|
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 ForumsThe Cove Forums
 TS 16949
 QS-9000/TS16949/ISO 9000:2000 (Page 2)
|
 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 |
posted 21 March 2000 08:39 AM
   
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 |
posted 21 March 2000 09:05 AM
Well stated!!! IP: Logged |
|
barb butrym Forums Contributor Posts: 551 |
posted 21 March 2000 05:16 PM
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 |
posted 24 March 2000 10:58 AM
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. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forums Contributor Posts: 149 |
posted 24 March 2000 11:44 PM
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 |
posted 27 March 2000 08:13 AM
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
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 |
posted 18 April 2000 11:37 AM
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
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 |
posted 17 May 2000 11:42 AM
quote: 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. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Nick Ball, England unregistered |
posted 26 May 2000 06:46 PM
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 |
posted 28 May 2000 12:31 PM
Welcome to the Cove! IP: Logged |
|
M. Savramis unregistered |
posted 30 May 2000 05:19 PM
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
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 |
posted 31 May 2000 11:11 PM
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 |
posted 31 May 2000 11:28 PM
quote: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 |
posted 01 June 2000 07:39 AM
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 $$. And for what? Those of us on the exterior may see the advantage, but the small businesses just catching on to the QS thing can't fathom spending money implementing something they really haven't hear of yet. IP: Logged |
|
M. Savramis unregistered |
posted 01 June 2000 11:18 AM
Why does everyone seem to be under the assumption that QS 9000 will disappear. Even when it comes to Subcontractor Development TS 16949 states that subcontractors will comply to this Technical Specification or an existing customer quality system requirements manual. It is really up to the individual company to asses their own strategic objectives and decide which path to take. If you are a tier 1 supplier and want to have, or have European business, going for TS 16949 might be a definite goal for the future. If you are tier 2 and run a 10 men shop making rubber "thing a magigs" QS 9000 might be plenty for you. Remember the big three are the ones that have invested big in QS 9000 and there has been no push at this point for certification to TS 16949. Furthermore when the new ISO 9000: 2000 changes come through I would think it would be easier to comply if you already have a robust quality system instead of nothing at all. Bottom line lets be proactive rather than reactive. IP: Logged |
|
Spaceman Spiff Forums Contributor Posts: 45 |
posted 01 June 2000 01:06 PM
If I'm tier 2 and makes thinga magigs with 10 people, I wouldn't bother with ISO or QS certification, unless a customer demands it. When he does I'll most likely a) charge him a premium on thinga magigs to pay for the certification or b) tell him to take his business elsewhere. I firmly believe a 10 person shop will have greater control over its processes than GM could even dream of... oops, bad example! IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forums Contributor Posts: 149 |
posted 01 June 2000 01:23 PM
Your right Spaceman. 10 man thing-a-magig shops have great training - one screw up means alot of $$ 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
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 |
posted 01 June 2000 09:25 PM
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 |
posted 01 June 2000 11:44 PM
quote: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 |
posted 02 June 2000 07:49 AM
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 |
posted 02 June 2000 08:35 AM
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 |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc
Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c
The Cove Privacy Policy 