TS16949 going bye bye? New rumors

[Sidney Vianna]

OK, Sidney! Which one [or ten!] prescriptive requirement do you think is [are] the most egregious slap in the face to a supplier?

Wes, I believe that what automotive suppliers resent the most is not the "WHAT", but the "HOW". Managing a huge supply chain such as the Automotive one is a highly complex proposition. Having TS as a "common" standard, satisfying several customers, is a benefit, from a supplier's perspective.
Even though prescriptive, when compared to many other standards, TS can be applied in a straightforwardly manner.
But because is mandated through a certification scheme, and the certification process does not always work as intended, it creates grief for many auto suppliers.

 

[Jim Wynne]

But because is mandated through a certification scheme, and the certification process does not always work as intended, it creates grief for many auto suppliers.

In the same way that nature abhors a vacuum, the American automotive industry loves a bureaucracy, which is what 16949 creates for suppliers (as did QS 9000 before it). But as has been stated many times before, the standard itself is an innocent bystander, powerlessly watching the train wreck. In most companies, the standards become self-inflicted wounds rather than reasonable frameworks for doing business. In a recent thread here, someone posted looking for help as to who should be responsible for document control, and the company in question was already registered. I think it's safe to say that if responsibility and authority for a major "shall" hasn't been established, the company has failed to meet the intent of the standard.

The problem isn't the standard, and it isn't the registrars, and it isn't the auditors. The problem is that the OEMs and the suppliers, for the most part, lack the intellectual assets to be able to build and sustain an efficacious system.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The problem isn't the standard, and it isn't the registrars, and it isn't the auditors. The problem is that the OEMs and the suppliers, for the most part, lack the intellectual assets to be able to build and sustain an efficacious system.

I deeply respect your opinion, but I do think that many registrars and auditors are part of the problem, too. I do reckon, however, that the root cause of the problems is the dysfunctional relationship between domestic automotive customers and suppliers "developed" over many decades. As mentioned in a thread many moons ago, the ISO 9000 principle of "mutually beneficial relationships" is totally ignored by a number of domestic automotive customers...

 

[vanputten]

" Having TS as a "common" standard, satisfying several customers, is a benefit, from a supplier's perspective."

I even question this benefit. I wish TS satisfied several customers.

We still get onsite audits by our automotive customers. We still have to address Customer Specific Requirements in addition to TS. We still have additional quality agreements.

Quality Management Principle #8 is certainly ignored in many cases. So are the other 7 principles.

Regards,

Dirk

 

[engjane]

But there was a time (back when QS started to grow) that Ford GM and Chrysler were ruling the OEM roost. Now they're not.....Toyota, Honda, etc are all starting to be big players and how much do they care about TS? Not a lot by the seem of it.
So with this in mind, surely people like Ford, GM and DC are questioning their principles?

Just cos you got TS don't mean you got a future is what seems to be the echo in OE land at the moment....

Just my opinon

 

[ralphsulser]

One of the things we are seeing since the shake ups within the B3 is new/different STEs, and different STEs within the same company with different responsibillities, and each has their own ideas how they want things done Since this is half of our business we can't very well ask them to show us the "shall" because they take a hard line. They are :ca: and going to want more not less. So, next week we have 2 from the same company coming in during the same days

The boss doesn't want to rock the boat, so here we go again

Just think, last year I was happy to get TS certified system and meet customer specifics. Now, different customers with new twists. I realize change is constant, but I rarely see change for the better

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...
Just cos you got TS don't mean you got a future is what seems to be the echo in OE land at the moment....

TS was never a guarantee or promise of anything. It is merely a toolbox of tools that help a supplier run a better company, if they use the tools well.

If they run a better company, then they might earn the right to supply product. It never replaced the free enterprise system.

