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
  Info

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

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Info
Howard Atkins
Forum Wizard

Posts: 202
From:Israel
Registered:

posted 02 March 2000 01:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Howard Atkins   Click Here to Email Howard Atkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Please see this info http://qualitymag.com/articles/2000/mar00/0300f4.asp

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 02 March 2000 08:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks, Howard, for the link. It was an interesting article. Although there was nothing in the article that seemed new, it was interesting to see the auditor qualifications again. He also mentioned that companies should find ISO/TS16949 more challenging to implement than the other standards. I'm not sure what he meant by that. It seems that a company that has implemented QS, for instance, should find relatively little difference if they convert to TS16949.

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

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

posted 02 March 2000 09:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Surveillance audit today for QS9000: XXXX announced to us QS is obsolete at the end of the year. We have 3 years to comply with TS16949. 16949 will be revised at the end of the year to add the ISO2000 revisions. Never a dull moment......

We were also informed AIAG will oversee all registrars and the Registrars ALLOWED to audit to the TS standard will go from 2000 who can audit to QS to 30. This is due to alot of suppliers having containment issues and never being wrote up during audits for any major or minor noncompliances.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 04 March 2000).]

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

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

posted 03 March 2000 07:38 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 Dawn:
Surveillance audit today for QS9000: XXXX announced to us QS is obsolete at the end of the year. We have 3 years to comply with TS16949. 16949 will be revised at the end of the year to add the ISO2000 revisions. Never a dull moment......
.

I guess none of us would be surprised in the obsolensence of QS...certainly has been rumored anyway...but for a registrar to announce it? Anyone else heard the same? How 'bout other registrars out there?

NOTE: Registrar name removed by request.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 04 March 2000).]

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 03 March 2000 08:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, that just doesn't seem right for a registrar to "announce" that to a client, does it? Especially, when we've been reading that the B3 say that QS will NOT become obsolete (even though a lot of us think this only temporary)! I would definitely raise this issue with someone in the B3. Sounds like this registrar is overstepping its bounds...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 05 March 2000 03:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, folks, I'll soon be switching the site 'mains' from Elsmar.com to Elsmar.com... Isn't evolution wunnerful?

If this surprises any of you, Shame! on you.

Let's see. 1994 to present = 6 years. QS9000 has lasted 6 years. And how many dollars have businesses spent? I wonder...

quote:
Originally posted by Dawn:

...Registrars ALLOWED to audit to the TS standard will go from 2000 who can audit to QS to 30.


This I just gotta see... I think the last debacle was the lack of 'qualified' calibration resources. And wow... What a business boost to those 30 companies. I bet there are about 85 'upset' registrars... Do you think this was/is a sweet heart deal?

The numbers Dawn's registrar cited are suspect - specifically the 2000 number ascribed to the number of registrars. According to the Quality Online article there are 13,128 QS9000 registered companies, 115 registrars and 3200 'certified' auditors. If they limit registration to 30 registrars that gives each registrar about 437 companies and 320 auditors. So - each company will very nearly 'own' an auditor. Yes - there will be close to 1 auditor for every company. If the registrar charges US$1200 per manday for an auditor and the auditor gets about US$500, that leaves US$700 for overhead and profit per manday. It would really be interesting to know how many mandays total that all auditors claim in a year so we could know the size of this. You know, if there are 320 auditors and they each (averaged out) work 200 days a year (40 five day weeks leaving 15 weeks for travel and vacation / holiday) - Well - That's 64,000 mandays. That's US$32,000,000 for the auditors to split (US$100,000 per auditor) and US$44,800,000 for the registrars. This is obviously a sizeable business. It might better serve to just station/assign one auditor at/for each company and eliminate the registrars. Like the DoD does with DCAS. Approaches a compliance police force.

Ah.... More fun to come, folks!

You know, with all the tests and courses the auditors have to go through, I hope they're going to make more than the current rate. With only 3200 'certified' auditors in the world, they could 'strike' for higher pay. Geezzz... I dunno.... If they're already making US$100K a year..... But then again, all that travel...

Well, folks, I'll soon be switching the site 'mains' from Elsmar.com to Elsmar.com... Isn't evolution wunnerful?

In addition, I just got this off the news server:

---------- snippo ----------

From: manus@aol.com (Manus)
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Date: 02 Mar 2000 21:24:20 GMT
Subject: General Motors
Organization: AOL

A couple of companies that I am associated with just received notification from General Motors that they will now have to comply with ISO TS 16949 instead of QS 9000.

I know that TS 16949 is the replacement for a number of automotive standards, but it was the stance that those manufacturers in the United States who supplied "the big three" were not going to have to comply. I received this information from a number of sources and they agreed with each other (including AIAG, and a couple of registrars).

Does anyone why GM is implementing this requirement?

--------- snippo ----------

Comments, folks?

