InfOutlook-TransitionQStoTS_Part05

8/6/2019 InfOutlook-TransitionQStoTS_Part05

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/infoutlook-transitionqstotspart05 1/6

S P E C I A L

R E P R I N T

…your source for the latest information on international management system standards

®

This reprint is provided with compliments of…

What Is the “Real” Deadline for Transition to TS 16949:2002?

Thr ee Mor e Key Challenges ofTr ansit ion to TS 16949:2002

By Chad Kymal andDave Watkins

Publisher’s Note: This article has beenreprinted with permission from TH E

INFORMED O UTLOOK Newsletter,

September 2002 issue.

If your organization is a supplier to

one or more of the Big Three, what

is the real deadline for transitioning

from QS-9000 to ISO Technical Specifi-

cation (TS) 16949:2002? And what if

you supply to other automotive original

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that

have required registration to QS-9000 or

another sector-specific quality manage-ment system (QMS) requirements cata-

log that is to be replaced by ISO/TS

16949? What is the real deadline for

transitioning your organization to ISO/

TS 16949:2002, Quality management

systems—Particular requirements for the

application of ISO 9001:2000 for auto-

motive production and relevant service

part organizations?

As has already been reported,

DaimlerChrysler announced in late July

2002 that its Tier 1 suppliers worldwide

are required to transition from QS-9000

to ISO/ TS 16949:2002 by July 1, 2004,

while the Big Three released a joint

letter in early August 2002 officially

stating that the TS will replace QS-9000

on December 14, 2006 (see

“DaimlerChrysler Sets July 2004 Tier 1

Mandate”, THE OUTLOOK , August2002). The other OEMs in Europe and

some in the Asia-Pacific Rim region are

likely to issue ISO/TS 16949 deadlines

closer than the paramount 2006 dead-

line for transitioning from QS-9000.

However, our organization main-

tains that the realistic deadline should

be December 15, 2003. That is the date

when ISO 9001/2/3:1994 become

obsolete as far as accredited registration

is concerned, so automotive suppliers

that wish to retain their ISO 9001/2-

registered status (keeping in mind thatISO 9002 will no longer be an option)

must treat December 2003 as the real

deadline. Otherwise, organizations that

want to maintain an ISO 9001 registra-

tion and a QS-9000 registration would

have to go through two audits—one for

ISO 9001:2000 and one for QS-9000

conformity.

In practical terms, implementing

ISO 9001:2000 on top of QS-9000 so

as to satisfy nonautomotive and auto-

motive customers does not make sense

for several reasons. First, organizations

would find many duplicate and contra-

dictory requirements. For example,

management review is specified in both

ISO 9001:2000 and QS-9000/ISO

9001:1994, and organizations would

have to comply with two sets of dupli-

cate requirements.

Also, organizations may find that

quality planning, which is covered by

Subclause 4.2.3 in QS-9000/ISO

9001:1994 and Clause 5.4, Planning,

are almost contradictory, with one fo-

cusing on product planning and the

other focusing on business planning.Ultimately, it is possible to reconcile

QS-9000 with ISO 9001:2000 and

create a single QMS that satisfies the

requirements of both, but it is easier

said than done.

Second, it is not practical or pro-

ductive to transition twice. It would

prove much easier for a QS-9000-regis-

tered supplier to revise its QS-9000-

conforming QMS to satisfy the

requirements of ISO/TS 16949:2002

and upgrade its QS-9000 registration to

it. The supplier would thereby achievesimultaneous conformity with ISO

9001:2000, which is contained verba-

tim in the second edition of the TS.

The other option is to maintain QS-

9000-based procedures and implement

changes to satisfy ISO 9001:2000 only

to have to transition again within 2-4

years to ISO/TS 16949 when QS-9000

becomes obsolete.

Therefore, December 15, 2003, is

for all practical purposes the de facto

deadline for organizations that want to

maintain their ISO 9001 status and

meet automotive OEM contractual

requirements, since it would be confus-

ing and difficult to meet the Q S-9000

O m n e x , In c .7 3 4 -7 6 1 -4 9 4 0 ✧ w w w . o m n e x . c o m



2 ✧ TH E I N FO RM ED O u t l o o k Reprint: September 2002

© 2002 by INFORM Web Site: HTTP:/ / WWW .INFORM INTL.CO M

and ISO 9001:2000 requirements and

then have to revamp the QMS once

again soon thereafter.

