TS16949 - What extras over the ISO 9001:2008? Gap Analysis

[TPMB4]

Basically I'm looking into what is involved in modifying a QMS that is certified to ISO 9001:2008 (looking to transition to 2015 next year I think). How much more effort is needed?

That is perhaps not the right question but I guess I am asking a simplified version of what is the difference in an ISO9001 and TS 16949 compliant system? We are not even a medium company with very limited quality resources to manage a transition to TS16949 if it is too onerous. Will the QMS need significantly re-writing? Will there be many new processes to add?

I guess I need a kind of gap analysis between ISO9001:2008 and the current TS16949 version.

Anyone help advise?

P.S. I do not have even the spare budget to get the technical standard until the decision is made to go for it. I really need to find convincing arguments to go for it, such as it is not (what I believe is called) a wall to wall quality system or it isn't much more work/cost/effort.

P.P.S. We supply into a range of markets but automotive is the major one. We seem to be put under more pressure to go for TS16949 these days. It feels like the old days when there was a high critical mass to the early quality standards that it became expected you would go for it. Kind of less of a differentiator and more like a necessity to do business. Is that true? Either way I feel we are probably conforming to most of it (PPAP, FMEA, APQP, MSA, SPC where possible/practical). To me it just seems that we need to formalize it and get the workforce to understand and buy into it. They are only just getting the importance of ISO9001 and the QMS we operate to.

 

[Golfman25]

A couple of thoughts.

First, until the new TS version comes out I wouldn't worry about it. Working toward the old version could be wasted time.

With that, I would look to get ISO 2015 version up and running first, then build your TS off that.

As far as the differences, under the old versions vanilla TS isn't all that difficult. If you have auto customers you're probably doing the apqp and ppap stuff already. The problem comes in when you have a "auto centric" auditor arrive who can't see the reality of your business. The next thing you know, you're being nickeled and dimed with non-conformances, few of which are substantive. For example, we had a guy try to tell us that we need to do a complete electrical evaluation for preventive maintenance, among other things - all based on his experience with the big players. Completely unnecessary for our organization. Good luck.

 

[TPMB4]

Yes I'm thinking 9001 : 2015 should be first priority. Our 3 year cycle restarted too close to the new standard to recertify to it. This means we'll use one of the surveillance audits as a conversion audit to the current standard.

At this stage I just need to explain to senior management the implications of going for TS. Cost of implementation isn't really possible, just got no idea. What I reckon I could do is explain the extras needed over ISO. I've seen a gap analysis between TS and ISO on here that I'm using for this. Just hope I'm not missing something by doing this.

We're a small company. Is TS really for a larger company? Probably stupid question but my reason to ask is whether the extras will require the few employees involved in running qms side of things will result in a lot of extra work. A boss once described it as wall to wall quality that would need more than doubling of the quality team. I'm not so sure that's right.

The way I see things is that we're doing most of it already. The only real change is that we have to be almost more professional about it across the board. What I mean is be slicker and get more commitment / involvement from all personnel. At the moment there are still a lot who see quality as the responsibility of Quality Control with QC checking everything. Some get it but a lot don't.

 

[howste]

I guess I need a kind of gap analysis between ISO9001:2008 and the current TS16949 version.

Anyone help advise?

Here's a checklist for you to look at. All of the red sections are TS 16949 requirements above ISO 9001:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13032

 

[Golfman25]

Yes I'm thinking 9001 : 2015 should be first priority. Our 3 year cycle restarted too close to the new standard to recertify to it. This means we'll use one of the surveillance audits as a conversion audit to the current standard.

At this stage I just need to explain to senior management the implications of going for TS. Cost of implementation isn't really possible, just got no idea. What I reckon I could do is explain the extras needed over ISO. I've seen a gap analysis between TS and ISO on here that I'm using for this. Just hope I'm not missing something by doing this.

We're a small company. Is TS really for a larger company? Probably stupid question but my reason to ask is whether the extras will require the few employees involved in running qms side of things will result in a lot of extra work. A boss once described it as wall to wall quality that would need more than doubling of the quality team. I'm not so sure that's right.

The way I see things is that we're doing most of it already. The only real change is that we have to be almost more professional about it across the board. What I mean is be slicker and get more commitment / involvement from all personnel. At the moment there are still a lot who see quality as the responsibility of Quality Control with QC checking everything. Some get it but a lot don't.

The problem with comparing the 2008 and 2009 versions is it is yesterdays news. I would at least wait until the new TS version is published to see what they did. Right now it's a big secret -- better kept then some peoples emails.

As for company size, I think it is geared for a larger, more bureaucratic organization. I lot of the requirements have to do with managing that bureaucracy. Auditors tend to have a large company mentality as that is where they spend most of their time. Well large companies need meeting minutes, reports, summaries, etc. to prove they did something. It's much different when the President of the company is involved day, to day. Many individuals wear different hats.

The other issue is it removes a lot of flexibility to do what works best for your company. And when one thing happens in the auto world, you feel the reaction at your next audit. Eventually, "best practices" are adopted as pseudo "requirements." Depending on what you make, and your business, a lot of it can be overkill. I know it is for us.

 

[TPMB4]

IMHO the first priority is the switch to ISO 9001:2015. That should happen within a year to tie in to the first surveillance audit.

At this stage I agree there is no point in the effort of gaining the current TS certification only to need to implement changes to transition to the new one which I am guessing should be imminent (this year or early next I assume).

What I feel I have to do is lay the groundwork. To say we are here and currently TS certification needs something along the lines of these changes/improvements. I have the distinct impression TS requires more resources than an ISO 9001 certified system. Things which in a small company might not be needed.

Our company does a few things well. The processes are all known and well controlled. Product conforms to requirements because the process can achieve greater level of control than is needed for the customer tolerances on key characteristics. What this means is we rarely need to carry out SPC techniques for example. IMHO I expect that a lot of the TS requirements are a bit excessive to our company's activities and excessive to achieve conformity to customer requirements.

However, we are still under pressure to go for TS certification from customers. My fear is we will lose out on bidding for work without it. The other worry is if we do go for it the changes or additions to our system that we have to put in could become onerous for our company size and human resources.

The other thing I am looking at is the sections related to a kind of employee buy into the whole quality ethos. What I mean is there seams to be clauses that have requirements that employees need to understand more about quality than is needed for ISO 9001. That is the technical and the quality aspects of processes if that makes sense. Clause 6.2.2.4 I think. Our employee buy in has not progressed much further than the idea that Quality is there to check everything. No matter what you say to them they will just think you are trying to get out of doing your job. They still however do what is required of them with regards to the quality system just that they don't understand that they are doing that. If this makes sense, I'm not good at explaining it I think.