2002 ISSUE ONE

TS/ISO 16949 Is Here

More Changes for Auto
Suppliers

A Process Approach
ISO 9001:2000 Model & Its Related ISO 9001:1994 Elements

ISO/TS 16949:2002, the new International

Automotive Task Force (IATF) technical
specification for automotive suppliers quality management systems, was officially rolled
out on April 24 at a workshop sponsored by
the Automotive Industry Action Group
(AIAG). This begins a 44-month transition
period for automotive suppliers registered to
QS-9000. At this meeting it was announced
that QS-9000 will expire after Dec. 15, 2006.
In addition, there are no plans to revise the
existing document to align with the new
ISO 9001:2000 standard, as ISO/TS 16949
accomplishes that (See fig. 1).
The current ISO/TS 16949:2002 has resulted from a long evolution (See fig. 2).
ISO/TS 16949 1st
Edition was published in 1999 to
INSIDE THIS
unify automotive
ISSUE
supplier QMS
requirements for the United
It May Be
States, Germany, France,
and Italy. In addition, the
Time to
ITAF partnered with the
Re-Tool
Japan Automotive
Your Quality
Manufacturers Association
(JAMA) to gain their input
System
for development of this document. ISO/TS 16949:2002
For questions or more informa2nd Edition, published
tion, please contact Ken Gaunt
March 2002, extends the life
at 248.352.2500

Quality Management System Continual Improvement

4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.3,
4.5, 4.16
5
Management
Responsibility

4.1, 4.9,
4.18

8
Measurement,
Analysis, and
Improvement

6
Resource
Management

INPUT

4.1.3, 4.9, 4.10,

4.13, 4.14,
4.17, 4.20

7
Product
Realization

OUTPUT

PRODUCTS

4.2.3, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6,

4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10,
4.11, 4.15, 4.19

ISO 9001:2000 Process Model Fig.1

of this technical specification for three more years

and effectively aligns first edition requirements
with ISO 9001:2000. The U.S. OEMs were very
clear that they have no plans or interest in revising
QS-9000 to align with ISO 9001:2000. A sanctioned
interpretation to be released by July 1 will provide
more detail on the transition from QS-9000 to
ISO/TS 16949.
The latest editions of QS-9000 reference manuals (e.g.,
PPAP, FMEA, MSA, APQP, SPC) and the Tooling &
Equipment Supplement will remain in effect.
Continued on page 3

QUALITY ASSURANCE UPDATE

It May Be Time to Re-Tool Your Quality

System
With the recent release of ISO/TS 16949:2002 (heir
apparent to QS-9000) and the OEMs commitment to
restore credibility to the third-party registration process,
it may be a good time to assess the effectiveness and
value of your quality system.
Registrations to ISO 9000 and QS-9000 have grown at
an explosive rate as suppliers pursued registration to
ensure they were not cut out of the supply chain. While
the external pressure of deadlines was a primary driver,
many companies attempt to design and implement quality systems that provided internal value in terms of better quality, less scrap, less waste, and improved customer
satisfaction. Data supports that some efforts to achieve a
value-added quality system were successful. Many companies report a return on investments made in their
quality systems of up to 7 percent of annual sales above
the maintenance costs of their quality system (Source:
AIAG quality survey).
In contrast to these successes, many organizations feel
there are significant opportunities to improve their
quality systems. Many business managers raise the issue
of the extensive resources needed to support certain
elements of their quality system, particularly nonvalueadded activities such as managing the abundance of
paper, records, and forms. Many report that the paper
systems are cumbersome and often slow or hinder the
ability of employees to complete their job assignments
effectively and efficiently. Some would say they have
gone too far with documentation. As stated by the
plant manager of one organization, We have forms to
fill out forms. Another states, Our quality manager
made our system bullet-proof. We pass our audits, but
getting work done is often hindered by all of the
bureaucracy.
Given the emphasis that ISO 9001 and QS-9000 place
on procedures, documentation and records, it is not
surprising that many quality systems are paper driven.
Add to this the pressure many organizations were
under to just beat the registration deadlines, it is not
surprising that the focus on value may have been lost.
In the cases above, it would appear that some wellintentioned people lost sight of the spirit and intent of
the requirements by getting buried in the details of the
extensive requirements.
If you have concerns or doubts about the effectiveness
and value of your quality system, you may want to consider the following questions:

