TS16949 Prerequisite - An organization must already be QS9000 certified?

[Sheila Akins]

TS16949 Prerequisite

Hello to all,
I have two quick questions for the forum;
1- Is there any requirement or prerequisite in TS16949 that states an organization must already be either QS9000 certified, or a supplier to the automotive industry before that company can engage or apply for TS16949 certification?

2- I have seen this document called "ISO/TS16949", "TS16949", and the terms "Standard" and "Specification" used inerchangably. Is this document an International Standard? Or a Customer Specification?

Any assitance and clarification that can be provided is greatly appreciated.

 

[Don Wood - 2011]

Preq's and Status

1. The only requirement is that your organization be part of the automotive supply chain. This has to be an unbroken link from your organization to an OEM (meaning not supplying parts through a distributor or some such arrangement). If you are not currently an automotive supplier, you must at least be at the stage of quoting business to an OEM or a tier supplier, and you must demonstrate capability to meet all TS and customer-specific requirements, according to the IAOB.

2. The correct title is "ISO/TS 16949:2002" Technically it's not a standard, it's a Technical Specification. As far as we're concerned, it's a standard - it has requirements you have to comply to. Customer specific requirements refer to requirements over and above TS 16949 specific to a given customer (i.e. GM, Ford or Daimler-Chrysler Customer Specifics, or a Tier 1's SQA manual)

I'm about ready to hit the ol' Playstation 2 here, so someone else can tell you the difference between a standard and a TS, if you're interested!

Don Wood
Licensed Plexus Trainer/TS 16949 CB Auditor Examiner

 

[Manoj Mathur]

First Part of Question is nicely replied by Mr. Don. For second part, I would like to add that If a Draft Documents gets more than 75% valid votes it is called as a Standard. In the year 1999 when Documents of 16949 was born, it couldn't get the required votes to be called as Standard hence it is called as Technical Specifications. Though in the year 2002 it has got more than 85% votes still it has been decided to keep as ISO/TS 16949 and not full fledge standard. I strongly belive in three years time when there will be more control of ISO on this document , automatically Specs word would be removed. Till than bear with this word of IATF.

 

[M Greenaway]

Great to see you back again Don.

Might I recommend Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4 for the PS2 (and 3 for that matter).

 

[Laura M]

Don,

Do all products the company produces need to meet all requirements of TS, or just the automotive products? A good example of a requirement I'm concerned about would be pre-lauch control plans for non-automotive product. Some jobs are a 100 piece run for the nonautomotive product. The automotive is usually substantial requirements, and the control plan section makes sense.

Laura

 

[Manoj Mathur]

Laura I Don't know I shoud give the reply or not because you asked to Don only but since the same query was generated in my mind due to one issue regarding TS Certification in my plant and asked by me to TUV, I thought I sould reply.

Theoritically speaking As for as the System is concerned You Can't have two Systems one QMS for one product and another for other. You just imagine Management review, Corrective and Preventive Action, Control of Non Conforming Products etc. But yes If you segregate some equipments and Machinary which are nowhere related to your process from others that are under QMS to TS, I feel you can apply your Non-Auto logic.
We in our plant are manufacturing Aluminum Foils on one hand and Aluminum Alloy Wheels on the other. All commercials, such as Logistics, Purchasing, Stores, Warehousing, HRD was common and We were audited for all the fuctions, While we got certified only for Wheel manufacturing and not for Foil Manufacturing in TS Certification.

 

[Sam]

Laura,
From the "Rules", The scope of certification shall include all products supplied to customers subscribing to the certificationto ISO/TS 16949-2000.

Beyond that statement, think PROCESS not PRODUCT. If you have a process that produces both Automotive and non-automotive the process must meet TS2 requirements.
IMO the best place to address the issue is in the process definition.
Example:
1- Question - OEM
2- Answer - YES
3- Result - TS2 requirements
4- Answer - NO
5- Result - Non- automotive requirements.

 

[Laura M]

Thanks Sam,

For clarrification, all requirements such as- business plan, quality planning, Corrective action, etc have been implemented for the whole company. Its just the sticky process control plan requirement where "pre-launch MAY be required." Is that on demand from the customer? Because the customer demanding registration has never even asked for pre-launch.

Also - by process is a good point. They machine various shapes and sizes of the same thing. My intent is to use the prelaunch CP in new applications of existing equipment - for example a metal they haven't machined before, or if they purchase a new machine. But not for every product brought in for existing equipement.

I'm pretty comfortable with how this all was handled under QS - I'm just looking for a little reassurance under the TS requirement.

Thanks - Laura

 

[Don Wood - 2011]

Auto and non-auto

Sam and Manoj are both correct. If you have a distinct production line making non-automotive products, then that would be beyond the scope of TS2 audits. If you're running both automotive and non-automotive products on the same line, that line MUST comply with all TS2 requirements.

The question becomes, why would you WANT to divide your system? The additional requirements of TS2 over and above ISO 9K:2K are intended to improve quality and thus SAVE organizations money. If you're approaching TS2 (or ISO 9K:2K, for that matter) with the mindset of "Gee, I just need to comply with this so I can get the paper on the wall and the customer off my back", you're missing the primary intent of both standards - making it right the first time is the most cost-effective way to run a business.

I urge you to do just what we preach in the CB auditor classes (and all of Plexus' classes) - look at those requirements, and identify what the INTENTS are for each clause. Why are these requirements here? Why did the the writers of this document agree that this requirement would benefit organizations and their customers? The overwhelming majority of what's in TS2 is pretty darn hard to argue with.

I was forced to implement a split QMS back in the day, over my strenuous objections, and as I predicted it was nothing but trouble. Consider carefully before making the same mistakes I was compelled to make. BTW, about 4 years later that organization lost over 40% of it's sales, and ended up laying off or firing most of it's staff and being bought out by one of it's suppliers. Word to the wise.

Pre-launch control plans aren't an option in TS2 - check out 7.5.1.1 - that's a "shall". During development, typically a pre-launch CP ID's ALL the controls the MAY be needed to assure quality. The intent is, as the process is proved out and capability, run-at-rate, maintainability is established, controls are RELAXED in the production CP for the best of reasons - to save money while assuring the same level of quality. Who cares whether or not the CUSTOMER asks for it? It's a good idea for YOU!

Don Wood

 

[Laura M]

Philosophically, Don, I do not disagree with anything you said. And I am NOT advocating for a split QMS I never have. However, some products are 100 piece runs turned around in 2 days from receipt of print and PO. That's the reality. Now - the processes (ie., type of mill, lathe, etc) may be used for automotive or not. There are no "lines" in this company, just mill and lathe machines. That's why in my statement above, I indicate that something new to processing would use a prelaunch - for example - if they had a contract for machining plastic and they have never done that before. Other products - made out of machines and materials that they have been running for years, would come in with standard process controls and we wouldn't have a prelaunch CP. They would also review these standard type products for unique features or tolerance different from the past. I would think standard diameters and tolerances become part of a "family" control plan. So back to the TS auditors - would they really be looking for what we did for prelaunch of every new product - or is the by process (machine/material) approach acceptable.

Feeling a bit like I need to defend myself, I/we do look at the intest of every clause. We changed many things there with my advice and their agreement. Being a small shop in the business of making some money, we also look at the practicality in application. In the 100 piece example described above - it would be easier (read cheaper) to 100% inspect a short run rather than using quality resources to create a prelaunch control plan. (Short run SPC is a way's off in this company, but we are discussing it.) A family pre-launch for all new processes is the current approach.

Thanks for the input.