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 3)

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
Laura M
Forums Contributor

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

posted 02 June 2000 09:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff:

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.

Bingo, but who needs the sanity check...the B3 dictating the ultimatums? Its a black and white thing to the B3 supplier development folks. Either you are or you aren't.

IP: Logged

Sam
Forums Contributor

Posts: 97
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 02 June 2000 09:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Time limit for audits? Why not? Everyone else has to figure there time into a budget.
AND are audits really necessary; if your processes are not in compliance with the system and you don't know it until you do an audit, then I would suggest you have a much more serious problems then "audit time limits"

There two words in the standard that we fail to take into consideration when determining our compliance to the standard;
suitable and effective.
Which, by the way are the determination of those people in the process and not internal or external auditors.

These comments are remeniscent of the old Mil-Q days.
We (American business) didn't want the Gov't telling us how to define our quality system and not knowing how to develop our own we climbed on the backs of our foreign competitors;ISO standards. We then immediatley tell them how it should be done;after all hindsight is always better, Hence the development of QS,AS TE etc.

TQM in the 80's was doomed to failure because it requires three things which cannot occur with subjective standards; Reason, Logic and Common Sense.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 02 June 2000 10:45 AM     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:

Why does everyone seem to be under the assumption that QS 9000 will disappear.


Just my opinion. Personally I'm surprised it has lasted as long as it has.

IP: Logged

M. Savramis
unregistered
posted 02 June 2000 12:34 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
MARC - Yes COST REDUCTION has been around since the word business was first mumbled. As far as desourcing suppliers because they don't have a flag flying....What I wrote is that they are not willing to take their companies to the next level and we certainly would not desource someone who was providing good product at a good price. however we would expect them to be certified or working towards it. Ford GM and Chrysler expect us to be certified afterall. One more thing, we have a supplier development department which helps our subcontractors reach the next level I'm talking about. I apologize for making it sound like gloom and doom.

Laura - I agree with you 100%. I have visited companies which have a certificate hanging on the wall and it looks like it has been purchased for $10.00 (they certainly don't deserve it). I have also visited other companies which don't adhere to any standards but have the sweetest and most efficient systems you've ever seen. For years I have preached; why do you have to be certified if you already have good systems? What is wrong with self declaration of compliance? The responses I have gotten are (among others): Well if you're compliant why don't you take it to the next step and become certified? It all boils down to money Laura. Who can afford to play the game and who can't.Like you say you are or you aren't. (B3 philosophy right?) I have been lucky to work for a company which has the capital to invest in certification like TS 16949 for example. Are we perfect? No one is, but we always want to challenge ourselves and continuosly improve. This is how we grow and get more business from our customers. For us certification has paid off so far.

Spaceman - Maybe a reality check is what's needed afterall. but as I mentioned if money is not an issue why would you fight certification/registration. No one says your systems can't be more robust than the standards (just like the companies you mentioned) and be certified at the same time.

Let me ask you all this: If the Federal government (or maybe the Big 3) picked up the tab for certification and surveillance would we be having this discussion.

P.S. Great discussion so far folks, thanks for your responses!!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 02 June 2000 08:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Let me ask you all this: If the Federal government (or maybe the Big 3) picked up the tab for certification and surveillance would we be having this discussion.
Yes, we would. Money is a factor but not everything.

Please explain what in ISO9001 makes a company better if their history shows good parts consistently at good prices.

quote:
It all boils down to money Laura.
Wrong. It also often involves changing your systems to reflect what the TC176 thinks is 'good'.
quote:
why don't you take it to the next step and become certified?
And please explain why we should. I don't see TC176 as the group to tell me what's good for my company and what 'the next level' is. Please explain to me what the 'next level' is and why I should believe TC176 is so smart.

Why do I always hear "ISO9000 has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with consistency."?

ISO9000 has more to do with liability than anything else.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 02 June 2000).]

IP: Logged

AJPaton
Forums Contributor

Posts: 36
From:Dallas, TX USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 02 June 2000 11:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJPaton   Click Here to Email AJPaton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc,

Agreed, ISO has more to do with liability, However, I've worked with a couple of multi-nationals and a small family business, and the large businesses NEEDED a structure to operate within.