Our organization suggests that

suppliers that cannot complete the ISO/

TS 16949:2002 transition by December

15, 2003, should continue with QS-

9000 registration beyond the ISO

9001:2000 deadline but not upgradetheir QMSs solely to conform with ISO

9001:2000. Instead, they should let any

separate “ISO 9001/2 registration”

status lapse while they focus on imple-

menting an ISO/TS 16949:2002-con-

forming QMS and moving directly to

TS registration at some point in 2004.

True, the extended use of ISO

9001:1994’s quality system requirements

in QS-9000 does appear to give additional

time to suppliers that find the task of

transitioning to ISO/TS 16949:2002

challenging. However, as future OEM

requirements have begun to take shape,

making that transition is taking on in-

creasing importance as we continue our

series examining what we have identified

as 15 key challenges for automotive sup-

pliers that plan to transition their QMSs

from the third edition of QS-9000 to the

second edition of the TS. We have already

explored 6 of those challenges in two

previous entries in this series as indicated

in Table 1 on the next page, which sum-

marizes the 15 challenges.In this entries in the series, we will

explore Clause 5.2, Customer Focus,

“7.0,” Product Realization, and Sub-

clause 8.2.2, Internal Audit, to help you

understand and effectively meet each of

the 15 key challenges.

5.2, Customer FocusThis is the requirement of ISO

9001:2000, to which ISO/TS

16949:2002 provides no additions,

where most implementers need to start

when designing what we refer to as theirQuality/Business Management Systems

(QBMSs). Our organization is in the

process of assisting several hundred

organizations worldwide in their imple-

mentations of ISO/TS 16949:2002. In

most of these organizations, customer

expectations are taken as an implemen-

tation afterthought rather than the first

place to start.

Customer expectations influence

and impact on an organization’s strategy(including the objectives and business

plan), which is then implemented by

processes that carry the strategy out. If

the strategy correctly drives the organi-

zation and its processes are effective, the

organization will meet customer expec-

tations. Thus, there is a chain reaction

between customer expectations, strategic

objectives, the business plan and pro-

cesses designed to meet the objectives of

an organization.

Figure 1 below shows how customer

requirements, which are addressed in

Clause 5.2 in ISO/TS 16949:2002/ISO

9001:2000, are connected to other ele-

ments and activities of the QBMS that

are addressed elsewhere in ISO/TS

16949:2002. If an organization under-

stands that its management system must

start with customer requirements, it will

Reprinted with permission from

THE INFORMED OUTLOOK

September 2002 issues

THE INFORMED OUTLOOK ✧ 15913 Edgewood Drive✧Montclair, VA 22026Tel: (703) 680-1436 ✧ Fax: (703) 680-1356

E-Mail: [email protected] ✧Web Site: HTTP: WWW.INFORMINTL.COM

Contact us TODAY for a FREE sample issue

…and a SPECIAL subscription offer (code OMNEX-0209)!

be able to implement a QBMS that

meets all the requirements of ISO/TS

16949 because it flows naturally from

how a business operates, that makes sense

to the employees using the system be-

cause it flows the way processes occur in

a business and that is easy to implement

because it is understandable and seen as

having value by everyone from top man-

agement to the sales reps to the produc-

tion line workers.

When determining which customer

expectations are to be met, the imple-

mentation team will need to decide

whether it is only going to look at “cus-

tomers” alone or to take an ISO

9004:2000 or Baldridge view of “inter-

ested parties”. ISO 9000:2000, Quality

management systems—Fundamentals and

vocabulary, defines an “interested party”

in 3.3.7 as a “person or group having an

interest in the performance or success of

an organization”. Thus, an organization

could consider some or all interested

parties as “customers” with expectations

to be met.

As the number of expectations grows

or varies, what would they impact? Figure

1 should lead you to understand that your

Figur e 1. Links Betw een Customer Requir ements and Pr ocesses



Volume 7, Number 9 T H E I N FO RM ED O u t l o o k ✧ 3

INFORM: (703) 680-1436 © 2002 by INFORM

organization has to set objectives around

expectations and then design processes

that can deliver these expectations. The

implementation team will look at the need

to consider the expectations of interested

parties in designing processes as additional

“work”, but some interested parties (e.g.,

community, employees, suppliers) may

play a key part in the organization’s suc-

cess. In some cases, these parties may be as

important a part as the end customer. If

parties other than customers have the

potential to influence an organization’s

success or even existence, the implementa-

tion team should include the expectations

of interested parties in developing the

QMS for the organization’s own self-

interest and survival.

