Informational Re-engineering of the IAF Accreditation and the Management System Certification Processes

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

My take is that the accreditation authority is telling the world about how good the scheme they have designed and implemented is.

These are the same folks that provided negative feedback about the QS-9000 experiment. If you were familiar with the North American Automotive OEM's, you would know that they have no problem offering criticism of the way CB's perform. So, for them to report such gains, they have to <indirectly> admit that the CB performance in this sector has improved under the IATF control. But remember, the goal is not CB performance, but supplier performance and product integrity. I believe that this Industry is finally realizing that certification of a supplier QMS to a standard (such as TS-16949) is an important, but, still a COMPONENT of supplier monitoring. Not an end-all activity. And that, is something that many people do not understand, to this date.

This is not to say that all is fine in the process. The next version of the TS Rules is expected before the end of the year.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

These are the same folks that provided negative feedback about the QS-9000 experiment.

Now I said I wouldn't get into a drawn out debate. You know it gives me a headache. In the slide there are a few unattributed comments about how wonderful the new system is. I need some data.

If you were familiar with the North American Automotive OEM's, you would know that they have no problem offering criticism of the way CB's perform. So, for them to report such gains, they have to <indirectly> admit that the CB performance in this sector has improved under the IATF control.

Again who has reported these gains - I see no names / companies to check the data with?

I spent 18 months working for a UK based division of a US OEM. My experience of TS is that there isn't the same belief in the 'new' process that IATF are presenting.

But remember, the goal is not CB performance, but supplier performance and product integrity. I believe that this Industry is finally realizing that certification of a supplier QMS to a standard (such as TS-16949) is an important, but, still a COMPONENT of supplier monitoring. Not an end-all activity. And that, is something that many people do not understand, to this date.

Yes the best judge of effectiveness of TS is the results of the J D Power survey (or equivalent) about how end users view their vehicles.

I have had a check on their web site here.

• Vehicle quality levels have remained stable since 2006.
• Overall, the industry is on par with the 2006 IQS study results.
• New product launches remain problematic for many manufacturers. For every new redesigned model that is introduced without quality concerns, three new redesigned models perform worse in initial quality than their predecessors.
• Modern technology integration remains a challenge for automakers. Even when the technology works as intended, steep learning curves result in customer dissatisfaction. Based on IQS survey results, consumers want technology to be easier to understand and use.

Bullet 3 is interesting.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Yes the best judge of effectiveness of TS is the results of the J D Power survey (or equivalent) about how end users view their vehicles.

Wrong, Paul. Very wrong. Consumer satisfaction with their vehicles, while critical to the OEM's, is totally dissociated with the TS-certification process. The same consumers that wanted monstrous SUV's and their gas-guzzling prowess 4 years ago are standing in line for hybrid gas sipping econoboxes now.

TS certification of the automotive supply chain is intended to ensure product integrity, conformance, fewer lines disruptions, lesser product recalls, higher reliability, etc... It was not designed for end-consumer satisfaction, even though there is an obvious correlation.

Obviously, if an OEM is able to decrease the development cycle time and offer the consumer the new features they want in a shorter time, great. If the OEM experiences fewer product recalls, offer more reliable products, etc... the consumer gains. But to infer that any car buyers satisfaction survey is the best meter for the efficacy of the TS certification process is inappropriate, in my opinion.

It would be analogous to infer that the AS9100 accredited certification process is a failure because airline passenger dissatisfaction is at an all-time high.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Wrong, Paul. Very wrong.

Wrong, Sidney? Wrong? [/QUOTE]

The 2007 IQS measures consumer satisfaction with vehicle design and mechanical quality: design quality to gauge how the vehicle works (i.e., control operation and layout) and mechanical quality to determine how the vehicle is assembled and functions.

I appreciate we don't have the full data from the report and the methodology used but this isn't the consumer satisfaction survey - it's the new car quality survey.
If you want another survey (UK based for 2007) here it is:
British-built Japanese cars have triumphed in this year’s reliability survey from What Car?

