TS16949 going bye bye? New rumors

[Wes Bucey]

True. But certain aspects of this program clearly favored the OEMs as customers. They were originally the only listed stakeholders.

And the only customer specific requirements acknowledged on the IAOB list of CSR email addresses were OE's. Eventually, Delphi and Visteon were added. Then everyone else clamored to be recognized as well.

And, only OE customers were originally listed on the customer addendum to certs.

TS registration was not originally required of suppliers (tier 2). That developed later.

Those are 4 examples to back up the contention that the original intent was OE's only. It was the adding of Delphi and Visteon that changed the rules of who would be called "Customer."

There are certain references to customer that would only fit at the original OE level.

But, that is why I asked for feedback. I want to calibrate with other knowledgable auditors, so I am not out in left field.

Tsk! Tsk! If you're going to be "international" like ISO and TS, you have to use the preferred terms. Hence:
harmonize not calibrate

 

[vanputten]

"There are certain references to customer that would only fit at the original OE level."

Which references are these? I would like to learn more about this.

Thank you,

Dirk

 

[Helmut Jilling]

"There are certain references to customer that would only fit at the original OE level."

Which references are these? I would like to learn more about this.

Thank you,

Dirk

Several are listed in my previous post on this thread.

Several are listed in my last post, replying to your post on the other thread where we are discussing this same topic.

Several are found if you do a word search in the TS Rules on "customer."

And, TS FAQ 17 and TS SI #3.

However, I will be the first to admit, these are still not clear and definitive. That is why I was curious what other folks thought on this topic.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Tsk! Tsk! If you're going to be "international" like ISO and TS, you have to use the preferred terms. Hence:
harmonize not calibrate

I dunno....Wes. Harmonize still makes me think of a flock of hippies in long robes, howling at the moon....

 

[Helmut Jilling]

OBVIOUSLY, when TS was first released (by the OEMS), they (the OEMs) were the first ones to require certification of their direct suppliers. As TS permeated down the Automotive Supply Chain, automotive organizations, tier 2 or lower, became both customers and suppliers.

TS invokes ISO 9000 for definitions and makes no alteration to the definition of customer.

You're right. That's logical of course. But, I recall it was not just the early aspect, they spoke pretty adamently in the early stages about being very restrictive. Also, in the last couple years, the actuall comments from Detroit have been more inclusive. From what I saw, the actual practices and expectations have evolved, but the official ISO definitions did not. That might be a more accurate way to articulate my observation.

There is also the possibility that I am compeltely befuddled, but I don't think that is the case. I wish they had stayed with the original approach. It would have clarified a lot of the fuzzy stuff at the 3rd and 4th tiers.

 

[Albaman]

Thanks, i,ve heard that TS16949 is targeted to be revised to an ISO Standard.
As with QS9000 the auto manufacturers are stuffing up TS16949. They need to have the guts to dump their overburdening own individual QMS requirements (not counting forms & identity labels), and allow suppliers to use their own initiative, instead of the big brother attitude they are currently applying globally. EG. Five TS16949 manuals are needed to match the thickness of a copy of the GMH Supplier Quality Manual. Automotive suppliers are over governed, over burdened, and for very little return. Ford have more self owned requirements than ISO,EMS,and TS16949 rolled together. The day when we are using a big three agreed QMS standard, cars will be flying over our heads.

 

[ralphsulser]

Automotive suppliers are over governed, over burdened, and for very little return. Ford have more self owned requirements than ISO,EMS,and TS16949 rolled together. The day when we are using a big three agreed QMS standard, cars will be flying over our heads.

I like this part

 

[AndyN]

Thanks, i,ve heard that TS16949 is targeted to be revised to an ISO Standard.
As with QS9000 the auto manufacturers are stuffing up TS16949. They need to have the guts to dump their overburdening own individual QMS requirements (not counting forms & identity labels), and allow suppliers to use their own initiative, instead of the big brother attitude they are currently applying globally. EG. Five TS16949 manuals are needed to match the thickness of a copy of the GMH Supplier Quality Manual. Automotive suppliers are over governed, over burdened, and for very little return. Ford have more self owned requirements than ISO,EMS,and TS16949 rolled together. The day when we are using a big three agreed QMS standard, cars will be flying over our heads.

I had it from the IATF 'mouth' last week (while at the AIAG) that ISO/TS 16949 will never be a fully fledged 'ISO' standard. It will remain a TS since the IATF don't want to relinquish control over the content..........

Andy

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I had it from the IATF 'mouth' last week (while at the AIAG) that ISO/TS 16949 will never be a fully fledged 'ISO' standard. It will remain a TS since the IATF don't want to relinquish control over the content..........
Andy

I can understand that, but according to ISO's policy, after six years, a technical specification shall either be converted into an International Standard or be withdrawn.

Obviou$ly, the policy can be changed for a good rea$on....

 

[chaosweary]

How old would that make the TS standard now?