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 06 March 2000 10:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Boy, if GM did write that to some suppliers, that sure clouds the picture!! I thought they just said that they weren't going to require suppliers to switch from QS to TS!! Another example of "ya can't know the player without a program..."!

IP: Logged

Christian Lupo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 08 March 2000 11:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Since there is no accreditation scheme (and even if there was) a registrar can "force" its customer's to adopt ISO/TS-16949. The registrar does not have the right to say that QS-9000 is obsolete at the end of the year. Even if the writing is on the wall, only the B3 has the right to announce the death of QS-9000. I suspect that by "forcing" the company to adopt TS, it is the registrars way of "encouraging" the transition.

In a very recent meeting with high ranking GM representatives, they were very clear in announcing that ISO/TS is not a requirement. They also reiterated that the ISo/TS standard was still a pilot program and 30 registrars should not be using their pilot program status to gain market share or steal other registrars business. All such incidences should be reported to GM. I have been gathering a file, because I have seen registrars take advantage of their pilot program status as well. I suspect some rouge GM SQA/E are at work in the situation Mark has mentioned. I would be happy to bring any documented instances of "forced" TS compliance to the attention of the B3.

2 years ago the B3 announced that all QS-9000 auditors needed to be recertified. their objective was to "weed out" bad auditors. Unfortunatly I think this has back-fired (for many reasons too numerous to list here) and "the system" has weeded out some of the very best auditors. Now auditors have to take another expensive training course to be qualified to audit TS. I wonder how many more good auditors will be weeded out?

I think that once this "pilot program" mess is finalized, other registrars will be allowed to join the party. In 1994 only 5 registrars were chosed to issue QS certificates, we all know how that turned out.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 10 March 2000 08:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From: www.qsdoc.com/html/ts_16949.html
quote:
This is a technical specification put together by the International Automotive Task Force (IATF). Primary members are from AIAG (US), France, Germany, UK, and Italy. Each of the participating IATF OEMs will have their own Customer Specific Requirements in addition to this techinical specification.
On December 2, 1999, GM World Purchasing put out a memo to all GM global suppliers recognizing ISO/TS 16949. GM is not requiring suppliers to upgrade but are strongly recommending that suppliers upgrade during their next QS-9000 surveillance audit with two conditions:

* The certification scope must include both ISO/TS 16949 and the accompanying ISO/TS 16949 GM-Customer Specific Requirements.

* The certification must be conducted in compliance with the IATF automotive certification scheme by a certification body contracted by the IATF Ovcrsight (sic) Office.


IP: Logged

chuy sanchez
Forum Contributor

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

posted 10 March 2000 01:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chuy sanchez   Click Here to Email chuy sanchez     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
we going again !!!!


quote:
Originally posted by Howard Atkins:
Please see this info http://qualitymag.com/articles/2000/mar00/0300f4.asp

IP: Logged

philly
unregistered
posted 11 March 2000 10:55 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dawn:
Surveillance audit today for QS9000: XXXX announced to us QS is obsolete at the end of the year. We have 3 years to comply with TS16949. 16949 will be revised at the end of the year to add the ISO2000 revisions. Never a dull moment......

We were also informed AIAG will oversee all registrars and the Registrars ALLOWED to audit to the TS standard will go from 2000 who can audit to QS to 30. This is due to alot of suppliers having containment issues and never being wrote up during audits for any major or minor noncompliances.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 04 March 2000).]


My company also was informed on 03/01/00 that QS9000 will be going away at the end of the year. Companies have 3 years to be compliant with TS 16949.

IP: Logged

Ken K.
unregistered
posted 14 June 2000 12:43 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If (Big IF) QS9000 is going away at the end of the year, and you need to certify to TS 16949 within' three years, do the audits go away until we are certified? And, if I'm reading and hearing right, why three years to adapt when they are supposed to be so similar? Did I miss something?

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 14 June 2000 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, sure, it's(QS9000) going away by the end of the year!! Although I believe it will go away, I think it will be more like "fade" away. Turning the QS9000 ship takes awhile. There are too many companies out there that need QS right now - even though ISO/TS 16949 is not that different.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

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

posted 14 June 2000 04:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why are my clients customers (Delphi) still telling them to get QS-9000 then?
My Delphi contacts haven't heard of TS16949 (except from me.)

Laura

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 14 June 2000 10:33 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 Laura M:
Why are my clients customers (Delphi) still telling them to get QS-9000 then?
My Delphi contacts haven't heard of TS16949 (except from me.)

To me it's a matter of education (you educate them). If they still insist on QS-9000, fine for them. Let them bite the dust down the road 2 or 3 years when they have to 'retool' for 16949. I sure don't care personally, but I'll bet they'll be bitching. Then will come the "This is just so you consultants can make more money" complaint.
quote:
Yeah, sure, it's (QS9000) going away by the end of the year!! Although I believe it will go away, I think it will be more like "fade" away.
No doubt - 2, maybe 3 years. It will not be abrupt, but with GM and Ford and others already accepting 16949 as a 'substitute', what does that tell us?