In the family business there was one person certified to make quality judgements, and was vitally involved in all jobs. No need for an elaborate system.

But the multi-nationals had hundreds of people generating sometimes conflicting documents. They'd get burned when information did not flow smoothly, or was not consistant throughout the company.

ISO, for better or for worse, does force you to look at the document portion of your communication process. So, if your corporation, like mine, passes information on mainly through drawings, instructions, etc. I think ISO offers some guidance on where to look for weaknesses/strengths in your system.

That said, there's got to be a better way

AJP

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 03 June 2000 03:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I also have worked with large multi-nationals. Motorola (QS-9000 implementation - 20,000 employees in Phoenix and about 4000 employees in Guadalajara alone, not to mention Singapore, Ireland and many more sites), for one, had the major systems in place already. Being a large multi-national does not, in and of its self, mean much. And I have worked with Mom-and-Pops which did need a structure.

My point is ISO 9000 does not tell anyone much and with the standard now turning into a Customer Satisfaction requirement I believe it is ensuring it's own eventual death at least as far as usefullness goes.

That said, I have done quite a few implementations since 1993. I really cannot say I have done one which was not positive in some way - a few dramatically. However, the question becomes was this due to the ISO requirements? No - not really. It was due to the fact that they took the time to take a good look at how they did business and, in some cases, spent MILLIONS (large company, I grant you) of $$$$ doing so. Even a small company (<50 souls) will spend (on average according to Quality Digest, if I remember correctly) around US$60K.

Give me the same money (and time - including the man hours the employees put into their part of the project) and I don't need ISO as a framework - there are other good models and elements of TQM which I can apply.

While I applaud the earlier ISO 9000, it is drifting into an abyss of popularism unrelated to what it does for a company. Early on ISO was something that few customers were demanding - most companies were doing the ISO dance in an improvement effort. No more. It is now simply a customer requirement (in what - 98% of the implementations?). You have to do it as a requirement of doing business with certain companies.

If ISO helped your company, that is good. However it just might be that had you spent your time and money on a solid TQM implementation you may have gained even more.

quote:
What I wrote is that they are not willing to take their companies to the next level....
Again I ask, just what is the 'Next Level', why should I (other than that is has become a blind customer requirement) and who has defined what the 'next level' is.

Inquiring minds want to know. Just what is the 'Next Level'?

I might also add that many customers are requiring suppliers to register because (in addition to ISO 9000 having become a fad) they see a cost reduction to themselves. The usual "....we'll not have to watch them so closely...." is one I hear a lot. Automotive's chant for QS-9000 was a cost reduction chant - "...We'll save money if we don't have to monitor suppliers so closely and we put the financial burden on them by making them pay for a third party to monitor them...."

quote:
...however we would expect them to be certified or working towards it...
Please explain why. If you are sourcing from a company you already get good parts from at a good price, what will be your gain? I say this is a blind requirement you are making and you are requiring ISO 9000 only because everyone else is. ISO 9000 has become nothing more than 'the thing to do'. Again I say - Sad, sad, sad.
quote:
Sam said:

TQM in the 80's was doomed to failure because it requires three things which cannot occur with subjective standards; Reason, Logic and Common Sense.


Yes, yes, yes.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 03 June 2000 04:22 AM     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 Laura M:
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.
Those who live in the past will pay in one way or another.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forums Contributor

Posts: 79
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 13 June 2000 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Laura M:
Suppliers will think the B3 just want them to spend more $$. And for what?

I thought that from the very day I heard the term "QS9000."

They constantly cut their nose of to spite their face... particularly where "cost reductions" are concerned. I mean, they have all but railroaded themselves into having suppliers such as us, quote them grossly inflated prices (so we can reduce them later) rather than have us give them the best price up front. This is one example in a whole host of issues... not to mention rolling the costs of certification into the pricing of the product and so on...

quote:
Originally posted by Marc:
Those who live in the past will pay in one way or another.

...however, THIS is definitely the case. It is just another form of extortion in my opinion. I am a quality guy who hates the "standard" which, in and of itself is an oxymoron... I mean, it can't be all that "standard" if we have "interpretations, miscommunications, changes to changes to changes" and so on.

ALM

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?