 

[chaosweary]

Just think, last year I was happy to get TS certified system and meet customer specifics. Now, different customers with new twists. I realize change is constant, but I rarely see change for the better

I feel your pain. I am pushing hard that changing requirments such as these, are put in a contractual addendum and we charge marginal amounts to cover. TS states you must adhere to customer requirements it doesn't state that you cannot charge for them. Again that brings us back to that wise statement, having to meet customer specific requirment kind of defeats the nature of having a standard.

 

[Icy Mountain]

OK, Sidney! Which one [or ten!] prescriptive requirement do you think is [are] the most egregious slap in the face to a supplier?

(Everybody in addition to Sidney is also invited to empathize, sympathize, or vent on behalf of the folks caught in in the switches of TS16949.)

7.4.1.2 Supplier Quality Management System Development
We are a small company with 68 employees. We currently have a Tier 1 Supplier to one of the big three that would like us to develop a product for them. At a quoted rate of 3,800 units per year, how am I supposed to have every supplier for this product achieve ISO registration? We have a couple of VERY good machine shops, small outfits of 4 or 5 employees run by mechanical geniuses. They simply cannot afford registration and why should they. I get better parts, more consistently, at a better price, than the big ISO9001 outfits that no bid this small quantity! I have to validate the entire product and then provide 100% OTD and <100PPM defects lineside, every single failure at the customer results in a 200% backcharge. If they weren't top flight suppliers, why in h3ll would I use them? I have a TS registered system, obviously, I am not an idiot.

7.3.6.3 Product Approval Process
This product and manufacturing process approval procedure shall also be applied to suppliers.
We make electronic systems, not camshafts or axles. I have a product going to a TS subscriber that contains over 1,000 different components on the printed circuit boards alone. Does anyone really think that I can get a PPAP from Motorola for a MMBTA06LT1 80V 500mA transistor? Get real. I placed about 500,000 of these little guys before you showed up as a customer. I've never had a failure. Short course, waive this requirement or you'll never get the product.

As for cost, we pass the extra requirements right to the customer, especially during development. Said Tier 1 above waived PPAP altogether when they found out that it represented 1/3 of the total development cost. I guess full dimensionals on 300 pieces of an injection molded plastic case whose design requirements were "smaller than a group 58 battery" really aren't that important. For Pete's sake guys, I understand all this for an axle, 1M units per year, safety related, blah, blah, blah. Learn to deal on a case-by-case basis and use some common sense. Half your SQA's and project managers don't even know the requirements that your auditors will put on us when they witness PPAP two weeks before product release. Don't be the school principal that expels the first grader for kissing a girl on the cheek because he's violated the REDACTED harassment policy and should be labeled a sex offender.

Rant over. -Icy

Comparison:
'07 Ford Focus, 2.0L 4cyl, 136hp, 136 ft-lb, 37 MPG, $14,320 stripped
'06 Toyota Corolla, 1.8L 4cyl, 126hp, 122 ft-lb, 41 MPG, $14,105 stripped
No contest. I might not come off the line as fast but I'll still be driving a decent Toyota in 2016 and not a rattletrap POS with $2K worth of aftermarket parts in it.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

7.4.1.2 Supplier Quality Management System Development
We are a small company with 68 employees. We currently have a Tier 1 Supplier to one of the big three that would like us to develop a product for them. At a quoted rate of 3,800 units per year, how am I supposed to have every supplier for this product achieve ISO registration? We have a couple of VERY good machine shops, small outfits of 4 or 5 employees run by mechanical geniuses. They simply cannot afford registration and why should they. I get better parts, more consistently, at a better price, than the big ISO9001 outfits that no bid this small quantity! I have to validate the entire product and then provide 100% OTD and <100PPM defects lineside, every single failure at the customer results in a 200% backcharge. If they weren't top flight suppliers, why in h3ll would I use them? I have a TS registered system, obviously, I am not an idiot....

Well, per my previous post a few weeks ago, this scenario should pose no problem. You are tier 2, your supplier is tier 3, and therefore falls below the requirement. The development clause was stated as for "suppliers" which originally was defined as a tier 2 position (supplier to an organization - tier 1).