IP: Logged

Ken K
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 15 June 2000 12:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken K     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OK, I beleive! I got a reality check right along side the head this morning. Opened the mail and lo and behold, an envelope from my boss. Inside was a copy of ISO/TS 16949 along with a note that read; "prepare yourself". (My boss is a real comedian.) I'm not laughing (yet).

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 12 July 2000 03:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
During our last surveillance audit, our registrar stated that 16949 is a certain reality and to use the time to prepare but not to go into action because it will be awhile yet. What? Definition? Yeah, thats what I sought as well, but there was none. So, for now, I'll keep on with what I have in place until the Systems & Standards Godz rain their new and improved industrial doctrine upon...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 12 July 2000 11:38 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 Steven Truchon:
...use the time to prepare but not to go into action because it will be awhile yet...
A year will go by faster than you think. And the next year passes even faster. Start a gradual plan now. One to 2 years.

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 13 July 2000 09:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yer right, and Thanks.
I notice that most references have been GM. Has Ford made any comments that follow suite?

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 17 July 2000 04:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I reviewed the segment at the "transition" website noted in another discussion and from what I was able to tell from the "additional requirements" section, I dont see where the additions or changes are very intensive. I admit I have not reviewed the document itself yet but that certainly is my next step.
I hope it will be as simple as it seems at this point.

IP: Logged

isodude
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 6
From:Los Angeles, California
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 18 July 2000 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodude   Click Here to Email isodude     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dudes and Dudettes,

I'm a first timer and I am totally stoked about this forum. I've done some research and talked to some registrars. The results:

Fact- QS 9000 will not adopt the 2000 revision of iso 9000 when it is officialy released.

Fact - ISO 9000 2000 will be released in Nov./Dec. Of this year

Note - that will render QS-9000 as a qms that does not reference the latest version of ISO 9000.

Fact - ts16949 will incorporate the 2000 version of iso-9000 in march of 2001

Note - this will make ts 16949 the only b3 accepted qms that includes the 2000 version of iso 9000

Fact - aiag (aka b3 ) are members of iatf and iaob and directly involved in ts 16949 development.

Fact - iaob's office is in the same building as aiag.

Fact - the b3 own substantial interest in several major german/euro automakers

My opinion ( logical conclusion)

The b3 ran in to logistics problems and incuured additional expense and an increased hassle factor when dealing with their german/euro counterparts. Having seperate and differing qms' probably limited their ability to cross utilize components, suppliers and design elements. There was probably some cross auditing of each other going on also.Ts 16949 represents a consolidation in concert with recent busines trends in the areas of mergers and globalization of efforts for large multi national corporations.

QS will be superseded by ts 16949. The same three year grace period offered to iso 9000 registered companies might or might not be available. (Your registrar will know more when the b3 finaly admit what is going on). If you are in the process of just starting your immplementation(like me) don't waste your time with qs, go right in to ts and make sure you utilize the 2000 revision of iso9000(1) elements since that will be part of ts when it is officialy released and the ts designation is removed.

Regarding the the amont of pain involved in transitioning from qs to ts:

Sit down and do your own analysis, the changes might not be voluminous but they are a royal pain as far as I am concerned.I would even go as far as to say that ts 16949 is down right intrusive. Those folks who believe that the level 1 document won't need to change might want to consider that when ts is finally released it will contain the 2000 version of ISO 9000 which as we all know represents a dramatic change in structure. Some experts frown upon a level 1 structure that replicates that of the qms but I find it is easier for my self as well as the obvious third party audit benefits.

Go to your management now! Ask them if they ever saw the movie jaws and then tell them you need a bigger boat.

I know it's like a bogus deal, but sometimes you just have to ride the waves as they come dude.

Isodude@isodude.Com


------------------
isodude

Edit note: Got rid of the 'shouting' capitals.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 18 July 2000).]

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forum Wizard

Posts: 275
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 18 July 2000 04:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OH-O- tounge-In-cheek reply - forgive me I couldn't help myself..

Stoked?..... Stoked?? Hmmmm - I've been a lot of things LATLEY but I'm not sure Stoked was ever one of them

Is that "what Marc gets" just before he tees off on somebody ? ? --- on second thought WHY IS ISODUDE YELLING at us Dudes & Dudettes?

But seriously I for one appreciate the fact update.

Regards
Jim

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 18 July 2000 08:01 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 Jim Biz:

Is that "what Marc gets" just before he tees off on somebody ?


Precisely!

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 19 July 2000 08:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Regarding "facts" pertaining to ISO,QS,TS and any other up and coming quality program;They are all "hearsay" until your auditor assigns a nonconformance, then the "fact" is you need to respond to it.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 20 July 2000 09:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Continued in:
https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000050.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!