ISO/TS16949:2009 Standard Should be ISO 16949:2009?

B

bhartigambhir

Good Morning Everyone

While going through on ISO site found this statement:-

" Technical specifications shall be reviewed at least every three years to decide either to confirm the technical specification for a further three years, revise the technical specification, process it further to become an International Standard or withdraw the technical specification. After six years, a technical specification shall be either converted into an International Standard or withdrawn. "

http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_de...rocedures/deliverables/iso_ts_deliverable.htm

Can anybody Explain me about this. I have a confusion why not ISO:TS16949:2009 is ISO:16949:2009 Standard.

Regards

Bharti
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
The main reason is probably the automotive industry does not want to stop their control over the content.
The ISO part is 9001 and all the rest belongs to the industry.
 
V

vanputten

Although the auto industry can put a lot of pressure on the member bodies within ISO, 16949 is still a consensus document voted on by all member bodies within ISO. I don't inderstand the statement that "industry" owns the content within TS that is not directly from ISO 9001.

In my experience, all members of the US TC176 group have as much opportunity to try to influence the the feedback and vote from the US. All members of the US TC176 are required to vote not matter who they represent; themselves, NGO, Government, industry, etc. Of course, the process is political so larger oragnizations may have more influence on what the US feeback and vote is. But supposedly I should have an equal vote to any US TC176 member from any automotive manufacturing organization.

My guess is that the reason the rules apparently didn't apply is that the standard was in review but the review took longer than it should have. Mayb the next round of review for 16949 will result in either it becoming a international standard or withdrwan?
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
Although the auto industry can put a lot of pressure on the member bodies within ISO, 16949 is still a consensus document voted on by all member bodies within ISO. I don't inderstand the statement that "industry" owns the content within TS that is not directly from ISO 9001.

In my experience, all members of the US TC176 group have as much opportunity to try to influence the the feedback and vote from the US. All members of the US TC176 are required to vote not matter who they represent; themselves, NGO, Government, industry, etc. Of course, the process is political so larger oragnizations may have more influence on what the US feeback and vote is. But supposedly I should have an equal vote to any US TC176 member from any automotive manufacturing organization.

My guess is that the reason the rules apparently didn't apply is that the standard was in review but the review took longer than it should have. Mayb the next round of review for 16949 will result in either it becoming a international standard or withdrwan?


I am quoting the document
page ii said:
The text outside the boxes has been originated by the International Automotive Task Force. Copyright for this text is held by ANFIA, FIEV, SMMT, VDA (see below) and the car manufacturers Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corp, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault.
and
page vii said:
ISO/TS 16949 was prepared by the International Automotive Task Force (IATF), with support from ISO/TC 176, Quality management and quality assurance.
my emphasis


In my mind the copyright holder is the owner.
Please can you give more details on how 176 approved the TS. Was there a vote on the automotive additions?
I would be happy to hear the whole story.

The delay was due to the wait for ISO 9001 to be reviewed.
 
V

vanputten

Well Howard, you have just opened my thoughts on TS 16949. You just pointed out something that never occured to me. We voted on the draft of TS 16949 in November of 2008. But now that I think about it, there are no special working groups within the US TC176 for TS 16949. We have working groups for all projects, but not 16949. Hmmmm. The only time I learn about TS 16949 activity is when an IATF liaison makes a report. Hmmmm.

And the ballot even stated that, "This final draft was prepared by the IATF per TC 176 Resolution 2008/12 and is submitted for approval by the TC."

Thanks to Howard, I will now be more aware and senstive to the wokrings of TS 16949. Why aren't there any working groups? Why don't we have discussion on specific clauses? Why aren't there user surveys like for 9001?

I think I have to retract my statement about TS 16949 being a consensus document. Yes, we vote on it but the TC176 doesn't appear to have any say on the content. We either approve it or vote against it.

It may be possible that the IATF worked the ISO system so that they control the content, allow ISO to do the copyrighting / publishing, and still have users believe it is a consensus document.

Thank you.
 
Top Bottom