Speaking with our registrar today during our surveillance audit, he said if we go TS we will lose our ability to tailor implementation by customer demand as we do now. He said TS makes it "Wall to Wall" no exceptions. If that is so, we've got a problem, some of our customers don't want it, and they certainly don't want to pay for it. Any input from those who are familiar with TS?
I don't know of a standard which over rides the requirements of the customer. If your customer says "don't do it", so be it. However, IMO it seems best to set up your system to follow the same path for everybody. If the customer says for example, "no PPAP required", I would follow our normal system and just not submit the PPAP package. I would still have the confidence that we could meet the requirements. BTW - We are QS - not 16949 so there may be some twist I am not aware of.
From the gist of your question, I'm guessing that you follow the QS format for planning (FMEA, Control Plans, etc.) for only those customers who demand it and use a "short cut" version for those that don't. I've run across a number of companies that use this approach.
If this is the case, you're running (IMO) a two tier system. My experience is that a two tier system is almost more trouble to maintain than simply putting the system in place across the board.
If you are in a contract type business (make or process to customer specs), you're probably worried about the large amount of documentation required if you develop for each individual part. Consider looking at QS differently...your processes are your product. If you perform say ten essitential processes that can be applied to thousands of different customer parts, develop (via APQP) quality plans for the processes rather than the products. This approach avoids a two tier system.
There are going to be built in problems with trying to keep up two separate "quality systems".
-2 Policy Statements/Manuals
-Multiple interactive procedures
-Employee morale! (i.e. "Come on boss, can I work on the production line where I don't have to follow all those rules"?) (last example is extreme)
May be more work up front, but it should benefit in the long run to have 1 system for the company.
Exactly! We hold ISO9002/QS and are a foundry with around 100 active customers which we make 300+ different castings for. We have 4 very low volume automotive parts for Tier 1. Volume so low, that no one in the industry would touch them. We do a few parts for a tier two, these are slightly higher volume. The concern is holding our QS for <2% of our sales. The registrar left us today with 5 minors all QS related. He suggested we keep an eye on the possible migration of QS to 16949 and to consider long and hard whether it was prudent to retain our QS especially if we were not in pursuit of any more automotive (which we are not). He also said upon leaving that we were a "Golden ISO House" and that we meet the requirements of the standard by a mile! We make castings for some customers from a little more than a sketch on a cocktail napkin. With the exception of our automotive friends ISO is more than adequate to our customer base. With that many customers registration has spared us the all the customer desk and on-site surveys.
When I spoke of "wall to wall" I was referring to all products and all processes falling under the auspice of QS or 16949. One area that comes to mind that would have a big impact is 220.127.116.11 (??) where tooling requires "full" dimensional inspection. Some of our molds are so large they cannot be tossed up on a CMM and would be extremely cost prohibitive to inspect any other way especially with the geometry and number of characteristics that may be involved. We will typically look at cross parting line stuff and take steps to ensure through inprocess checks during mold build that we're on track, but "full dimensional" inspection, no way! We will sample the tool, do a 100% layout, make minor adjustments for shrinkage (as with any tool) sample again and submit. Right now our registrar interprets that requirement to apply only to automotive tools. His comment was that under 16949 a requirement like that would apply to ALL tools.
That was the essence of my question. Along with FMEA's, PPAP's and the like. For example, As everyone knows, there are two ways to do a FMEA, 1) as window dressing and, 2) as an honest to goodness working document and tool for use. The latter is where we all need to be but with my staff resources at a premium, the last thing I want to do allocate their time to a task where there isn't a real return on the investment. In some cases we perform FMEA's on products where the customer doesn't want one but we see it as good business practice when all potential issues are taken into account. On another note to kill more trees simply for window dressing is absurd. Whew!!So......I was wondering if 949 was "wall to wall". I like your concept of changing focus to the process though. Interesting thought. Thanks for the input...Sorry about the length guys, I tend to get on my soap box..Mike
I don't know enough about 16949 to be able to say. We need a 'qualified' auditor to shed some light here. I do not assume it to be different from ISO - you can limit your scope. I once had a client which registered only certain lines in their facility. Lines not registered were treated as 'outsider suppliers'. But this wouldn't address the issue you bring up.
I will comment on the idea of 2 'quality' systems, though. Typically a company has a 'high' system and a 'low' system. I first saw this years ago in military manufacturing. The 'low' system (non-Mil-Spec) was just a subset of the 'high' system and was an important money saver. Nor was it confusing. I have to admit that philosophically I'm against it (if you're going to make something, make it right - you shouldn't have 2 standards). But realistically I have seen it not only work well but helped control costs significantly.
There is a quite recent thread here where 'operator error' is being discussed. I expressed there what I will say here - a company should look at its product and processes and decide what is 'right' for them. If you are making wire harnesses and one goes in an airplane and another goes in a washing machine, the expense of the extra inspections and tests may make you uncompetitive price wise on the washing machine harness. In addition, the aircraft harness may require high temperature solder and China Lake certified solderers where for the washing machine harness those are not 'necessary'.
One should look at things as a whole and common sense should be used. Two systems is not always a bad thing.
Based on your last posting, it sounds like it could be decision time for your company. The low volume of QS related work might not warrant full registration. In fact, I wonder if your tier one customers would actually drop you if you didn't, especially in light of the fact that you may be in a specialty niche where ISO registration would (somehow, in a creative way on their part) satisfy them.
I do believe that if you "get creative" you may find a way to satisfy the QS/ISO 16949 requirements company wide, and (like Marc) I think this is philosophically the way to go in the long haul.
BTW, I'm local to you…if you want to talk about this more you can e-mail or give me a call. (PS...I am a metallurgist and I do have some foundry experience )
If nothing else, we can commiserate together.
[This message has been edited by Dan Larsen (edited 09 May 2001).]
You know, it's been awhile since we have had heard anything about the demise of QS9K. (I was thinking about this when I saw Marc's statement underneath the "QS9000" forum on it being a "fast-dying document".) I wonder if QS9K has 9 lives like a cat? Hey, maybe, that's what the "9" in QS9000 stands for!!
As I understand it, QS-9000 will not be updated again and all 3 of the 'big 3' are accepting 16949. I stand my my assessment that the document is for all intents and purposes dead. They will use it for a while - can you imagine the uproar if they cancelled it abruptly now. Like an old soldier, it will fade away.