|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 TS 16949
 TR16949 replaces QS9K?
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: TR16949 replaces QS9K? |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 01 September 1998 01:09 PM
   
I can't find anything in this forum about this "trial" ISO standard called TR16949, but if it is somewhere in this forum, let me know. I saw an article in Quality Digest (web version) where Steve Walsh (Ford) is quoted as saying that this ancillary document to ISO 9000 is an international automotive standard (it is currently out for review) and that suppliers will have a choice to be registered to either QS9K or TR16949. Has anyone else heard about this and is there any more information on it. This seems like a "bombshell" concept, but it was tucked away at the very end of the article. IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 01 September 1998 04:08 PM
I talked to someone who heard from the horses mouth as recently as Monday of last week, that the b3 intend on replacing QS9K with IS0-16949. I have a copy of this and it is not significantly different from QS. It is an attempt by the international automotive makers to have one automotive quality standard. So it combines all the VDA-6s and European standards into one automotive standard. Not a bad idea eh? The BIG bombshell came when he also told me the b3 wants to be the only registrar!!!! The Independant Association of Accredited Registrar's (IAAR) is fighting this of course, but the b3 want this to be the gospel by the beginning of 1999!!! He said he would pass along the minutes from that meeting so I can see for myself what was discussed. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 02 September 1998 06:01 PM
Christian = I do hope you keep us informed. Any chance of getting a copy of the draft you have? I'll have a few more comments when I get a few minutes. ROGER - You can find out what's in any forum. Look at the upper right of the page where the PREFs and such is. This new software version does have a SEARCH function . It's pretty fast and easy. IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 03 September 1998 09:30 AM
A dumb question perhaps, but are you saying that Le Grand Trois want to be the people who are registering firms to this standard? If so, that is a bombshell!!! It seems that they are hard-pressed to keep up with the questions about QS from their suppliers! How in the world would they hope to register suppliers? This is another case of "Truth is stranger than fiction" in the automotive world. This sure does bring up a lot of questions (if things are panning out this way). By the way, Marc, I did see the Search function after I posted this (I just didn't edit my message). Thanks. This is a great forum. [This message has been edited by Roger Eastin (edited 09-03-98).] [This message has been edited by Roger Eastin (edited 09-03-98).] IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 03 September 1998 10:16 AM
No that's not a dumb question, because it seems so hard to believe. Yes the b3 are the one who want to registrar firms. It is the contention of the b3 that the registrar's "screwed up" QS-9000. Many firms that have no business being certified are being certified. This I agree with. The b3 also talked about "blessing" a couple of the more reputable registrars and giving them exclusive rights to registrar companies. Unfortuatly, the registrars they mentioned are the ones I hear the most complaints about, and they have been mentioned several times on this forum! These "reputable" registrars are very big and have a lot of money to buy those rights from the b3. Marc- I'll keep ya updated. The draft document is pretty long and it was faxed to me so it wont fax well, but if you want "e" me your address and I'll send it to ya. IP: Logged |
|
Scott Knutson Forum Contributor Posts: 35 |
posted 03 September 1998 06:46 PM
I heard the same thing Christian did just last night from the mule's mouth. However, I did not hear about the exclusivity part. That just tans my hide! It does add to the addage that money talks, no matter what you're saying! IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 03 September 1998 07:00 PM
It doesn't really surprise me with consideration to the money involved. I have never hesitated to say the QS thing has nothing to do with quality. Look what Dan Reid and the gang did with the Plexus thing. It has to do with money to the big 3. With consideration of registrar fees, I sure would like to be the only company allowed to register companies to QS. Jeez - probably make nearly as much as they do making cars - if not more! They may 'blame' the registrars for 'screwing up QS9000' but they wouldn't take the heat for the crappy cars they build when the Japanese started to gain repeat customers - they BLAMED the Japanese for THEIR problems (my 1989 Mazda 626 just turned over 260,000 miles, by the way, with NO major repairs - best car I ever owned). Registrars did not 'screw