Did QS-9000 Fail? If so, Why?

[Randy Stewart]

My Spin

There are numerous reasons QS failed.
One of the first to top my list is the name itself; "Quality System Requirements". The name put it in the Quality Department Realm thus being something for the QA/QC people to worry about and not the manufacturing team.

Next would be the "Customer Specific Requrirements" proving, once again, that the B3 can't get on the same page.

The last of my top 3 would be the lack of standard interpretations by auditors.

:truce:

 

[SteelWoman]

What was QS-9000 REALLY supposed to achieve?

1. Reduced customer audits of suppliers - Savings to the supplier by a reduction of audits and savings to the Big 3 by allowing them to reduce SQA personnel (and shifting the cost to the supplier - 3rd party audits paid for by the supplier, of course).
2. Bring a common set of certain systems standards to their customers. The word 'harmonzie' is often used.
3. Ensure suppliers are following requirements both internal and external.
4. Officially: To reduce variation in the supply chain.

1. 
   
   Geeze, why do I always have to be the Pessimist, here?
   
   Pardon my never-ending pessimism, but don't the three bullet points from Marc's post above sound an AWFUL lot like the bullet points being bandied about out there right now about TS? That tells me 1) QS did indeed fail to do what it was supposed to and 2) What makes anyone think TS is going to be any different? I can't help but think that 10 years down the road we'll be having this same conversation (on this forum, of COURSE! ) about why TS failed to live up to it's potential and is being replaced by ISO/BS20469 or whatever.
   
   Now I admit to total ignorance (no cheap shots on that one, folks) about how these standards are "routinely reviewed and updated" by the powers that be, but did we really need to get a decade of QS under our belt before some significant changes were made? I hope the same is not true of TS. Example: My asssistant helped me perform the initial gap analysis here between QS and TS, and we both went line by line through the TS standard. My assistant is NOT that well-versed in quality systems (yet... I'm beating him daily and he's finally coming around), but even HE noted inconsistency upon inconsistency and glaring contradictions within this standard. It's going to be interesting to see what is DONE, if anything, to correct and improve those things or whether we'll see, like with TS, a couple of "sanctimonious, er' Sanctioned Interpretations" and then a notice that the standard has unfortunately died.
   
   Okay, enough ranting... I'll go back to Practicing Pleasantness like my therapist said I should.

 

[Pennington]

Failure is relative

It is interesting the read the posts on this topic. Marc tells us that QS did not reduce multiple audits as Customers still felt the need to check product (Strange this as a QS-9000 compliant quality system was supposed to delivery only conforming product - QS-9000 clause 4.2.1)

It was supposed to reduce variation in the supply chain but no posts so far have given any statistics - did AIAG take any measurements.

One of the failures I heard on the grape vine was that suppliers were doing the FMEA but when there was a production failure they were not going back to the FMEA to determine why the failure had not been predicted. People were producing SPC charts but not using them to control the process. People were producing MSA reports but not using them to demonstrate measurement integrity. A certain QS certified supplier was found to be recording results on a run chart and shipping product found in spec but 2 yrs later when a consultant plotted the data it was revealed that they had been 'flinching' results and many nonconforming items had been shipped.

If this was the case, where in TS 16949:2002 does it require such linkages? The only statement I can find is from clause 7.5.1.2 "Control plans shall be reviewed and updated when any change occurs affecting product, manufacturing process, measurement, logistics, supply sources or FMEA (see 7.1.4)." One would have thought that had linkage been an issue, a more lucid an succinct requirement would have been crafted.

In my experience of TS 2 organizations, they are no better than QS organizations - in other words lessons have not been learnt and the standard has not had time to go cold yet!

Does no one in AIAG, SMMT, ANFIA, VDA or IATF not have any statistics to share with us on the effectiveness of QS-9000?

 

[The Taz!]

I have also seen "data" being manipulated (Massaged to some folk) also. . .

I once interviewed at a QS-9000 company. . . I did an informal audit during the interview. . . I noticed the SPC charts on machines and took a close look. . . the charts indicated a classic in-control process. . .after a couple of pointed questions to the VP interviewing me, he admitted that the charts were duplicates or copies of the same data. . . needless to say. . . I didn't get the job.

I also heard first hand how a company President, who had just invested in some SPC training told his staff that "from now on, I want to see nothing but great charts on the machines". . . he got great charts. . .but lousy product. Was the correct message communicated to the troops?

No system (or process), no matter how simple or straightforward it is will work if not communicated correctly or supported, and accountability assigned. Some of the most successful companies I have seen being run were managed by former Quality Assurance Managers as the Plant Manager.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Some of the most successful companies I have seen being run were managed by former Quality Assurance Managers as the Plant Manager.

I know this is completely off-topic, but I'm curious.
Did those former Quality Assurance Managers keep their membership in ASQ (if they had one) AFTER the elevation to Plant Manager? Perhaps this could be the cause of so many folks dropping out of ASQ membership.

 

[db]

QS failed primarily (IMNSHO) because the same folks that made the rules would circumvent them when they wanted to. They required QS, but I know of several companies that had no QMS whatsoever, and they still got business. They would waive things that QS made no provisions for waiving.

The sad thing is I see it already with TS. In 12 years, the auto companies will claim that to be a failure, and blame the registrars once again.

 

[The Taz!]

I know this is completely off-topic, but I'm curious.
Did those former Quality Assurance Managers keep their membership in ASQ (if they had one) AFTER the elevation to Plant Manager? Perhaps this could be the cause of so many folks dropping out of ASQ membership.

A couple I knew personally maintained their CQE and actually made it to VP NA Operations. . . This is the "dream" in a few cases but not the "reality" in most. . .