And yet another critical view of ISO 9001:2008

[Randy]

Much of what is considered overkill is just a reaction to people trying to implement the bare minimum crappy quality system. They have no real interest in quality, just getting a certificate.

Nawwwwwwwwwww, ya think?

How horrible that you would even share such a thought.

 

[bobdoering]

It is obvious to us in the TS environment, but folks out in vanilla ISO9001 world may have no idea...

 

[AndyN]

If the question is was there a vast improvement over QS9000, I might be hard pressed. I think process auditing is still an acquired taste. But, a choice between working in a TS16949 versus ISO9001 environment - I will take TS any day. Much of what is considered overkill is just a reaction to people trying to implement the bare minimum crappy quality system. They have no real interest in quality, just getting a certificate.

I wasn't approaching this from the point of view of going from QS to TS Bob, so I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. What I was inferring was 'mutually beneficial supplier relationships', and was really questioning if the auto OE's were benefitting the supply base........like getting paid (and maybe even on time), being made part of the product development cycle, not being beaten up for the last 2 cents on a part. Basically, you could ask "where's the love?"

The person who was the most recent Chrysler Purchaing VP has just stepped down (hooray). He didn't apparently know much about such beneficial supplier relationships! He began to threaten suppliers with law suits over delivery issues! Nice way to end a supplier relationship and leave an indelible mark on industry!

 

[bobdoering]

I wasn't approaching this from the point of view of going from QS to TS Bob, so I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. What I was inferring was 'mutually beneficial supplier relationships', and was really questioning if the auto OE's were benefiting the supply base........like getting paid (and maybe even on time), being made part of the product development cycle, not being beaten up for the last 2 cents on a part. Basically, you could ask "where's the love?"

Well, it is true there is a lot of "opportunity for improvement" for supplier relationships, and automotive has been tough on suppliers. Some of them deserved it for what they tried to ship. But, ISO9001 has nothing of substance in supplier relationships at all - and I think we can agree to that. In fact, by accident (if you will) TS has one significant tool for supplier relationship that should be applied to all industries (especially medical! Sheesh!), and that is PPAP. Yeah, yeah, beat it up all you want, but it is a great tool for developing a baseline understanding between the manufacturer and the customer as to what is being made, and what the expectations are. I have been in non-PPAP industries, and you would ship them parts, and they would reject them for some screwy thing they didn't have on the print - like dust or smell. With PPAP, at least you can say you agreed to how you were going to make the part, how you were going to check the part, and - equally as important - what you are not going to do.

Yes, it may have been abused, or beaten to a pulp (Chrysler PSO), but it is better than chasing customer whim (medical..).

OK...I will agree with you and beat up FMEA as a result of not being made part of the OEM product development cycle. Why? OEMs are disasters when it come to getting design FMEA information, then they abuse you for the scoring based on your best guess as to the severity of the failure. They defeat their own system routinely, which dilutes the down-stream effectiveness. But, at least we know this. Other industries are just getting their feet wet in the concept. Most still do not even embrace the concept of advanced planning at all. We have lived it for years. Let's see if they do better.

As far as getting paid, that will take a law, not a standard.

 

[Jim Wynne]

In fact, by accident (if you will) TS has one significant tool for supplier relationship that should be applied to all industries (especially medical! Sheesh!), and that is PPAP. Yeah, yeah, beat it up all you want, but it is a great tool for developing a baseline understanding between the manufacturer and the customer as to what is being made, and what the expectations are. I have been in non-PPAP industries, and you would ship them parts, and they would reject them for some screwy thing they didn't have on the print - like dust or smell. With PPAP, at least you can say you agreed to how you were going to make the part, how you were going to check the part, and - equally as important - what you are not going to do.

I mentioned in a post a while back that I spent some eight years with a vehicle OEM, and part of my job was reviewing supplier PPAP submissions-- I reviewed somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 of them. This particular OEM, which shall remain unnamed except to say that it was Harley-Davidson, didn't require QS/TS registration, but many suppliers were mainline automotive tier-ones. I can say without reservation that the TS-registered companies consistently supplied the worst PPAPs, in almost any PPAP category there is.

Also, the idea that PPAP has had a salubrious effect on OEMs making up requirements is way off base in my experience. I can't tell you how many times (working with a tier-one supplier to GM, e.g.) I had to fight against "requirements" that weren't documented, and having parts rejected that met the specified requirements but failed in service or in production. GM in particular is infamous for trying to blame suppliers for their design snafus.