up' QS9000. The big 3 released a book of their 'common' requirements (and the latest and 'greatest' is no better in my opinion) which needed endless interpretations (and still does) to'explain'. In short QS9000 is a hack, has been, and still is. Can you imagine if all your customer requirements (and QS9000 is NOTHING MORE THAN a Customer REQUIREMENT) required pages upon pages of interpretations. The interpretations even needed interpretation! What does that tell us? So - the big3 are expanding their business scope to include 'registrations'! I guess GM can't get rid of their 'extra baggage' so they may as well find jobs for them! Sounds like millions of cash money dollars (and yen and marks and pounds, etc) to me! Wonder how I can get a cut!!!! Well, enough diatribe. I gotta pack so I can leave town right after I finish classes tomorrow. want to get home and 'holiday' with everyone else.... IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 15 September 1998 01:20 PM
I just got done reading TR16949 and, for a while, I thought I was reading the 3rd edition of QS9K! However, it does have some interesting differences. I am not as aware of the other European standards, but apparently this document got some of its requirements from those standards. It is still hard to believe that they want this document applied by 1 Jan 99 and that the Big Three want to be the auditors!!!! Also, can it really be true that suppliers will have a choice between this document and QS9K (according to Steve Walsh) for registration? IP: Logged |
|
Mike Hilliard Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 2 |
posted 21 September 1998 02:44 PM
Hey Marc! The forum idea is just great. PS did you get any work from the Benz folks in Japan? They are strangely quite over there.... How can a simple guy like me get hold of a copy of the ISO (TR) 16949? Is this going to blow up in our faces later this year? I'm right in the middle of a major rewrite of all our documents in order to conform to the Third Edition. Think I should wait a bit? Or just keep going? Mike Hilliard IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 25 September 1998 02:08 AM
Never heard from them - no surprise. I have no idea where to get a copy. Let us know if you find one. I would bet things will be stable for a year or two. IP: Logged |
|
barb butrym Forum Contributor Posts: 637 |
posted 27 September 1998 11:48 AM
well I have dredged through the copy, and don't see where the big three will be doing the registration, just that AIAG will control..(as they do now?) or am I missing something? Perhaps that was implied, and discussed elsewhere? Looks similar ..... no great surprises there, just a few interesting notes. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 27 September 1998 01:08 PM
Is the January 1999 date heresay or has someone seen it written somewhere? Am I missing something (which is likely)? I see it is 'labeled' a "technical report". Comments? IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 29 September 1998 12:42 PM
The only thing I know for sure is what I read in Quality Digest magazine. That is where I read Steve Walsh's comments on TR16949 (my first message in this thread). Since then, I have heard several individuals say various things, such as the implementation date of 1 Jan 99. I haven't seen anything else confirmed as of yet. I suspect the "TR" will come off when it has been reviewed and considered "auditable". Walsh said that would happen in November. Recently, I heard that only Ford was going to adapt it (for the near term). Welcome to the QS/ISO free-for-all... IP: Logged |
|
barb butrym Forum Contributor Posts: 637 |
posted 30 September 1998 07:38 AM
looks like a viable replacement...an improvement actually......It will be interesting to see how it is phased in. As long as there are no exclusivity rights to registrars I'll embrace it IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 30 September 1998 01:13 PM
Since my first response to Roger's original posting, I have obtained the minutes from the meeting held 8/25/98 where the B3 first dropped this bombshell. It is all true about what the B3 plan to do. Nothing has been decided since then, but I will be sure to post anything that I see documented concerning their decisions. IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 30 September 1998 03:13 PM
What meeting was held on 8/25? Was this an AIAG meeting, ASQ meeting, or a B3 meeting with suppliers? It is interesting that one hears about these things through meandering communication lines (although I suspect that Christian has a straighter connection than others). An application date of 1 Jan 99 doesn't give suppliers much time to respond. I agree with Barb that the document looks like a good one, but in the ISO standards world, a turn-around time of 6 months (from the time I first heard about it anyway) seems almost like a time warp. Usually ISO likes to study these things for a lot longer time than this. Areas like the B3 being the auditors (along with a select few others) and the fact that this document seems to merge QS with VDA6 more, take time for a supplier to assimilate (intellectually, let alone to one's Quality System). Should we have a folder for this new standard? 1 January is just around the corner... IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 30 September 1998 10:18 PM
