Is TS 16949 going to be Obsoleted by 2008?

[CQC Doug]

Hi Stijloor,

The information came from TUV. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the draft document but I am trying to get my hands on one, would be a great reference document for working with existing TS consulting clients.

Sorry I don't have more information at this time. I will try to update post if I am fortunate enough to garner any details.


CQC Doug

 

[vanputten]

From memory, and based on being a voting member of the US TAG to ISO (US Standards Group), we voted to postpone to the review of TS 16949 until after ISO 9001 was amended since TS is built on ISO 9001. Therefore, nothing will change with TS until 2009 at the learliest but I would be flabbergasted if anything happend that soon.

I looked for the document upon which we voted but I cannot find a copy.

I think the info that CQC DOug's got from TUV is incorrect.

 

[CQC Doug]

Hi Dirk,

I guess we will have to wait and see. My source is solid and his information came out of one of the IATF Oversight Offices. Having read all the posts in this thread, including each of yours, as well as reading the draft of ISO 9001:2008, I think we are all fairly confident that the new edition of ISO 9001 will not be significantly different than the 2000 edition. Having said that, the revision of ISO/TS 16949 will not be significantly impacted by the 9001 revision so there would be no reason to hold up its revision until after ISO 9001:2008 is released, which I believe you stated yourself in one of your posts to this thread.

I'm putting my money on an earlier than later release of the revision of ISO/TS 16949. Don't be too flabbergasted.....:mg:


Take care,

CQC Doug

 

[vanputten]

Does it make sense to relaese ISO 9001:2008 and a new revision of TS 16949at the same time, without the 9001 changes? No. I say "at the same time" since you quoted an October 2008 publication date which is the same expected date for ISO 9001.

How would that work anyway? TS would have incongruent ISO 9001 text inside the boxes on each page.

Would users get all excited about the ISO 9001 text within TS being different than the ISO 9001:2008 text? Yes, even though the intent / requirements are the same.

Do the TAG's around the world have the resources, speed and agility to review ISO 9001 and TS 16949 at the same time? Proably not.

And finally, for an October 2008 released of TS 16949, the review process would have had to start already, which it has not. There is no published design specification to revise TS, there is no new work item proposal, let alone any drafts.

Technical Specification 16949 is a document created out of the consensus process of ISO. Maybe the IATF and the auto industry can change the timing, speed and agility of the TAG's, and defined process for the revision of a technical specification?

 

[CQC Doug]

Dirk,

I have not used the Elsmar Cove a great deal over the years as a forum for my input, only to do a little research once in a while. When I heard that TS:02 was being revised I came hear looking to see what I could find out. When I did a search this thread came up and low and behold it was originally posted by our Host himself. I read thru the thread and thought I would spread the knowledge I had just gained with fellow Quality professionals and hopefully get some valuable input in return. Obviously this was a big mistake. It appears that someone like myself with very few posts compared to your 640 should not be listened to and should be challenged. I will definitely give great thought to any input I opt to post here in the future as this somewhat personal reply/attack has really put me off. Mr. Vanputten, I have been working in the Quality profession for over 25 years, I have been running a successful consulting and training business for just under 11 years providing my services Internationally to both small privately owned businesses and large multinational corporations and in addition, I am an IAOB Qualified 3rd Party ISO/TS 16949 auditor that makes his living working with clients in the automotive industry. I live and breath this stuff!! I felt that my 2 cents worth may be valued by those interested in this standard. I see by your profile that you are an Internal Auditor and I understand thru your replies that you are a volunteer representative to US TAG to ISO but maybe you could enlighten me and the others in this forum, and specifically this thread, where you are getting your specific knowledge of the ISO/TS 16949 standard and your experience in the automotive industry, as I already have. Obviously you have a much greater understanding of this standard and much better insight into the workings of the standard development process and it would be my pleasure to retract my input and tell the individual that I got the information from that he needs to tell the IATF Oversight Office that they can't do what they told him was taking place. Shame on them!

To answer a couple of your questions: 1) The draft of ISO 9001:2008 is currently available to anyone wishing to purchase it. It can be purchased directly from ISO but I am sure you know this. This would definitely allow those working on the TS revision to stay in-line with the upcoming revision to ISO 9001. 2) As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that the review process for the next revision of ISO/TS 16949 started in October of 2007 with the final draft approval scheduled for July of this year.

I would love to answer the other questions you posted but I don't have the answers. I sincerely do hope that you can take the time to post a reply to my single question posted to you.

I truly look forward to your response,


CQC Doug

 

[Paul Simpson]

I read thru the thread and thought I would spread the knowledge I had just gained with fellow Quality professionals and hopefully get some valuable input in return.

Thanks, Doug. Please don't hesitate to post again - although it appears you have had a hard ride on this one I can assure you it is not intended!

IMHO Dirk is one of the true gentlemen on the cove - a group I would not include myself in!

Obviously this was a big mistake. It appears that someone like myself with very few posts compared to your 640 should not be listened to and should be challenged. I will definitely give great thought to any input I opt to post here in the future as this somewhat personal reply/attack has really put me off.

Again I can't speak for Dirk but don't believe the "attack" was personal - I must confess my eyebrows were raised when I saw your post about the proposed reissue date for TS3 - totally out of kilter with my expectations!

Mr. Vanputten, I have been working in the Quality profession for over 25 years, I have been running a successful consulting and training business for just under 11 years providing my services Internationally to both small privately owned businesses and large multinational corporations and in addition, I am an IAOB Qualified 3rd Party ISO/TS 16949 auditor that makes his living working with clients in the automotive industry. I live and breath this stuff!! I felt that my 2 cents worth may be valued by those interested in this standard.

