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
Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  TS 16949
  QS-9000/TS16949/ISO 9000:2000

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

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   QS-9000/TS16949/ISO 9000:2000
Barb Hayes
unregistered
posted 25 February 2000 11:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If TS 16949 is going to replace QS-9000 and the other European standards, will it be updated to reflect the changes that are going to come through from the ISO 9000:2000 revision? As QS-9000 is derived from ISO 9001, this leaves me wondering.....

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 26 February 2000 04:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I haven't heard anything yet about any plan to coordinate them numerically or otherwise.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 28 February 2000 09:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
According to an article in ActionLINE, Hank Gryn from Chrysler and Steve Walsh from Ford, ISO/TS 16949 will NOT replace QS9K for the forseeable future. (Of course, I'm not sure what their window of time is for the "forseeable future".) They also mention in the article that since there is a 3 year period to convert to ISO 9000:2000, QS9K will not issue another edition for that length of time. Also, they expect ISO/TS 16949 to be updated by the end of 2001 (to conform with ISO9000:2000). It is an interesting article.

IP: Logged

Barb Hayes
unregistered
posted 28 February 2000 10:06 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you for the information gentlemen. You don't happen to remember what month the article appeared in ActionLine magazine do you Roger? If so, please let me know. I am going to subscribe this week, but will also order the back issue if you can remember.
Thanks again.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 28 February 2000 10:44 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 Roger Eastin:

... ISO/TS 16949 will NOT replace QS9K for the forseeable future.


The important point is that it doesn't matter what happens to QS9000 if Ford, GM and Chrysler accept 16949 in lieu of QS9000 - which is, as I understand it, the case right now.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 28 February 2000 12:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The issue is the current one - Jan/Feb 2000.

IP: Logged

Spaceman Spiff
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:FL
Registered: Mar 99

posted 28 February 2000 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This may be a technicality, but isn't "in lieu" basically in place of? Which means 16949 is taking QS9K's place.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 01 March 2000 03:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
They're saying one or the other. But take a look - european automakers are accepting 16949 as are others. For example, as I understand it in Germany VDA 6.1 is the 'current' standard but 16949 will be an aceptable alturnate.

Is QS9000 dead? Not yet but I bet you don't see companies registering to it in 4 years. Yes - in lieu of - instead of.

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 03 March 2000 05:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What pray tell is the difference between TR 16949 ans TS 16949?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 04 March 2000 04:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Technical Report and Technical Specification?

IP: Logged

Alex Grguric
Forum Contributor

Posts: 13
From:Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 99

posted 10 March 2000 10:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alex Grguric   Click Here to Email Alex Grguric     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does anyone know where 16964 is derived from? I know what the TS part is but the rest is a mystery. Thanks.

IP: Logged

chuy sanchez
Forum Contributor

Posts: 14
From:Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 13 March 2000 12:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chuy sanchez   Click Here to Email chuy sanchez     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry, gentelmens but if we not change to TS as soon as possible, we are obsolete.

The sory never ending.


i«m studing ts requirements and may be take 4 months to implement as possible on my company.

IP: Logged

chuy sanchez
Forum Contributor

Posts: 14
From:Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 13 March 2000 12:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chuy sanchez   Click Here to Email chuy sanchez     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
p.d.

Of course if my company wants to get more paperwork and more targets....


IP: Logged

pdboilermaker
Forum Contributor

Posts: 59
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 13 March 2000 08:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alex:
For the most part, TS 16949 is QS. There are a few add ons from the German standard VDA 6.1

IP: Logged

Barb Hayes
unregistered
posted 15 March 2000 03:46 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Has anyone been able to obtain copies of the ISO/TS 16949 Customer-Specific Manual, Checklist Manual, or Automotive Certification Scheme? I called AIAG today (March 15/00) and they are still not available through them.

IP: Logged

Elberth Ardila Tabera
unregistered
posted 16 March 2000 08:25 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
our registar said in a meeting (march 8th) that ISO TS 16949, is an "experiment", for that only choose 31 registar to assessment. The most important thing in the updated process is that our company review the ISO 9000:2000 to updated its approach. (near future every automotive standars use the main parts of ISO 9K). What do you thing?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 17 March 2000 02:55 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 Elberth Ardila Tabera:

our registar said in a meeting (march 8th) that ISO TS 16949, is an "experiment", for that only choose 31 registar to assessment. The most important thing in the updated process is that our company review the ISO 9000:2000 to updated its approach. (near future every automotive standars use the main parts of ISO 9K). What do you thing?


I would sit tight in so far as doing anything, but I would get a copy of the ISO9001:2000 and ISO9004:2000 'draft' documents and 'get to know them'.

IP: Logged

Barb Hayes
unregistered
posted 17 March 2000 04:00 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
TS 16949 Checklist is now available from AIAG.

IP: Logged

dave
unregistered
posted 18 March 2000 01:03 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Listen very carefully. there are no plans to replace QS-9000. Nor are there any plans to ever update QS-9000. QS-9000, although not dead, is dying.

However, an embarrasing event has taken place. The ISO standard has been, in an effort to increase consulting fees, significantly rearranged for the year 2001.
And no one told the ISO 16949 folks. these poor bozos rearranged (once again in an efort to put money in the pockets of consultants) QS 9000 in to a "more acceptable international version"

As long as the "big three" support this bullshit consultants will continue to make out and this may even be their strategy.

But here is the story. ISO 16949 will be revised to be compatable with ISO 9000 (renumber everything and provide lifetime income to consultants).