This reminds me of the Plexus meeting a while ago. It's a matter of how close you are to the source. When this topic was posted I immediately e-mailed my 'close group'. One fellow wrote back saying "Yeah - we've been working on it for a while new" (note that 'while' was not defined). He sent me the copy that is posted. Man - we must be pretty far down the feed chain. I'm trying to find a publication which catches these 'incidents' early. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 27 November 1999 04:16 AM
Well, it's been a year now since this thread was started. How long you figure it will take QS9000 to die? Comments anyone? By the way - the ISO folks e-mailed a bitch so the posted document was removed. Sorry about that! [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 27 November 1999).] IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 27 November 1999 10:17 PM
Marc: Question #1 = Is that "Da Cheech Wizard" as it appears in National Lampoon magazine? Reply #1 = I think that QS will be ending very soon, Chrysler is obviously going to go with ISO 16949 the perfect mixture between the US QS and the German VDA, why would GM and Ford continue to waste money and support 2 seperate standards that say basically the same thing? Reply #2 = Why is the ISO group so touchy? Is it because they have become so out of touch with this ISO 9000:2000 that they had to bailed out by the automakers? Give us a break ISO. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 27 November 1999 10:33 PM
Yeah - from NatLapCo back in the 1970's. And I remain a radical.
quote:Which ISO group and what do you mean by touchy? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 29 November 1999 10:03 PM
I meant the "By the way - the ISO folks e-mailed a bitch so the posted document was removed. Sorry about that!" ISO folks IP: Logged |
|
dewie Forum Contributor Posts: 44 |
posted 30 November 1999 12:32 PM
Where can I get the copy of TR16949? I tried the pdf file, but there's nothing. Can anybody give me the idea? One more dumb question. What TR and TS accronym for? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 30 November 1999 01:26 PM
I hadda take down the copy that was posted as the AIAG, as usual, bitched about copyright. Shoot me an e-mail if you want a copy. IP: Logged |
|
dewie Forum Contributor Posts: 44 |
posted 01 December 1999 10:00 AM
Thanks for help. My email address is [email protected]hoo.com IP: Logged |
|
Jackie Jolly Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 8 |
posted 06 December 1999 12:51 PM
QS and all of their interpretations has been a real source of agony for me. When I first heard of TR16949 I almost had a panic attack. But after having read it, I thought it read better than QS. At any rate I have three Question 1)I'd like to know more about the "Plexus Thing" The Wizard spoke of.I have an opinion here but think I should save it so not to stomp on toes! 2)Who are the Registrars you were refering to? And 3)What is the opinion of UL as a registrar? Thanks for the Input! IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 06 December 1999 12:59 PM
The Plexus 'thing' is at Elsmar.com/plexus.html I'm not sure which post your 2nd question is asking about (registrars. Stay away from UL as registrar unless you're a masochist. IP: Logged |
|
Jackie Jolly Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 8 |
posted 07 December 1999 03:19 PM
"The b3 also talked about "blessing" a couple of the more reputable registrars and giving them exclusive rights to registrar companies. Unfortuatly, the registrars they mentioned are the ones I hear the most complaints about, and they have been mentioned several times on this forum! These "reputable" registrars are very big and have a lot of money to buy those rights from the b3." This was what I was refering to. Which registrars were you speaking of? Thanks for the "Plexus Deal" it was very enlightening to say the least. I still will refrain from voicing my opinion on this. But from what I understand we are looking into other options. Thanks for the help! IP: Logged |
|
B. Maynard Forum Contributor Posts: 23 |
posted 08 December 1999 08:54 AM
I have the First edition (1999-03-01)2nd. printing. The new Manual converted to ISO/TS 16949 will be available at www.wdm-qs9000-y2k.com and ISO 14000 in Jan. 2000. Also includes. File #1. QS-9000 3rd. Edition System Manual (85 pages) File #2. QS-9000 3rd. Edition Procedures Manual (210 Pages) File #3. APQP Procedure. File #4. Control Plan Format. File #5. Q.C. & Operator Work Instructions and Procedures. File #6. Traceability Forms and Procedures. File #7. FEMA Forms File #8. Q-Fact Parteo. Used to track weekly and daily rejects & counts. File #9. Customer Supplier Survey Format. Plus many more user friendly forms. [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 08 December 1999).] IP: Logged |
