The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

"Release" of TR16949


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC


NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 15th June 1999, 12:20 AM
Roger Eastin

 
 
Total Posts: 471
"Release" of TR16949

I was talking to a colleague last week about the release date of TR16949. I told him that the last date I saw was 1/1/05 and he said that didn't suprise him. He said that not only TR16949, but IS09000:2000 were being delayed (at least in part) by legal questions - liability, mostly. Apparently, legal questions are being raised about using language such as continuous improvement. The issue is whether a company is tied legally to continuous improvement if they bring it up in procedures. Can a customer sue a company for saying they do continuous improvement, but an audit (for instance) indicates a noncompliance in this area? They said they are doing continuous improvement, but don't show adequate evidence of it. My colleague said that's one hang-up with ISO standards - what are the ramifications legally for documenting something like continuous improvement? (Since ISO900:1994) does not mention continuous improvement, apparently it is safe!) As if the standards business wasn't tough enough without the legal stuff...

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 15th June 1999, 01:41 AM
Howard Atkins's Avatar
Howard Atkins

 
 
Total Posts: 2,945
Ok, but QS uses continuous improvement. Where do we stand?
Anyone

------------------
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 15th June 1999, 09:35 AM
Roger Eastin

 
 
Total Posts: 471
I must admit that when it comes our sue-happy culture, I don't know what happens next. It would seem that QS9000 would also be a "tool" for law suits. Anyone heard anything else?
  Post Number #4  
Old 16th June 1999, 02:19 PM
Roger Eastin

 
 
Total Posts: 471
I think the issue of continuous improvement litigation belong more to ISO9000:2000 than to TR16949. However, because TR16949 is an ISO document, it is getting caught in the whirpool of ISO9000:2000 - at least that is what I hear from my sources. Anyway, the point is that TR16949 has been held up for some time. According to the BSI webpage, it is held up until 1/1/2005. That is the only place where I've seen a date associated with TR16949. Now getting back to your argument about what people sue over - this is the country where someone sued a lawnmower company for an injury they sustained while trying to use the lawnmower as a hedge trimmer and WON! (They won because they said that nowhere on the lawnmower did it state that it could not be used as a hedge trimmer!!) That kind of litigation is pretty scary! And at least for the time being, ALM, you should not wait to get registered to TR16949, so go ahead for QS9000 (I saw your message in the QS9000 forum!)
  Post Number #5  
Old 17th June 1999, 12:48 AM
ALM

 
 
Total Posts: n/a
In spite of our sue-happy culture, I cannot imagine the "legal ramifications" of such.

We are talking CQI, here and exactly who is going to sue whom and over what measures?

Forgive my sarcasm but, the quality of my product may be in the toilet (for now) but if I have demonstrated improved preventative maintenance and machine uptime, have I not provided evidence of CQI? In the same situation, haven't I identified an area (toilet-quality) that is an opportunity for future improvement?

Who exactly is going to sue because I claim CQI, but their product stinks? I would think that I would be sued first of my crappy product not meeting required specs than for claiming that I perform CQI and cannot substantiate it is some, even many instances.

ALM
  Post Number #6  
Old 18th June 1999, 09:41 AM
Roger Eastin

 
 
Total Posts: 471
Apparently, all that had to be done to get TR16949 going again was for me to post a topic here about how it is going to be delayed!! I just received a copy of ActionLine from AIAG yesterday where they list on page 14 (albeit, in sketchy form)some details of the launch of TR16949. If I understand the 2nd bullit correctly (from the top of the page), the launch should take place 7/1/99. (I still wonder, though, how this will be affected by the arguing going on with ISO9000:2000.) You can order TR16949 documents (including the standard itself) from AIAG at (248)-358-3003. It is interesting to note that none of the Japanese automotive makers are listed among those accepting registration to TR16949. I expect, though, the Nissan will follow soon because they are a part of Renault now and Renault is listed as one of those ones accepting TR16949 registration. The saga continues....(where's Obi-Won-Kenobi when you need him).
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Final Release Responsibilities - Separate responsibility for the release of a product Denis ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9 29th June 2010 07:33 PM
Engineering Drawing Pre-Release/Advance Release Process COM_DC Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5 6th November 2009 04:42 PM
Batch or Lot release in to market - Need product release procedure class08820 Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3 16th March 2009 02:14 PM
TR16949 - Thread 2 - 1 More Spec - More Costs? Marc QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 29 10th April 1999 12:29 AM
TR16949 or QS-9000? prsykes QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 5 6th April 1999 05:09 PM



The time now is 06:06 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 
 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" - A Peachfarm Internet Property