Making sure that requirements are understood and properly documented is a function of conscientious contract review which, believe it or not, existed in many companies for decades before ISO 9001 and its evil TS cousin were ever thought of.

 

[bobdoering]

I can say without reservation that the TS-registered companies consistently supplied the worst PPAPs, in almost any PPAP category there is.

True, but in and of itself it does not discount the benefit of the PPAP. No tool is of any value when used incorrectly. A good deal of the problem goes back to people not getting the training - usually because their boss throws the book at them and tells them to read it, and the minimalist approach to meeting the standard.

Also, the idea that PPAP has had a salubrious effect on OEMs making up requirements is way off base in my experience. I can't tell you how many times (working with a tier-one supplier to GM, e.g.) I had to fight against "requirements" that weren't documented, and having parts rejected that met the specified requirements but failed in service or in production. GM in particular is infamous for trying to blame suppliers for their design snafus.

True, to some degree. Many times I have used the PPAP as a tool to deal with unreasonable expectations of an OEM. Without it, I would have had even less to hang my hat on. Sure, they like that back-yard "workmanship" garbage for unstated requirements, but it is still a better process than not having PPAP at all (see medical).

Making sure that requirements are understood and properly documented is a function of conscientious contract review which, believe it or not, existed in many companies for decades before ISO 9001 and its evil TS cousin were ever thought of.

Nope, I don't believe it, unless your idea of many is much less than mine. In fact, a good deal of feasibility evaluation was to deal against the ongoing problem of salesmen promising the world, only to have the plant say they can't do it three days before the trial build. And, as much confusion as people have as to what contract review means and how to meet it to this day, I still think it is a problem.

Like I say, PPAP is easy to beat up, and it has been abused. But, it is a key interaction of customer to supplier and agreement of meeting the part requirements that is missing in other standards. To be sure, if you can't get the rote PPAP process right, you can easily extrapolate that all of these other supplier relationships are going to be way too complicated to develop and maintain, so we might as well give up on them right now.

 

[Jim Wynne]

True, but in and of itself it does not discount the benefit of the PPAP. No tool is of any value when used incorrectly.

This is a variant of the No true Scotsman fallacy.

True, to some degree. Many times I have used the PPAP as a tool to deal with unreasonable expectations of an OEM. Without it, I would have had even less to hang my hat on. Sure, they like that back-yard "workmanship" garbage for unstated requirements, but it is still a better process than not having PPAP at all (see medical).

My experience is that (A) PPAP is generally treated as an odious paperwork exercise and (B) it doesn't help when OEMs decide to move the goalposts. If the simple principles of contract review are observed, some form of approval process is still necessary, but I'm pretty sure that the American automotive version of it was DOA.

Nope, I don't believe it, unless your idea of many is much less than mine. In fact, a good deal of feasibility evaluation was to deal against the ongoing problem of salesmen promising the world, only to have the plant say they can't do it three days before the trial build. And, as much confusion as people have as to what contract review means and how to meet it to this day, I still think it is a problem.

I've suffered the pains brought about by prevaricating sales people (the phrase might be a pleonasm), but I've also observed and worked in systems where contract review actually worked. One of the great modern-day manufacturing fallacies exists in the idea that pre-ISO all or most companies were fumbling about aimlessly and constantly shooting themselves in the feet. Not so, by a long shot.

 

[bobdoering]

You arguments seem to support standardizing the supplier/customer relationship would hold no use in that those relationships that exist in the standard (PPAP) have been clearly ineffective, if not counter-productive, and that there has been effective relationships without the standard, as in your contract review example (as you perceive it). Is that true, or is there a Wikipedia reference for that conclusion?

 

[Jim Wynne]

You arguments seem to support standardizing the supplier/customer relationship would hold no use in that those relationships that exist in the standard (PPAP) have been clearly ineffective, if not counter-productive, and that there has been effective relationships without the standard, as in your contract review example (as you perceive it). Is that true, or is there a Wikipedia reference for that conclusion?

I read the first sentence three times and still don't understand what you're asking. Could you rephrase?

 

[bobdoering]

I read the first sentence three times and still don't understand what you're asking. Could you rephrase?

Sure.

The question is:

Do you support standardizing supplier/customer relationship would hold no use?

It seems that you do, because your arguments seem to support that those relationships that have been attempted to be standardized (illustrated by the PPAP process) have been clearly ineffective, if not counter-productive.

I left out the second portion of the statement to keep the issue more focused for you.

It is an academic question, as it is clearly opinion, and it already appears our opinions, based on different experiences, diverge. See if you can find the Wiki for self-reference criterion.