Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

TS 16949 - Scope of application to Raw Material Suppliers

F

FlavioLima

#1
Dear all,

We're a carbon steel (coils) supplier to automotive industries.
Since begining of this year We've been in preparation process of TS.
Are there any significant differences between apply TS requisites to a part producer or to a raw material producer? Which are these differences?
Thanks.

FL​
 
F

FlavioLima

#2
Hey Dudes,

Am I doing anything wrong in posts or hasn't anyone experienced similar situation in raw material supplier ?
 
R

ralphsulser

#3
FlavioLima said:
Dear all,

We're a carbon steel (coils) supplier to automotive industries.
Since begining of this year We've been in preparation process of TS.
Are there any significant differences between apply TS requisites to a part producer or to a raw material producer? Which are these differences?
Thanks.

FL​
I don't think there are any differences. You are still supplying a product with measurables, and processes. Your control plans define your systems for the process and product controls.You have dimensional, physical, and chemical requirements. If you are supplying in the automotive suppy chain, and/or your customer is and says they want you to be certified then I don't see any difference than any other supplier.
 
S

Stan Sobota - 2011

#4
While the TS2 requirements are the same whether you supply parts or bulk materials, the customer specific requirements are different. You need to refer to the various customer generated documents such as Q1, and the Customer Specific requirements available from the IAOB (Americas). These intern bring into play other requirements identifying what is expected or what you need to provide depending on what you supply.
 

Bpoole

Registered Visitor
#5
We are also a raw materials supplier (Aluminum) and while the standard is written for parts, we must adapt. Some things are a bit harder than others, but you must make it work. If not applicable - just document "not applicable", that way you reconized the requirement and have addressed it.
 
T

TedCambron

#6
What?

Bpoole said:
We are also a raw materials supplier (Aluminum) and while the standard is written for parts, we must adapt. Some things are a bit harder than others, but you must make it work. If not applicable - just document "not applicable", that way you reconized the requirement and have addressed it.
You are very wrong!!!
The standard is written for product and services (which is a type of product).
Is aluminum raw material? If you're a raw material supplier what do you call your suppliers and what are your supplier's suppliers called? Think about it!
I bet you supply a metal strip or blank product.
 

Bpoole

Registered Visitor
#7
We supply molten aluminum. A very "raw material". Our suppliers are scrap yards that are not ISO certified and never will be.
The last AIAG conference, Joe Bransky from GM was ask a similar question about raw material suppliers and if anything would ever be adapted for us - his reply was that an automobile has between 15-17K parts and few "raw materials" that it is not worth the effort to change for raw material suppliers.
Raw bulk suppliers are the minority, so we must adapt and get over it.
 
B

Baldrick

#8
You're both right!

I worked for one of the world's biggest steelmakers for 15 years, 12 of those in quality, the past 6 in supplier quality assurance.

Ted is right when he says that "the standard is written for product and services", but I think Bpoole was probably referring more to the way the standard is worded in some places - whilst it certainly applies to suppliers of raw materials, it is clearly aimed primarily at suppliers of parts and sub-assemblies (for example, 8.5.2.4 "The organisation shall analyse parts rejected by the customer's manufacturing plants, engineering facilities and dealerships...", or phrases such as Production Part Approval Process), for the reasons Bpoole states, i.e. "an automobile has between 15-17K parts and few raw materials".

My personal belief is that the supplier development section of the standard was not written with raw materials suppliers in mind.

Consider this comparison between two suppliers to an automotive manufacturer:

Supplier A supplies sealed unit headlamps
Supplier B supplies steel sheets

The customer incorporates the headlamp into the finished vehicle in its "as supplied" condition. The steel sheets are pressed into door panels, painted and attached to the car.

The question is - to what extent do Supplier A and Supplier B have to apply the Supplier Development clause of TS?

In my opinion, Supplier A has to apply the full weight of the clause back through the supply chain. The sealed unit headlamp is assembled from various parts purchased from sub-suppliers. The sub-supplier who manufactured the bulb in the headlamp unit may have purchased the filament from an even-lower tier supplier. In this case, the filament and bulb suppliers clearly have to be approved and developed in accordance with TS requirements, as their products appear in the finished vehicle in the as-supplied condition.

This, I believe, was the situation that the standard was written for.

However, Supplier B's suppliers (iron ore, coal, limestone etc.) have absolutely no impact at all on the steel sheets that are sold to the car maker. Variations in these raw materials are blended out long before the steel is even in liquid form. Final chemical trimming during steel making ensures that the steel is always at the correct chemical composition within fractions of a percent. Developing the ore suppliers has absolutely no value to the steel maker or the car maker. This doesn't mean we don't care about them - we monitor their quality, we penalise them financially if, say, the sulphur content is too high (not because it affects the finished product, but because we have to desulphurise the iron for longer when preparing it for steelmaking).

In short - the sub-suppliers of Supplier A can have a direct effect on the quality of the finished car, as they supply finished parts that are incorporated into the vehicle. The sub-suppliers of Supplier B can't, because their products are blended and altered physically and chemically under the control of Supplier B's TS-approved system.

I ran this past our registrar, and he accepted it as a sound strategy. I have yet to hear a solid argument against it, and also attended a seminar where I heard a representative from Jaguar state that they "didn't expect the company that supplies the steel to have its scrap suppliers developed".

Sorry to go on a bit, but this d*mn clause cost me 4 years of my life, and I have yet to meet two auditors who interpret it exactly the same. :frust:

Why? Because it just wasn't written with raw materials in mind...
 
T

TedCambron

#9
really?

Bpoole said:
We supply molten aluminum. A very "raw material". Our suppliers are scrap yards that are not ISO certified and never will be.
The last AIAG conference, Joe Bransky from GM was ask a similar question about raw material suppliers and if anything would ever be adapted for us - his reply was that an automobile has between 15-17K parts and few "raw materials" that it is not worth the effort to change for raw material suppliers.
Raw bulk suppliers are the minority, so we must adapt and get over it.
I've never heard of anybody supplying molten metal.
It's usually supplied as an ingot or reroll.
How do you transport molten metal?
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#10
TedCambron said:
I've never heard of anybody supplying molten metal.
It's usually supplied as an ingot or reroll.
How do you transport molten metal?
Not trying to speak for Bpoole but when we used to buy molten A380, it was delivered on a flatbed truck in two large crucibles. I believe we mostly ordered from a foundry in Rockford, IL. (around 80-90 miles away). The distance couldn't be too great or the metal would cool off.

For the last fifteen years or so, we have had our own "foundry" in place for our largest running alloy and buy ingot for the "special" parts. We also have some smaller holder/melter furnaces for the alloys needing "tweaking" with a specific element or two.
 
Top Bottom