The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove ForumsThe Cove Forums
  TS 16949
  QS-9000/TS16949/ISO 9000:2000 (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   QS-9000/TS16949/ISO 9000:2000
Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 244
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 21 March 2000 08:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Y'all have been at this standards game longer than I have, but those companies that see ISO9000 as a value-added process will benefit from the shift towards continual improvement. They may have to rearrange their quality manual, but I think they'll welcome the changes. Those companies that have implemented ISO9000 to get the certificate alone, will grump and groan over having to do yet another thing!! This has been said many times, but unless management sees ISO9000 as a value-added process, "...those who build the house, labor in vain."

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 21 March 2000 09:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well stated!!!

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forums Contributor

Posts: 551
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 21 March 2000 05:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
what I see in the change/update is the 'originators' said what they wanted....poorly communicated it...people abused it...so now they are saying it again..trying to be more clear in what they state. OR at least in their intentions...i.e. the move toward continuous improvement via the CA/PA road.

So if you did it right, there are few changes with the new revision...if not then oops...you got some work to do.

If you do something/anything for the right reasons and do it well..IT ALWAYS ADDS VALUE..even if you fail..the lessons you learn along the way are invaluable.

Anr roger I agree, that was well stated.

IP: Logged

Alan Greatbatch
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:Switzerland
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 24 March 2000 10:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Greatbatch   Click Here to Email Alan Greatbatch     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, a lot of nice, well put words. From what my understanding is of TS16949, it is an attempt to combine VDA6.1 and QS9000 in a sensible fashion so that we can all work to one set of rules and guidelines. I say hurrah!!! Us poor bastards in Europe have had to get double certification to meet both the standards and adapt our Quality Manual and Documentation to suit. Don't worry, it keeps us all employed and on our toes. Blame it on the Daimler/Chrysler merger.

------------------
Alan Greatbatch

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 24 March 2000 11:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Speaking of the Daimler/Chrysler merger, anybody hear about a rumor that GM was "up for sale" or "going to be bought?"

Wasn't it once said something like "so goes GM, so goes the country?" B4 my time, but I think I'm close to the cliche'.

IP: Logged

Spaceman Spiff
Forums Contributor

Posts: 45
From:Lakeland, FL USA
Registered: Mar 99

posted 27 March 2000 08:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually, what I read was Rupert Murdock (the media mogol) wanted the GM's satillites for the media end of the business. So he made an unsolicited offer. Haven't heard anything since.

IP: Logged

Ryan Peterson
unregistered
posted 18 April 2000 11:34 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does anyone have the article from the Actionline magazine in January concerning ISO 16949? If you do could you please send it to me. Thanks

IP: Logged

Ryan Peterson
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:Whitewater, WI
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 18 April 2000 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ryan Peterson   Click Here to Email Ryan Peterson     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I just registered, so please send me the article if someone has it. Thanks again

IP: Logged

MARY
unregistered
posted 16 May 2000 12:15 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You can download a copy of ISO/TS 16949 if you are a GM Supplier. It is listed along with all the GM Standards.

Also received information from my registrar that you shouldn't get too excited with ISO9000/2000 which is due to be released Nov 2000, but that I should look into ISO/TS 16949 and ISO14000 requirements. Also ISO/TS 16949 information is referenced in the IASG Interpretations amended Feb 2000, Under R1. Sounds like there is alot of changes to be made to everyones systems, mainly in the resources.

IP: Logged

George Baker
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:Danville, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 17 May 2000 11:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for George Baker   Click Here to Email George Baker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MARY:
You can download a copy of ISO/TS 16949 if you are a GM Supplier. It is listed along with all the GM Standards.

To the best of my knowledge, you can only download the GM ADDITIONS to the standard from their supplier web site. You must buy a copy of the standard itself, from AIAG among others.

------------------
Quality_Man_9000

IP: Logged

Nick Ball, England
unregistered
posted 26 May 2000 06:46 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey you guys. I've just connnected to this site. I'm a Quality guy here in England. I'm amazed that you have so much energy for these Standards. I'm impressed. Everyone I speak to here (apart from the converted of course) to quote Dilbert "treats them like a dead rackoon". Is that how you spell Racooooooon. Oh heck who cares, never mind the Quality eh ?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2790
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 28 May 2000 12:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Welcome to the Cove!

IP: Logged

M. Savramis
unregistered
posted 30 May 2000 05:19 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey Guys, I just discovered this site and briefly went through all the responses. I have just led my company through a TS/ISO 16949 certification audit and we have been recommended for certification. It looks like we are the first in our group at this point and also first in Canada. Bottom line, standards are a way of life in the corporate world, to some they might be a joke and to others they might be Nirvana. going through the process I discovered that there were areas which were more stringent than QS 9000 3rd edition and yet there were other areas which had the requirements relaxed. If you decide to go for this don't be afraid ( the costs are the same) it really is not the monster some people are making it out to be but there are some nice surprises in the mix.

IP: Logged

Mary
unregistered
posted 31 May 2000 06:06 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you read the scope of TS16949, it specifically states that the TS16949 requirements for suppliers is an alternative to the QS9000. What seems to be a devil of a requirement is the ISO14000. Any literature I have received on the subject is "Canned information". Seems like you need to hire an environmental lawyer to get through this one.

IP: Logged

isodog
Forums Contributor

Posts: 25
From:Vernon Hills, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 31 May 2000 11:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodog   Click Here to Email isodog     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Racoon.

The point of all this is the big 3 are not going to get agessive aboutm 16949 'till it revises to become compatible with ISO 9000:2000 (Probably around Dec 2001).

The obvious problem is they don't want to force suppliers to convert to 16949 in year 2000 and then convert to the version compatable to ISO 9000:2000 in 2002.

