Fed up with TS & ISO - For 10 years we've jumped through every hoop

[bpritts]

<snip>

But the other theme, that you are doing TS, ISO, etc. because the customers require it, is a huge mistake! You need these standards. YOU need them! Not because the customer requires it, but because you need it to help get and maintain control over your processes. Many companies talk about improving their processes, when they don't even have CONTROL over all of them yet! You can't improve what you can't control.

These systems, along with the additional variations (six sigma, 5S, lean, etc.) are to help you get control, so you can steer your ship ahead of your competitors. Debates with Customers frequently can be won when you have control over your processes, and you have accurate data to make your arguments. You still won't win all the time, but the odds improve.

These standards are common principles of good management. To say you don't want to do them doesn't make sense. Short term savings over long term success.

Going back to the original theme of this thread (sorry I missed it before!),
I am curious about others' experience with regard to the automotive registrar crowd. I share the view that the requirements themselves are hard to argue with; most make business sense. It's the audit process, and insistence on written evidence of every change of the TP roll, that is bothersome.

About 3 years ago, we noticed a distinct shift in the audit style from several registrars:

1. The audit began with a close look at PPM, customer performance, and customer complaints.

2. If the trends were favorable, we tended to receive only "value added" CAR's. On occasion where trends were unfavorable, then we got every
little nit written up.

I was told informally by several of the audit folk that they were working under instruction (meddling, perhaps!) by the Big 3 task force to avoid non - value
added CAR's where supplier performance was good.

This trend has continued to the present day.


With TS audits, I have seen similar willingness to reduce paper and increase focus on results. (Not 100%, but good progress.)

I won't say that this has reached a state of Nirvana, but things are definitely more focused on results than they were in 1995 or 2000.

No one else offered this info; is our experience unusual?

Regards,

Brad

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Going back to the original theme of this thread (sorry I missed it before!),
I am curious about others' experience with regard to the automotive registrar crowd. I share the view that the requirements themselves are hard to argue with; most make business sense. It's the audit process, and insistence on written evidence of every change of the TP roll, that is bothersome.

About 3 years ago, we noticed a distinct shift in the audit style from several registrars:

1. The audit began with a close look at PPM, customer performance, and customer complaints.

2. If the trends were favorable, we tended to receive only "value added" CAR's. On occasion where trends were unfavorable, then we got every
little nit written up.

I was told informally by several of the audit folk that they were working under instruction (meddling, perhaps!) by the Big 3 task force to avoid non - value
added CAR's where supplier performance was good.

This trend has continued to the present day.


With TS audits, I have seen similar willingness to reduce paper and increase focus on results. (Not 100%, but good progress.)

I won't say that this has reached a state of Nirvana, but things are definitely more focused on results than they were in 1995 or 2000.

No one else offered this info; is our experience unusual?

Regards,

Brad

Your experience is not unusual. I can't point to any one document or training, but there has been a definite turn of emphasis in the training 3rd party auditors receive. I have seen it in automotive as well as ISO. Further, it seems to be a slow paradigm shift in the quality industry in general.

We are frequently admonished that this is about performance and effectiveness. And, they ahve emphasized "customer, customer, customer..." So, we need to see what the customer thinks of you, your metrics, what do your process indicators say about the effectiveness of your processes. This is not new, really. Ford Q1 has required QOS metrics, and QS-9000 required metrics in 4.1.5, and 4.2.5. It is newly added to the ISO standard, however.

I don't think the change to a process approach was a new idea that ISO 9001 thought up, either. I saw a trend beginning some years earlier, and think ISO and TS just caught up. Sure, they are rally hammering the "process-approach" in a rigid manner. But most good auditors I know were doing a quasi-process approach for a number of years.

Hopefully all auditors will drive more toward value-added auditing of meaningful aspects of a system. Then, maybe the poor clients will actually begin to look forward to their third party audits...well, that may not happen, but you get the point!

Any dingbat can find an error if he looks at enough samples of enough documents. That should not be the auditor's approach. You deserve better.

 

[D.Scott]

"But the other theme, that you are doing TS, ISO, etc. because the customers require it, is a huge mistake! You need these standards. YOU need them! Not because the customer requires it, but because you need it to help get and maintain control over your processes."

Sorry but I don't agree with this. If it is changed slightly to express the thought that every company should have a good quality system which would obviously include process controls, then I would stand firmly behind it.

I understand that may sound argumentative but it is simply to point out it isn't TS or ISO that is needed, it is the working quality system. We have had many discussions on the fact that a TS or QS or ISO certificate doesn't mean you have anything more than a certificate. The true measure of a good quality system is the satisfaction of the customer, not the judgment of an auditor. You really said as much in the following quote -

"So, we need to see what the customer thinks of you, your metrics, what do your process indicators say about the effectiveness of your processes."

This has to beg the question "WHY?". If the purpose of paying for and maintaining a standard is to ensure the standard is maintained for the benefit of the customer, then doesn't the perception of the customer override any review by an auditor? Is the perception of the customer contingent on the presence of a certificate? Surely, if the customer perception was negative, they wouldn't be a customer, at least for long. If that were true, and it certainly should be in a good business, the presence of customers would indicate you are viewed in a positive light. If the auditor determines the effectiveness of your process on customer perception then the logical conclusion has to be - if you have customers, the process must be effective. Once again, we don't need the auditors, TS, QS, ISO or anyone other than the customer.