Our organization has developed a

template that relates customer expecta-

tions to organizational processes, strategicobjectives and process control methods.

This table can be used to align customer

expectations with an organization’s

QBMS activities, and we recommend

that our clients adapt this table to their

operations and include it as part of their

Quality Manuals. Table 2 on the next

page provides an excerpt of what this

table would look like if completed for a

hypothetical organization.

Some in the automotive sector have

noted that QS-9000 already mentions

customer expectations in Subclause

4.1.4, Business Plan, where it states,

“Methods to determine current and

future customer expectations shall be in

place.” However, this requirement is

buried in the overall requirements. We

know of no supplier that implemented

or audited for customer expectations in

conforming to QS-9000. So, where in

ISO/TS 16949:2002 is there a require-

ment regarding “customer expecta-

tions”? Furthermore, where does it ask

for objectives to be aligned to expecta-tions and for processes to be aligned to

strategy?

If you study Clause 5.2, Customer

Focus, what it really is saying is, “Your

organization needs to understand and be

capable of satisfying customer require-

ments.” Indeed, throughout ISO/TS

16949:2002/ISO 9001:2000 are re-

quirements that the organization “meet

customer requirements”. ISO

9000:2000 defines “requirement” in

3.1.2 as a “need or expectation that is

stated, generally implied or obligatory”.Thus, 5.2 requires your organization to

understand and be capable of satisfying

customer needs and expectations.

If you then look at Subclause 5.4.1,

Quality Objectives, you will find that

the TS adds to ISO 9001:2000 a NOTE

that states,

Quality objectives should address

customer expectations and be achiev-

able within a defined time period.

Table 1. The 15 Key ISO/TS 16949 :2002 Tr ansit ionChallenges for QS-900 0-Regist er ed Or ganizat ions

Clause/ Subclause Influenced by Challenges

4.1, Quality Management ISO 9001:2000 Requirements for process map (orSystem—General equivalent), process management,Requirements* customer-oriented processes, support

processes and process characteristics

5.2, Management ISO 9001:2000 Decision on customers vs. interestedResponsibility— parties. Need for process to gather “needsCustomer Focus and expectations” of customer/interested

parties

5.4.1, Planning—Quality ISO 9001:2000 & Deployed Objectives addressing customer

Objectives† TS 16949:1999 expectations

5.5.3, Internal ISO 9001:2000 Creation of internal communicationCommunication processes suitable to organization

5.6, Management ISO 9001:2000 & Revision of previous management reviewReview† TS 16949:1999 process. TS adds additional items to be

reviewed

6.1, Resource ISO 9001:2000 Establishment of a resource allocat ionManagement—Provision processof Resources

6.2, Human Resources ISO 9001:2000 & Provision of job competency, on-the-job(particularly 6.2.2.3 and TS 16949:1999 training and employee motivation and6.2.2.4) empowerment

7, Product Realization ISO 9001:2000 Documents for “effective control” of allprocesses in process map

7.1.4, Change Control New (actually Minor change for most suppliersFord’s Q1 2002)

7.3, Design and New Inclusion of design and development of Development* processes, not just product (note required

development and use of FMEAs)

7.4, Purchasing* New Inclusion of service suppliers in coverageand use of supplier monitoring indicators.ISO 9001:2000 registration of suppliers

8.2.1, Monitoring and ISO 9001:2000 Customer rating for quality and deliveryMeasurement—Customer insufficient; monitoring of “customerSatisfaction† perceptions” of quality. Importance of

customer satisfaction—supplementalrequirements, including delivered partquality and schedule performance to IATF

8.2.2, Internal Audit TS 16949:1999 Manufacturing process and productaudits and audits based on COPS andprocess approach

8.2.3, Monitoring and ISO 9001:2000 & Process studies on manufacturing processes.Measurement of Processes TS 16949:1999 Measurement of all processes in process map

8.4, Analysis of Data ISO 9001:2000 Increased scope from QS-9000

*Clauses/Subclauses examined in the third article in series (November 2001).†Clauses/Subclauses examined in the fifth article in series (July 2002).