Again your experience will be very valuable here ... I 4 1 look forward to reading your posts in future.

I see by your profile that you are an Internal Auditor and I understand thru your replies that you are a volunteer representative to US TAG to ISO but maybe you could enlighten me and the others in this forum, and specifically this thread, where you are getting your specific knowledge of the ISO/TS 16949 standard and your experience in the automotive industry, as I already have. Obviously you have a much greater understanding of this standard and much better insight into the workings of the standard development process and it would be my pleasure to retract my input and tell the individual that I got the information from that he needs to tell the IATF Oversight Office that they can't do what they told him was taking place. Shame on them!

Time will tell with this one. IMHO TS3 will be 6 months after 9k2008 (if it even makes 2008) I cannot see TS3 having the old 9k2k text and, even with the limited scrutiny TS gets compared with the 9k series there is a time lag.

To answer a couple of your questions: 1) The draft of ISO 9001:2008 is currently available to anyone wishing to purchase it. It can be purchased directly from ISO but I am sure you know this. This would definitely allow those working on the TS revision to stay in-line with the upcoming revision to ISO 9001. 2) As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that the review process for the next revision of ISO/TS 16949 started in October of 2007 with the final draft approval scheduled for July of this year.

More than that they have had access to committee drafts and working documents all the way through but they cannot run ahead of TC 176.

Again, I look forward to the continuing debate!

 

[Stijloor]

Paul,

That's very nice and considerate of you! New Covers/Posters need this encouragement. I speak from personal experience.....

Let's keep up the great dialogue. A win-win for everybody!

Stijloor.

 

[Wes Bucey]

More than that they have had access to committee drafts and working documents all the way through but they cannot run ahead of TC 176.

Again, I look forward to the continuing debate!

On this topic, many of us who do not currently sit on the committees have had access to, and read, the various draft incarnations given to the committees for discussion about proposed revisions. I just checked the last FREE source I know for a draft and it has posted a notice

This news article could not be shown, this may be because

• The new article not longer exists
• You do not have access to the article
• There was a error showing the article

Without pulling it out and making a word by word comparison, my recollection is there seemed to be no SUBSTANTIVE changes which should occasion anxiety about necessary changes in an existing compliant or registered system. As always, though, the TS16949 format is subject to tinkering by OEMs and the committees aren't in charge of those.

Sometimes, just sometimes, we all bring baggage into the Cove which makes us interpret comments and statements in a light for which the original commenter had no inkling might exist.

Often, folks with fragile egos find themselves in company with others who have iron-clad egos. Conflicts and misunderstandings seem almost inevitable. The whole thing sort of reminds me of a locker room filled with testosterone laden athletes and kids struggling to just pass the required PE course. The jocks are used to rough, physical humor - for confirmation, one need only witness a football game where they butt heads like young goats to celebrate a play. When the humor spills over to those unused to it, it can sometimes lead to a Columbine-type disaster where the victim of the humor takes revenge way beyond the apparent injury he suffered (who can tell how deep psychological scars run?)

Because our host, Marc, has witnessed this conflict of personalities in the past, he has wisely installed a "report this post" button in the upper right corner of every post (the little triangle.)

If anyone feels personally slandered by a public comment, or an observer feels someone else has been slandered, the proper response is NOT RETALIATION IN A PUBLIC FORUM, but a mere click of the button. Every moderator will receive email notice of the report and hasten to mediate the dispute before it boils over into full-fledged warfare. Clicking the button calls forth a dialog box where the person making the report can state his case. A copy of the report AND the offending post is then sent to every moderator.

That said:
As in every argument, there are two sides and two interpretations. Not every report will be resolved by whipping the apparent offender. The actual process is sometimes a long and lengthy one, involving days of discussions among the moderators with frequent recourse to private correspondence with each of the parties before arriving at a resolution. Every case, being unique, has a different resolution There is no "one size fits all" solution.

If such rules are too difficult to join in the game, each person makes his own decision.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I have not heard anything about the expected time frame for the release of the next version of the TS-16949 document. However, since several Industry sectors have liaisons with and inside the TC176, these sectors are obviously very well informed of the ISO 9001:2008 progress, and working on the draft of their sectorial standards. If the IATF is following the IAQG example, a revised 16949 document could be available as early as the last quarter of 2008, even though I would think sometime during the first half of 2009 is more likely.

Attached you will see one slide of a presentation used during the last IAQG meeting in Florida. It does show the original timeline for AS9100 Rev. C release, but with the earlier release of ISO 9001:2008, now scheduled for October 31st, 2008, AS9100 will be ready for publication as early as this coming November. Since the document has to be balloted in the 3 different sectors, it might be Q1 2009 before it is formally released. But I don't see why the IATF could not have a similar timeline for TS, especially when you consider that TS is not expected to add any new requirement, while AS9100 will.

 

[vanputten]

From the ISO document N688...

Liaison report to ISO/TC 176 dated October 2004 from
The International Automotive Task Force – Liaison D Member

We reported last year the IATF’s concern to secure the future of ISO/TS 16949:2002, linked to ISO 9001:2000. We are pleased to report that following discussions with ISO, the ISO TMB has decided that ISO/TS16949:2002 will be extended, without revision, until at least 2008 or for the life of ISO9001:2000 plus one year. This will provide stability in third party audit cycles for the global automotive marketplace, while allowing sufficient time for any future revisions to ISO 9001:2000 to be reviewed in the context of the automotive standard. With this action, it effectively marks the end of the ISO Automotive Pilot Study, so no further meetings are planned for that group. Future reporting on progress will be made via the TC176 liaison forum or such other route as may benefit members of ISO/TC176 most effectively.