Top 10
Position Model Years made Faults per 100 cars
1 Toyota Corolla ’00-’02 British Built 3
2 Honda CR-V ’97-’02 British Built 5
3= Honda HR-V ’99-’05 6
3= Toyota Celica ’00-’06 6
5 Honda S2000 ’99-now 7
6= BMW 3 Series Compact ’94-’01 9
6= Honda Civic ’96-’01 British Built 9
6= Honda Accord ’99-’03 British Built 9
9 Honda Civic ‘01-’05 British Built 10
10 Nissan Micra ’98-’02 British Built 11

Bottom 10
1 Alfa Romeo GTV ’96-’03 97
2 Renault Espace ’97-’02 77
3 Jaguar XK8 ’96-’06 62
4 Renault Laguna '00-’07 55
5 Fiat Multipla ’99-now 52
6 Volvo S80 ’98-’06 51
7= Land Rover Freelander ’00-’06 48
7= Land Rover Range Rover ’95-’02 48
7= Audi Allroad ’00-’05 48
10 Seat Alhambra ’00-now 47

Sorry about the layout - cut 'n' paste!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul, there is much more to end-user, customer satisfaction issues than how an organization manage it's supply chain.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul, there is much more to end-user, customer satisfaction issues than how an organization manage it's supply chain.

I agree with Sidney on this one. The JD Power Survey isn't a good measurement of customer satisfaction, IMHO. As a past Land Rover/Jaguar sales person, I can vouch for the fact that LR often got JDP Initial quality demerits because the sales hand-over process didn't fully cover all the complexities of the multiple functions of those vehicles and their controls. Hence, customers got annoyed because, for example, they couldn't get their bluetooth phone to synch. to the car, (the handbooks the size of War and Peace and who reads them anyways) and so it became a customer complaint.

Hardly anything to do with the LR plant or it's supplier being TS compliant........

 

[CliffK]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Consumer satisfaction with their vehicles, while critical to the OEM's, is totally dissociated with the TS-certification process....

Sidney, I think you've put your finger on the problem.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I give up. If people don't want to read the details of the post! :truce:

Of course everything is OK - here is the evidence

 

[AndyN]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I give up. If people don't want to read the details of the post! :truce:

Of course everything is OK - here is the evidence

Paul, just to add a little bit more info in here;

I love my car! I think GM has a gem (hey that's nearly poetry) with the Cobalt and I really enjoy driving it. Paradoxically, I didn't fill out the survey I got because it had little to do with the car itself and a lot about the dealership, the buying experience etc.

I am/was delighted - with the car - but not with the dealership. Of course, I curse the people who prepared the reams of documentation that (apparently) shows the wheel painting process is under control, that the RPN for flaky paint was below anything which needed attention (too many cut and pasted PFMEA's), the customer QAR's who've signed off on the whole package - and of course the happless auditors who've never actually looked and seen any of this as 'effective'!

This fault is, incidently, not isolated........a quick review of the www.cobaltss.net forum will show that.

So, my point is - in many cases TS has done little to nothing to improve quality, IMHO. Sure it's reduced costs - for the OE's. And JD Power has little to do with the real perception of the customer and their satisfaction - I pitched my survey because it was so bad, they'd think a crank had completed it and I rather doubt they'd do anything, anyway - per my other post.

In a recent automotive related magazine article, a journalist lamented the long list of problems with his new Mustang. I'm amazed at the subsequent letters which were published (mainly from dealers) basically saying "Oh it's not that bad. There aren't many problems with Fords".

The fact is, that customer is 100% affected and the dealers and the OE's don't get it. Plus, what else can the owner do? Financially, we end up with a lease for two/three years or a car which once it's sold, is only worth 50% of it's sticker. Can't really flex the old financial muscle and show them who's the customer, can we............?

Reality? JD Power isn't worth the hype and TS doesn't affect the consumer in any practical sense, because most OE's or the dealerships don't do most of what's in ISO/TS 16949, anyway............

 

[Hershal]

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

The presentations delivered during the 3rd IAF Industry Day are available below. I find specially interesting paper number 3 which indicates that Accreditation might become a regulated activity in Europe, in the near future.

I find #3 disturbing.....EA wants to have a single AB per country, however this has been fought in ILAC and its Regions for several years.....the cross-border policy is well established and observed by ILAC ABs, where the typical questions go something like this :
Do you know you have a resident national accrediting body?
Have you contacted them?
Do you mind if they provide an observer at their expense during the assessment?

Generally, a lab or agency that is going outside its country knows they have a resident AB and has chosen not to do business with them.

The move by regulators at EA will undermine the Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) and remove choice.....and most likely if it is imposed on ILAC ABs could result in a WTO challenge.....