Will TE Supplement be Updated for TS 16949

SteveTIB

SteveTIB
TE Sup for TS 16949

Fellow TE Suppliers, take a look at this months Quality Progress, QP Mailbag, pg. 12, "What Happens to Those Registered to QS-9000 TE?", particularly the last paragraph of Dan Reid's response!

Hmmmm......:vfunny:
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Not Worth The Investment

Surely one couldn't read this as "QS-9000 (not to mention the TE Supplement) was a flop. We didn't save squat." As another 'Miracle Cure' fades into the past. Will there be lessons learned? Nope. :thedeal: I started saying QS-9000 was dead meat in 1998....
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Oops... Me Sorry...

I was merging a thread and goofed - I accidentially dumped two responses... The question was asked what Dan Reid's response was. It was:

I cannot confirm your suspicion about a supplement to TS 16949. Remember, TS 16949 was a deliverable of the International Automotive Task Force, and the tooling and equipment supplement was one of the DC-F-GM manuals.

I haven't heard of any new initiative designed to update the TE supplement at this time, but there could eventually be customer specific updates for companies requiring TE certification.

The effort required to develop and come to a consensus on a common manual is substancial, and the appetite of companies to invest this much effort
given the payback is definitely on the wane. An easy alturnative may be for these customers to require their tooling and equipment suppliers to be ISO 9001:2000 certified.
 
B

barbt

TE - how long will it last?

After much research, I was finally told by my registrar today that no decision has been made as to the ultimate fate of TE.:confused:

He went on to tell me that an announcement has been made that QS9000/TE will remain recognized as a valid ISO certification through to the end of 2006.


What happens then has still not been decided.
 
D

db

Fate of TE

I don't think the fate of TE should be such a big issue. As I read ISO/TS 16949:2002, I cannot find any place where TE companies will have an overwhelming requirement that they cannot meet. I think 16949 will be a natural replacement to TE.

If anyone knows of an area of 16949 that a TE company cannot fulfill, let know.
 
B

barbt

Dave,


My frustration is that there is no official word as to the direction we should be taking, and that there is conflicting information as to what the TE companies should be working towards.

I think that I will give up trying to be proactive.
 
D

db

Lack of Communication

Barb, I understand your frustration. One of the major complaints about the B3 is that they clearly don't practice what they preach. As one supplier stated: "Tell me what the rules are TODAY, and follow them. Don't complain if I don't follow a rule that you never told me about."
 
R

Randy Stewart

Oh how familiar that sounds!!!:eek:

We were given the initiative of getting Q1 under Fords F&T which required TE9000 and R&M. I questioned their people on how to show R&M progress when you deliver a die DESIGN not build, nothing else. We also are required to use the customer design standards to design their die.

Exact words from the Ford buyer. "I don't know how you'll do it, you figure it out and let us know how you did it." Followed up with "I'll be here every other Wednesday for a progress report".

As most know, a major input to R&M is developed from customer feedback, of which I got very little from Ford. We once requested to change a cable location (die standard) because it would be getting cut every other die hit or so. The cable would require changing that could take an hour. We were told to change the connection at the box to a quick disconnect to speed repair time!!!! (MTTR not MTBF). It still cut the cable, but the repair was reduced by 50%!

For my time and effort I'm moving towards TS. It fits, there's not a lot of change required (basically roll out design control to the processes), and it will be required sooner or later.


:bigwave: :bigwave:
 
J

John Swartz

TS or not to TS?

I too am in a quandry. My company manufactures entire paint systems for the B3. From the time the raw part enters our system until it rolls out the other end all pretty, we build everything in between, sometimes even the building.

Our facility mostly builds all the sheet metal and material handling the balance is OEM equipment that's integrated into our system. It's easy to see how R&M fits, and I think we do it well. But as I see it, when the customer fails to supply us with failure data or other feedback, how can the B3 honestly expect us to continue providing R&M without anything in return?

I heartily agree with Marc! And I'll take it one step further, ALL automotive specific quality standards are doomed to failure if the automotive manufacturers continue to burden their suppliers with requirements they themselves ignore.

Us small 'Mom and Pop' TE type companies can not afford continuing in this manner and it will must come to a head before long.

The B3 should remove control of supplier quality from the hands of over burdened purchasing folks and consider placing the control into another group, QUALITY ASSURANCE, MAYBE!!!

:frust:

Wow! I feel a lot better! :vfunny:

Until clarification comes from these guys, I'm going to hold off on TS and just focus on 9001:2000. I think I'm safe in assuming I won't get burnt too bad going this route.
 

SteveTIB

SteveTIB
Re: Fate of TE

db said:

I don't think the fate of TE should be such a big issue. As I read ISO/TS 16949:2002, I cannot find any place where TE companies will have an overwhelming requirement that they cannot meet. I think 16949 will be a natural replacement to TE.

If anyone knows of an area of 16949 that a TE company cannot fulfill, let know.

db,

Dan Reids response to my letter was that, as far as the B3 is concerned, the cost and ROI of developing a TS 16949:2002 TE Sup is not warrented.

Not having read 16949:2002 I may be way off base but, Dan Reid's point in QP was that TS16949 addresses parts supplier (PPAP) issues for the B3 and that ISO 9001:2000 (no PPAP issues) will suffice for us TE suppliers, with possible "Customer Specific Requirements" TBD.


SteveTIB
 
Top Bottom