4 ✧ TH E I N FO RM ED O u t l o o k Reprint: September 2002

© 2002 by INFORM Web Site: HTTP:/ / WWW .INFORM INTL.CO M

Table 2. Customer Expect ations Alignment Wit h Or ganizat ional Act ivi t ies

Activity Key Processes/ Customer Target Specification Control/ Monitoring

COPs Expectation Measurable Reference Method

Manufacturing and Order processing Short cycle time Cycle-time 20 days Monthly operations

Logistics in production review

Manufacturing and Manufacturing On-time delivery % OTD 100% Weekly operations

Logistics process (OTD) meeting

So, there is an explicit intent in

ISO/TS 16949:2002 that expectations

and objectives be aligned. Furthermore,

Subclause 5.4.2, Quality Management

System Planning, requires top manage-

ment to ensure that

a) the planning of the [QMS] is

carried out in order to meet the

requirements given in 4.1, as well

as the quality objectives,… .

The planning then needs not only

to address how the objectives are going

to be met, but to ensure that processes

in the process map are implemented.

To understand the linkage between

5.2 and Section 7, Product Realization

(processes in the organization planned

in Clause 4.1, Quality Management

System—General Requirements, and

5.4.2), you need only to study the QMS

process model. Customer requirements

are an input into an organization’s pro-

cesses (i.e., product realization and

support processes), which translate these

inputs into product (which is an out-

put). There is thereby a linkage between

what customers want as determined per

5.2, the objectives set by the organiza-

tion per 5.4.1 and the processes per-

formed per Section 7.

The only way organizations can

ensure that they are “capable of satisfy-

ing requirements” is to t ranslate a cus-

tomer requirement into a processrequirement for the organization. This

expectation needs to be translated to a

process measurable, as shown in Table 2,

and then measured and improved as

required by Clause 4.1d), e) and f).

“7.0”, Product Realization

(Organizational Processes)The product realization processes

and support processes in Section 7 need

to deliver the “product” to the customer.

Section 7 includes not only six clauses

that specify processes that run the range

of an organization’s production cycle

(i.e., from 7.1, Planning of Production

Realization, to 7.6, Control of Monitor-

ing and Measuring Devices), it also

includes all the processes in the process

map as required by Clause 4.1. Indeed,

earlier versions of Table 1 in this series

labeled this challenge as “7.0” because itis almost as if a separate clause existed

here on process mapping.

Although the TS does not require

the use of process maps or flows, the

only practical way to ensure that all

processes that are needed are included in

the QMS is through the use of process

mapping and process flows. And process

mapping will be most critical to effec-

tively meeting the requirements of Sec-

tion 7. Indeed, we believe process

mapping and process flows are the big-

gest differences between QS-9000 and

ISO/TS 16949:2002.

In QS-9000, organizations were

only required to implement procedures

that met all the requirements specified

in the “shalls” and “shoulds”. In ISO/TS

16949:2002, the organization needs to

“identify the processes needed [and]

determine the sequence and interaction

of these processes” (4.1a and b). And the

processes need to fulfill all the require-

ments of the customer, as discussed

above. Processes that start with a cus-tomer input and result in an output that

goes back to the customer are known as

“Customer Oriented Processes” or

COPs, as described in “More Challenges

of QS-9000 to TS 16949:2002 Transi-

tion” (THE OUTLOOK , July 2002).

An organization must have pro-

cesses that fulfill the “shalls” of ISO/TS

16949:2002. For example, it needs

processes for management review (5.6)

and control of measuring and monitor-

ing devices (7.6) as well as product

realization processes (e.g., research and

development, support processes such as

hiring and customer-oriented processes

such as warranty). In other words, the

implementation team needs to carefully

study what processes are required by the

organization to fulfill organizational

needs as well as the needs of customers/

interested parties.When it comes to documentation,

ISO 9001:2000 requires less, with only

six procedures specified as needing to be

documented, although most organiza-

tions will maintain much of the docu-

mentation they had before if they found

it necessary to ensure processes are con-

ducted consistently and effectively or

found it value-adding to their opera-

tions. These reasons will in fact be one

and the same in many instances. Unlike

ISO 9001:2000 but like QS-9000, ISO/

TS 16949:2002 requires all the pro-

cesses required to fulfill organizational

and customer/interested party needs to

be documented.

Note that you will not find the need

to document some of these processes in

the requirements contained in the TS,

but the International Automotive Task

Force (IATF), which drafted ISO/TS

16949:2002, has conveyed this require-

ment in the content of mandatory train-

ing courses for registrars and their

auditors and in ISO/TS 16949:2002rollout meetings. The training requires

auditors to analyze the following process

characteristics for each process:

1. A process owner exists

2. The process is defined

3. The process is documented

4. Process linkages are established

5. The process is monitored and

improved

6. Records are maintained.

The best way to satisfy 1, 2 and 4

above and thereby satisfy trained audi-



Volume 7, Number 9 T H E I N FO RM ED O u t l o o k ✧ 5

INFORM: (703) 680-1436 © 2002 by INFORM

Summat ion of IATF Comment s on Regis t r arAuditing and Gaps Found in PilotAuditing ISO/TS 16949:2002—Key Approach Differences as Viewed by the IATF:

● Process Approach to Audit❍ Customer Oriented Processes. These processes start with cus-

tomer requirements and then end with output. The input and out-

put need to be checked against each other to see if the output

satisfies the input. The IATF wants all the COPs identified in theorganization.

