Ts16949 - Company Does Not Want To Invest

[ChuckHughes]

Lee

TS, like QS, is expensive to implement. You can only measure the ROI, initially, on the potential increase in sales this status will bring. You don't need TS to implement continuous improvements and the ROI for such things as Six Sigma, Lean Mfg, etc, will accrue to you when you implement these programs. TS is not a prerequisite for improvement programs.

TS, like QS, is "marketed" as necessary to participate in the great domestic automotive business. It is your ticket to great wealth, happiness, fame, fortune... sorry the propaganda gets to me. We who have audited in the QS world know that QS was never a "real" requirement. Many parts of your GM vehicle were made by non QS or ISO certified suppliers. Price, availablity and competitive advantage dictate, not QS certfication.

It sounds like the decision to go TS hinges on the potential benefits to be gained or lost. With 4% sales to OEM service parts, that may be not be a significant loss. Would saving the estimated $15K to implement and register offset the loss? Where's the money going?

 

[Crusader]

All very good points. Thanks! All I can do is support my Mgmt 's decision. I know the company did gain business because we were certified to "something". One division, which had no quality system when it was acquired, improved in quality/reliability tremendously and so did sales as a result.

 

[Murphys Law]

We are currently QS9000 registered and as a Management Rep I have been pushing for TS, I recieved quotes to get an outside contractor to help us since we are under the gun.

Now my company says they want to avoid it. Our customers are requiring us to be TS but they won't do it.

I am at a loss, what happens now.

It depends on imapct of automotive to your company. If the business wants to maintain biz, TS16949 is an enabler.

You may want to costs it another way. I am surpized that the delta costs of implementing QS9000 vs TS16969 would be that much. If you wanted to start from scratch, that would be another matter

Back in days of QS9000 I was in charge of putting together our strategy for certification. Of some business groups, automotive was 80% of business and it was a no brainer. On another, the automotive content was 5% and majority was older designs. We needed QS9000 on new designs only which was not that big a volume in comparison to other industry segments. We went to the customer and told them we would pursue QS9000 on the new designs. In one case, customer told us they needed QS9000 so we left it to themselves to design us out. (They loved the part so it was their loss). We had other business with non-US companies that didn't require QS9000.

Nowday, TS16949 and ISO 2000 have a lot of similarity with exception of automotive specific methods such as PPAP.

Work with your auditor about shaving down the costs. You should need ISO9000 from your non-automotive business.