|
barb butrym Forum Contributor Posts: 637 |
posted 14 December 1999 10:05 AM
there have been 30 registrars 'blessed' if you will.......to date. Criteria seems to be in numbers, not qualifications....1st requirement is to have 100 registered QS clients. So what does that tell you? IP: Logged |
|
Jackie Jolly Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 8 |
posted 14 December 1999 01:02 PM
I beleive it's all about politics and the all mighty buck. Maybe I should be putting as much time in to researching how to play the game as I have the rules of the game.I don't mean to sound like a B**CH, but today I'm feeling the part. The politics has really gotten to me. Anyone have suggestions, because I'm open at this point. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 14 December 1999 01:45 PM
Has been from the beginning and hasn't changed except Dan Reid took the brass ring KPMG was holding out. Another winner was (is) Alex Chong and the Plexus franchise. And let us not forget the AIAG and other related 'organizations'. IP: Logged |
|
Elberth Ardila Tabera unregistered |
posted 17 December 1999 08:17 AM
I'd like to congratulate to Marc for the faster answer about a personal question of TS16949 IP: Logged |
|
Sam Forum Contributor Posts: 244 |
posted 17 December 1999 08:47 AM
I agree with you,Jackie -- to a point. It shouldn't be that way but it is. Maybe it's time that we "the customer" have more input on what is required of these standards; ISO/QS/TR among others. I would suggest a BETA test , something like you would do for a new software program. Maybe a random sampling from each state. Those selected could then solicit ideas from other businesses within the state. Maybe then we could add some value to an otherwise value-less the process.
IP: Logged |
|
quality_man_9000 unregistered |
posted 20 December 1999 12:22 PM
Was anyone out there in attendance at the AIAG roll-out of ISO16949 on December 13? I was scheduled to attend but was ill that day. I would like to get some notes from someone who was there, since AIAG won't ever release their presentation slides to the public. Possibly someone knows where there is a web page with this info? IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 20 December 1999 12:46 PM
See the topic in this forum on the Rollout meeting. A couple of folks were able to attend it. IP: Logged |
|
admin Cheech Wizard Posts: 46 |
posted 20 December 1999 01:06 PM
Hey Sam: Many big companies do get in on the process. For example, Motorola was heavily involved in the last QS9000 update as well the more recent Semi-Conductor Sector update - they had a lot of input. Just like in government decisions, big business is there orchestrating (at least to some degree). IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 27 December 1999 09:26 AM
I was at the TS rollout 12/13/99 and I have been "chosen" TS champion for my company, so I have been very close to this topic recently. A few of things I have "heard" -- the rumors came from reliable sources: - The chosen registrars was purely political. It is a fact that the registrars with the 6th most QS registrations was not on the list. They have ~700 QS registrations. - (Fact) Of the registrars I spoke to, NONE of them know or will say how they made the list. The registrars that did not make the list do not have a clue why they did not make the list. - (FACT) The B3 never published the criteria for choosing registrars or auditors. - (Rumor) Registrars not chosen are considering bringing a class action against the B3 for restraint of trade. Because they never made clear the criteria for selection of the registrars. - (FACT) More registrars will be added to the TS party. Remember in 1993 when QS first came out and the B3 only belessed 5 registrars to perform QS audits? Well we know how that turned out! - (FACT) There is a TS meeting in late January 2000 exclusive to registrars (all registrars are invited). I believe this is where they will find out how to get on the list. - (FACT) The TS rules for registrars has not been finalized. Accredited Registrars have a higher power to answer to and the rules for ISO and QS have been in place for years. The rules for TS registrars are still in draft format, therefore the "approved" TS registrars are approved under a draft document!!!!! What is worse is that the EA (European Co-operation for Accreditation) disagreed with the latest Draft!! Some of the above can be verified at the webpage chosen for the governing body for TS: www.IAOB.org -- Some links are conveniently "unavailable" IP: Logged |
|
Bill M Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 8 |
posted 30 December 1999 02:37 AM