No one argues the need of a good quality system and ISO is a great base for one. Everybody should have a system based on ISO as a minimum. The need for certification or registration to a standard is purely registrar driven and completely unnecessary. The customer is perfectly capable of judging the value of their suppliers without micro-managing through an imposed standard.

If you think I am off base on this, think of the requirement that ALL suppliers must be certified to ISO by a 3rd party etc.. This requirement is to generate business for the registrar and "create" an industry. How does this address a supplier who has excellent quality, delivery and price and who has been your best supplier for over 50 years but isn't certified?

Dave

 

[gpainter]

Set up your system to please your Customers and to help in the achievement of the goals of your company not for the auditor or registrar. If your Customers are happy then be happy and look to make them happier. I guess it is "Don't worry, be happy!!"

 

[ksmith911]

Documentation Issues

IMHO, if your organization is consistantly getting nonconformances for documentation issues, it is a good sign that you may have too much documentation. In my experience, a proper TS16949 implementation offers opportunity to actually reduces documentation in many cases. Many times the problem lies in the fact that during implementation, an over abundance of doc's are created in an effort to cover all the bases. This can backfire because all procedures, whether required or not, are auditable. If you have more than the requried seven procedures, it is your responsibility to conform to them. I know I am probably preaching to the choir here, but I hate to see an organization over-document themselves into a corner. The phrase "Document what you do, do what you document" should be taken only to the extend it remains practical. My opinion - implement with just the required docs. - then add procedures as you feel they would help your organizaiton. Don't rush to blame the auditor, they audit what you give them.

 

[TedCambron]

That's automotive.

Yes, It's more important to audit a value added process then documentation. I would have thought this to be a no-brainer but seeing that some people think this is some kind of revelation I guess it's mentionable.
You know it's kind of funny that small companies stand more of a chance of getting hurt by the "fat three" than making money. Is anyone surprised to here of a company getting shut down that was doing automotive buisiness?

 

[msoules]

For 10 years we've jumped through every hoop and dotted every i to acquire and maintain ISO/QS/TS registrations. We're fed up with the auditors, the cost and the disruption to the organization. Are we the only organization that feels this way?

We have good systems. We have satified customers. We maintaintain single digit external PPMs. All I'm doing is fixing paper work findings.

Who can I complain too? Is there another forum beyond venting here?

I think you are my boss going by another name!!

Ha any of this improved anyone's quality or just given job security to more administrators? The theory is good, but if you are a company who focuses on sending good parts to your customers, then why all this??

 

[TedCambron]

Quality sytems are for most people

Most people need help and rely on others to accomplish tasks. I'm not saying most people are stupid, just a little dumb. That's all. Our company is ISO/TS and one year, one month old. We were the same company before and after the flag out front but most people can't see or understand how good we really our. That's why we got certified. Most people think that being certified means you're good. Well the reality of it is, it doesn't change a thing. If it does then you have a problem. That means that you allowed your company to be runned by a bunch of idiots. Passing a TS audit is as easy as falling off a log and impresses most people.

 

[jmp4429]

Most people need help and rely on others to accomplish tasks. I'm not saying most people are stupid, just a little dumb. That's all. Our company is ISO/TS and one year, one month old. We were the same company before and after the flag out front but most people can't see or understand how good we really our. That's why we got certified. Most people think that being certified means you're good. Well the reality of it is, it doesn't change a thing. If it does then you have a problem. That means that you allowed your company to be runned by a bunch of idiots. Passing a TS audit is as easy as falling off a log and impresses most people.

Tell us how you really feel.

Your user profile says you are a company of 30 people - for a company that size, ensuring product quality and passing a TS audit can both be pretty darn easy. A single person could concievably oversee every aspect of operation. For a larger company, it is much harder to control all of the goings-on. That's where a QMS comes in - to keep everyone on the same page.

I'm not saying that TS-16949 is flawless, but you're painting with a pretty wide brush to say that anyone who has benefitted from pursuing TS registration is an idiot.

 

[Caster]

Why TS?

D.Scott,This has to beg the question "WHY?". If the purpose of paying for and maintaining a standard is to ensure the standard is maintained for the benefit of the customer, then doesn't the perception of the customer override any review by an auditor? ...........


The need for certification or registration to a standard is purely registrar driven and completely unnecessary. The customer is perfectly capable of judging the value of their suppliers without micro-managing through an imposed standard. Dave

I have another view on this.

I agree that customer perception is everything. But at least in automotive the customer is the buyer, not the assembly plant, and definitely not Quality. And we all know buyers are trained from birth to focus on one thing and one thing only - lowest possible price.

I think QS came about in the Big 3 because the first Japanaese car invasion and the re discovery of "quality" gave the Quality department more weight inside the auto companies.

Suddenly buyers were faced with things like cost of poor quality and having to be involved with problems caused by those excellent (cheapest) suppliers they selected.

So they fixed the quality problem by mandating all suppliers must be QS certified and then they got back to business as usual.

The cynicism in the supply chain started with cynicism at the customer.

I think it was all a turf war and purchasing has stomped down those quality upstarts. The results speak for themselves.

OK, say it with me all you buyers "Quality - hey that's not my problem, I met my targets for cost down, and I got my bonus. Any problems are up to the plant and quality department to fix, do your job and stop whining"

QS/TS were not registrar driven, hey they just got on the gravy train and provided what the customer demanded (a plaque on the wall), and us suppliers went along.

As has been said elsewhere, it's too bad, cause there are some excellent ideas that got trampled and devalued in the certification rush.