The AIAG will take over control of the ISO 16949 Regastrars from RAB (Thank God)

For most people in the worod it wont mean anything!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 18 March 2000 01:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, Dave, you might consider becoming a consultant. But you'll have to learn to spell first!

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 18 March 2000 07:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would hope most consultants, including myself, provide more value than figuring out how to reference the standards numbering schemes to quality manual policies and procedures!!! Would like to give some of the people involved with "rewriting" the various standards benefit of the doubt, that it is an effort in continuous improvement on their behalf, not continuous income on the consultants behalf!

PS. If I was only interested in my clients money, I wouldn't be working on their quality manual at 7:30 on a Saturday morning!! I'm interested in their business success, and looking at QS9000 as part of a process to help them organize their business. I suppose depending on the company, ISO/QS, etc.. may or may not add value. Altho the degree of value may vary, I have yet to find the latter.

IP: Logged

dave
unregistered
posted 18 March 2000 10:48 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Although there were (very minor) improvements in the QS-9000 third edition, the upcoming ISO 16949, and the ISO 9000:2000, the changes mostly look like rearringing the deck chairs (on the Titanic?). This rearranging does NOT add value! Sorry about the spelling.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 20 March 2000 01:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, some folks consider the changes quite drastic. Others feel like you (rearranging the chairs). I'm a middle of the road person. There are some important changes. Bottom line it there is an evolution of these standards. And, there are a lot of complaints. When you're trying to get a world-wide concensus it's pretty tough. The ISOMan lists some ISO differences ( www.isoman.com/exec.htm ).

Are the changes earth shaking? Not in my opinion. Are they significant? For some companies yes for others no. Depends upon the company's personality to begin with. If they're progressive, probably not a problem. If not the changes may present a problem.

IP: Logged

Dave, the poor speller
unregistered
posted 20 March 2000 10:04 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The actual changes are NOT drastic. It's the rearrangement that's drastic. I have no arguments with Laura. a vast majority of consultants are highly trained, VERY hard working individuals who have value added services to offer.

My problem is with those on the committees who rewrite thses standards and spend most of their effort rearringing the verbage. WHY??

I say cuz it increases their consulting fees.
During my life I have often been wrong I can accept error. SO! someone give me a better theory. Remember, rearringang the sections does NOT add value.

Dave, the bad speller

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 20 March 2000 10:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are you, or have you ever been, married? (Umm, I think that looks better over there... Now - with some new curtains and some wall paper....)

By the way, I've noticed a dramatic improvement in your spelling!

In all fairness, most of the folks who are on the committees are not consultants but rather are employees of large companies. They really don't have much to gain financially by rearrangement and such. It's simply an evolution of the document. The evolution includes the intent of the whole thing.

Now I'm a market will make or break you believer. I only see ISO as a tool and with the drift to customer satisfaction I see a laugh. Yeah - it's a nice idea which has drifted over from QS9000. Who can argue with striving for customer satisfaction? (In the political arena it's pretty much the same with positions such as: who can argue with being 'tough on crime' or 'saving social security' or 'improving education').

To me if a company doesn't satisfy their customers they will end up with few or no customers. If they don't provide a quality product they will eventually fail as a business. So - is ISO even necessary?

That said, we may not like what we see in the evolution (have you noticed how many 'kids' are into body piercing??) but, like with politics, you have to participate to bitch (or so I'm told by my mother). You can comment and if you really want I think you can attend certain TC176 meetings and such. Go get 'em!

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 17
From:Neuch‰tel, 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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:FL
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: 5
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: 4119
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 51
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: 4119
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:FL
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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: 4119
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:FL
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

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
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: 4119
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: 4119
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 73
From:Fayetteville, NC 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: 4119
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: 4119
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
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

Robert Burke
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 3
From:Adelaide, South Aust, Australia
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 02 July 2000 11:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Burke   Click Here to Email Robert Burke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
G'day. Just found this site, thanks for all contributions, they will help my presentation to a workshop of local suppliers Wed 5 July. For info, Australia is one of the few other countries where the "international" QS9000 is mandatory. Local suppliers have just found to their surprise that they can't get business in Europe unless they also have ISO/TS16949, so my workshop will detail the differences. [Audi provoked this by visiting some would-be Australian suppliers]. Interesting point is that Holdens [local GM oem] have indicated their Australian suppliers will need ISO/TS16949 to participate in a proposed locally-built car for export to Europe. Seems inconsistent.

IP: Logged

Robert Burke
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 3
From:Adelaide, South Aust, Australia
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10 July 2000 11:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Burke   Click Here to Email Robert Burke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Update from Australia -- GM-Holdens rep on QS9000 task force [Mike Filazzola] acknowledges 16949 is on their agenda, and will replace QS9000 but timing indefinite. Past QS9000 timing would suggest Aussie suppliers will have one year after US deadline.
Adelaide workshop went well, attended by some 15 suppliers, now likely to be presented in Melbourne & Sydney -- dates to be advised.
RSB

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 July 2000 09:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh god! An admission by 1 of the big 3 that QS is in fact soon to be a dead duck - Well, it lasted about 6 years. Give it 2 years to 'go away' for 8. Now take the hundreds of millions of dollars spent (and continuing to be spent) in the effort, divide by 8 and I wonder what we'd have...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 July 2000 09:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As I close this long, contentious thread, know that a continued discussion of the death of QS-9000 is at: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000049.html

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic   Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!