The reason for the "approved supplier list" of registrars is a matter of control. IMHO the B3 thought that the proliferation of registrars, including ones that did not meet their standards was getting to the point something had to be done. Politics plays a part in this decision, I'm sure, but this is in reference to a major shift of power from the RAB/RvA accreditation bodies to the b3. If there is some litigation, that will be the jist of it...just who's supposed to be in charge of the the ASL for Registrars? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 30 December 1999 05:39 PM
Good points, Bill. IP: Logged |
|
dewie Forum Contributor Posts: 44 |
posted 27 January 2000 10:38 AM
As I know IATF is on the way of updating ISO/TS16949 to ISO900:2000. Have they finished their decision of registrars selection? Who are the winners? Can anyone guess who might be the selected regitrars? IP: Logged |
|
Spaceman Spiff Forum Contributor Posts: 64 |
posted 27 January 2000 11:39 AM
The winner will be the ones who is willing to pay the big buck$$$$$$... and the losers? Us all. IP: Logged |
|
Elberth Ardila Tabera unregistered |
posted 28 January 2000 08:36 AM
A colombian registar said us, that TS16949 is a requirement to european supplier«s, it is in change of QS9K, is it that true? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 28 January 2000 09:21 AM
What european suppliers? IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 31 January 2000 01:34 PM
The only European company mandating ISO/TS-16949 is Fiat, by 7/2000 IP: Logged |
|
tom dolphin Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 1 |
posted 01 February 2000 01:05 PM
I attended a "Top 100 Suppliers" mtg. for Ford last week and they disclosed hat TR16949 is definetly an either/or to QS9000. They were also kind of discouraged that copies were not as yet available to us and A.I.A.G. was none the wiser. IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 02 February 2000 09:06 AM
I'm not sure why the Big 3 is discouraged about the lack of availability of TR16949. I thought that it had been available for some time now. Do they mean that the auditor qualifications are not available? Also, are the customer requirements for Ford and Chrsyler been published yet? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 08 February 2000 06:48 PM
Just sent a request for quote to my registrar today, they are able to begin doing audits as of Monday. They tell me that there is already 1 company registered, its in spain IP: Logged |
|
Elberth Ardila Tabera unregistered |
posted 09 February 2000 02:31 PM
Marc sorry for my lately answer about european suppliers. The suppliers are B3, (GM, and Ford) and its company associates. (like Opel). IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 202 |
posted 10 February 2000 01:38 AM
I have leters from Peugot, Citroen and Renault that they want suppliers to work according to TS 16949. IP: Logged |
|
George Baker Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 5 |
posted 15 February 2000 04:48 PM
I work for a multi-national producer of automotive and truck parts, and would be very interested in obtaining copies of any non-US customer letters stating a requirement for registration to ISO-16949. Our fax number is (217) 431-8934. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 16 February 2000 08:41 AM
As you can see from this LONG, LONG thread, there are some folks that have letters from mostly non-US automotive companies that state the requirement for TS16949. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 16 February 2000 09:10 AM
Well, you started this thread back in Sept 1998... Problem now is will anyone FAX this fellow a copy of a letter. IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 202 |
posted 16 February 2000 11:38 PM
The letters I have say that the OEM's want to work according, or are willing to accept registration instead of their national registration. There is no obligation. IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 202 |
posted 17 February 2000 06:20 AM
Go to ISO/TS16949 certification for Faurecia: a world first!. IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 17 February 2000 08:52 AM
I know I started this thread, but I didn't think the thread would grow into a size 50 sweater! Anyway, it is interesting that, as Howard pointed out, the requirement for TS16949 has started (although I have never heard of that car manufacturer - I'm not much of a car connoisseur)! Maybe, they're opening the door... IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 12 March 2000 02:34 AM
Also see https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000024.html IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 14 March 2000 12:25 AM
Also see: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000022.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000021.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000011.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000009.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000006.html IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
