since we are not NADCAP accredited? My thought is that if the customer would agree to this approach, that would be satisfactory. Am I correct?

Using a NADCAP accredited heat treater is not an AS9100 (or ISO 9001) requirement. It can be a customer requirement though. You should be looking over the customer's terms and conditions to see if they require it.

Most important though would be to talk to the customer and see what they would accept or even what they would prefer.