❍ The IATF wants the process to have a clear line of sight from the

customer to the organization.● The Audit Plan should have key processes instead of just elements.The Plan needs to identify the key processes

● Performance❍ Linked to common metrics for the organization and its suppliers

(per 8.2.1.1, Customer Satisfaction—Supplemental, and 7.4.3.2,Supplier Monitoring)

● Oversight—Adherence to the ISO/TS 16949:2002 registration scheme“rules” and common global oversight body process

● An organization needs to throw away the checklist and use its proce-

dure to do the internal audit. Use the checklist to make sure your organi-zation is thorough but not as the definitive list of what the QMS must do to

conform with the TS● The IATF stressed the problem of remote locations not being able to

get certificates and to identify which sites are production or manufacturing● To obtain ISO/TS 16949:2002 certificates of registration, sites must be

automotive production and service parts suppliers● Each OEM will have a link to its web site where the customer-specificrequirements documents can be obtained.

Gaps Found During Pilot ISO/TS 16949:2002 Registrar Audits:● Control Plans were poor and not followed

● Customer specifics ignored● Registration scheme rules not followed

● Internal auditor training was poor● Records not linked to procedure● On-the-job training not addressed

● Unreported changes (production part approval process or PPAP)● Management never audited

● Interface between site and remote location not followed● PPAP does not meet requirements

● GRR (gage repeatability and reproducibility) performed by calibrationtechnicians and not production operators● Written findings did not have three elements—requirement, objective

evidence and nature of NC (nonconformance)

tors is to use process flows, which are

discussed in the fourth entry in this

series (see “What QS-9000 Registered

Suppliers Need to Prepare For”, THE

OUTLOOK , April 2002).

8.2.2, Internal AuditWith internal auditing, the biggest

difference between QS-9000 and ISO/ TS 16949:2002 is that QS-9000 does

not specify system or process audits.

Clause 4.17 of QS-9000 only requires

internal audits to be performed (in

accordance with Appendix B, Code of

Practice for Quality System Certifica-

tion Bodies/Registrars) that cover all the

elements of QS-9000. ISO/TS

16949:2002 is more specific and re-

quires system and product audits on top

of process (elemental) audits. The inter-

nal system audits need to evaluate the

processes in the organization, including

COPs and their support processes.

The product audits in ISO/TS

16949:2002 must verify conformance to

product dimensions—requirements in

the manufacturing processes—while the

process audits need to assess the manu-

facturing processes for conformity with

defined procedures and customer speci-

fications. Subclause 8.2.2 of ISO

9001:2000 is an important requirement

that can drive QBMS improvement and

has already been the topic of muchcoverage in THE OUTLOOK and will

continue to be covered in detail in fu-

ture issues.

Where do automotive suppliers

need to look to see what is actually

expected of internal auditors, the inter-

nal audits they conduct and the reports

and results from those audits? Experi-

ence has shown that third-party regis-

trar/auditor requirements tend to flow

down into the organizations being au-

dited, thereby impacting on internal

audits.While internal audits should be

conducted to verify the QMS conforms

to ISO/ TS 16949:2002 and is meeting

customer and organizational needs and

expectations and to identify opportuni-

ties for continual improvement of the

system and processes, registrar auditors

will be examining your organization’s

internal audit program to ensure it

meets the requirements of Subclause

8.2.2 and does so to the expectations of

the OEMs that subscribe to the TS.

Those OEMs, which are members

of the IATF, have issued “comments” on

registrar auditing based to a large degree

on their observations of registrar audits

of automotive suppliers for conformity

with ISO/TS 16949:2002 during an

IATF pilot registration program in

February 2002. What the IATF had to

say about the registrar audits it wit-

nessed, where there were problems and

need for improvement in auditing prac-

tices and what the key differences with

ISO/TS 16949:2002 were is worth

examining and keeping in mind as you

begin to evaluate and revise your inter-

nal audit program.