Doesen't anyone else see this?

Dave

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2790
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 31 May 2000 11:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by isodog:

The point of all this is the big 3 are not going to get agessive aboutm 16949 'till it revises to become compatible with ISO 9000:2000


I think the issue is more a matter of the investment in QS9000 they and thousands of companies have made.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 01 June 2000 07:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm dealing with a few small companies that only want to do QS-9000. To them, 16949, equivalent or not, is not popular enough. If B3 pull out of QS, the backlash will be tremendous. Suppliers will think the B3 just want them to spend more $$. And for what? Those of us on the exterior may see the advantage, but the small businesses just catching on to the QS thing can't fathom spending money implementing something they really haven't hear of yet.

IP: Logged

M. Savramis
unregistered
posted 01 June 2000 11:18 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why does everyone seem to be under the assumption that QS 9000 will disappear. Even when it comes to Subcontractor Development TS 16949 states that subcontractors will comply to this Technical Specification or an existing customer quality system requirements manual. It is really up to the individual company to asses their own strategic objectives and decide which path to take. If you are a tier 1 supplier and want to have, or have European business, going for TS 16949 might be a definite goal for the future. If you are tier 2 and run a 10 men shop making rubber "thing a magigs" QS 9000 might be plenty for you. Remember the big three are the ones that have invested big in QS 9000 and there has been no push at this point for certification to TS 16949. Furthermore when the new ISO 9000: 2000 changes come through I would think it would be easier to comply if you already have a robust quality system instead of nothing at all. Bottom line lets be proactive rather than reactive.

IP: Logged

Spaceman Spiff
Forums Contributor

Posts: 45
From:Lakeland, FL USA
Registered: Mar 99

posted 01 June 2000 01:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If I'm tier 2 and makes thinga magigs with 10 people, I wouldn't bother with ISO or QS certification, unless a customer demands it. When he does I'll most likely a) charge him a premium on thinga magigs to pay for the certification or b) tell him to take his business elsewhere.

I firmly believe a 10 person shop will have greater control over its processes than GM could even dream of... oops, bad example!

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 01 June 2000 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your right Spaceman. 10 man thing-a-magig shops have great training - one screw up means alot of $$ for these companies. The few small shops I'm dealing with right now are so maticulous and thorough...most are just catching up on documenting because the standards require it. Most "do the right thing" because their operation depends on it. The big companies are the ones that have trouble keeping track of who does, or should be doing what.

IP: Logged

M. Savramis
unregistered
posted 01 June 2000 05:49 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Spaceman and Laura I agree with you. Yes maybe some 10 men shops do have better process control and thats great. If they don't want to be certified to any standard I have nothing against that.As spaceman stated you can tell your customer to go elsewhere. How many times are your small shops willing to do that? You know very well that tier 1 suppliers are asking for certification to QS or ISO from their subcontractors, but with no extra cost factored into the equation. As a matter a fact the new buzz word for this decade at least, is going to be COST REDUCTION!! I can tell you from experience that we are already starting to de-source subcontractors that have or are not willing to take their organization to the next level and as far as new subcontractors we don't even look at them if they are not certified to a known standard. Don't get me wrong I understand where you're coming from and I agree. However at some point smaller organizations will be forced to re-assess their views on certification and their customers are the ones who will drive that.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 01 June 2000 09:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The biggest addition to small shops that QS adds is the "formal problem solving" approach. Many are used to "wing-ing" that - 5-why, 8-D's etc are supplied by the customer, but they don't know what to do with them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for certification, but if the standard keeps changing it will get very frustrating for those small shops that are only doing it because they have to.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2790
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 01 June 2000 11:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by M. Savramis:

As a matter a fact the new buzz word for this decade at least, is going to be COST REDUCTION!! I can tell you from experience that we are already starting to de-source subcontractors that have or are not willing to take their organization to the next level and as far as new subcontractors we don't even look at them if they are not certified to a known standard. Don't get me wrong I understand where you're coming from and I agree. However at some point smaller organizations will be forced to re-assess their views on certification and their customers are the ones who will drive that.


You've been living in a closed world if you think cost reduction is a new issue. Ask anyone at GM about PICOS. This is ages old.

Yes - everyone appears to be requiring ISO9000 (or QS). I have this to say:

If you run with the herd you may run over the cliff with the rest of the herd. It is obvious ISO9000 has reached the zenith of ignorance. You have a supplier who has been supplying good product for years and you 'decertify' them because they won't register to ISO. Sad, sad, sad....

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 02 June 2000 07:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And if they've been running good product for years, they are more than likely "compliant", maybe just not registered...

IP: Logged

Spaceman Spiff
Forums Contributor

Posts: 45
From:Lakeland, FL USA
Registered: Mar 99

posted 02 June 2000 08:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just to add my 2 cents' worth... when you have a bunch of rules and laws (and ISO, QS, TS, etc. certainly have them) then it is easy to become legalistic. The purpose of certification is to ensure a company has good solid practices and processes. If a company can do that without certification, then certification is of little to no value added to that company. The goal of any company should still be providing the best quality at a reasonable price that mutually benefits both the customer and supplier. In my innocent days I used to wonder how did Honda and Toyota ever built quality products in the early 1980's without ISO. Now I know, they had a system that was beyond what ISO/QS can ever dream up.

Like Marc says, if you are dropping a supplier just because they don't have a ISO/QS flag flapping in the wind, then shame on you. I think we all need a sanity check on this certification stuff.

IP: Logged


This topic is 3 pages long:   1  2  3 

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | Cayman Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc

Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c

The Old Cove Message Board The Cove Privacy Policy
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?