Is there a preponderance of paper in your business

systems?
Does the level of attention and activity increase significantly before audits?
Do people scramble to back-fill forms and records
to make the system appear to be working?
Is there an abundance of data without meaningful
analysis and improvement?
Do internal auditors operate as quality cops?
Are the same nonconformances chronically identified during audits?
Is there a lack of broad ownership of the system?
Is there a lack of data driven performance systems?
Is there a lack of consequence for poor quality?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, it may
indicate that your quality system is under-performing
and potentially consuming valuable resources without a
commensurate return benefit. Therefore, a new design
of your quality system may benefit the organization.
Case studies of several organizations reveal the primary causes of many of these symptoms can be summarized in the following scenario: misinterpretation of
ISO/QS-9000 requirements, leading to poorly designed
systems lacking a broad focus on the business, and
poorly executed systems. If the quality manager (or
any single individual) was the primary architect of
your quality system, it may lack sufficient perspective
on broad business needs. Another important factor is
the belief that ISO 9001 and QS-9000 are quality systems rather than business systems. If your quality system is separate from your core business processes, it
can result in limited perspective on the business needs
(See fig. 1). Things to consider when designing your
quality system should include:
Development of business system and operational
performance metrics (e.g., customer satisfaction,
product quality, defect rates, returned product,
scrapped product, waste, cycle times, sales/profit
per employee, and delivery performance)
Identification of value streams in your production
systems
Use of a cross-functional team approach to develop
or redesign of your quality system
Continued on page 4

2 Plante & Moran

QUALITY ASSURANCE UPDATE

TS/ISO 16949 Is Here

Continued from cover
ISO/TS 16949 was published along with the
following supporting documents:

QMS Evolution

Guidance for implementation

Rules for achieving ITAF recognition

BS 5750

Quality system assessment checklist

Interpretation carried over from previous automotive standards
Customer-specific requirements (to be
released individually by DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor, and General
Motors)
Among the more significant changes in this
new document are the focus on processbased auditing, a more rigorous approval
process for registrars, more emphasis on
meeting customer requirements, and greater
emphasis on performance metrics (internal
and external).
In one of the stronger messages conveyed
during the workshop, representatives from
the U.S. automakers and the IATF told the
standing room only audience of automotive
suppliers that the credibility of the thirdparty registration process must be restored.
In addition, registrars were put on notice
that there will be a higher degree of
accountability for conducting effective
audits. A reference made regarding registrars who perform safe audits was
described as unacceptable and would no
longer be tolerated.

VDA6

AVSQ

ISO 9000
1987

QS-9000

ISO/TS

ISO9001

16949-1999

2000

Sanctioned
Interpretation

ISO/TS

July 2002

16949:2002

Currently there are 48 registrars approved to

issue ISO/TS 16949 certificates. As part of the goal to
restore credibility of third-party registration, witness
audits have and will continue to be conducted by members of the IATF and OEM representatives. Harold
Hodder, executive director of The International
Automotive Oversight Board, one of the five regional
offices authorized to approve registrars on behalf of the
IATF, commented on the 9 failures out of the first 13
witness audits. Examples of registrar failures included
unreported process changes (e.g., PPAP), omission of
management from the audit, disregarded control plans,

EAFQ

Fig.2

and poorly written findings (e.g., not linked to a requirements and evidence).
In conjunction with the new process auditing technique, auditors are expected to follow products, programs, or jobs from
department to department. This is in stark contrast to the traditional element-by-element approach that has traditionally
been used. Emphasis will be on what ISO/TS 16949:2002
defines as Customer Oriented Processes (COPs). The intent
is to create an audit trail beginning with customer requirements through to operator instructions and ending with what
was delivered to the customer.
Continued on page 5
Plante & Moran

QUALITY ASSURANCE UPDATE

It May Be Time to Re-Tool Your Quality

System
Integrating the QMS Into Business Strategy
Sales Plans
(Growth, reduction, etc.)

Analysis of Date
(Management Review)
Customer satisfaction
Delivery performance

Business Plan

Complaints

Market strategy/plan

Internal audits

Growth plan

Productivity

Budget

Scrap

Improvement strategy

Defects

Resources

Improvement Goals &

Objectives Projects
Facilities & Equipment
Plans
Training &
Development Plans

Supplier performance
Profitability
Gained/Lost sales

Supplier Development
Plan

Competitive analysis

Measure & Monitor

Fig.1

Continued from page 2

Implementation of a meaningful continuous improvement system linked to performance data and business
strategies
There are some important characteristics in the
ISO 9001:2000 and ISO/TS 16949:2002 standards that
can facilitate improvements and simplification to your
quality system. One key characteristic is the organization of the requirements in a process model that aligns
with common business models. This model fashioned
after the PLAN-DO-STUDY-ACT (PDSA) cycle (see
fig. 2) is designed to facilitate the development of your
quality system into a value-added business system.
Another significant distinction characteristic of these new
standards is the greatly reduced emphasis on documentation. With a reduced requirement for documentation,
establishing evidence of conformance shifts from paper to
results. Registrars have commented on the challenges they

will have auditing to the new standard if organizations do

not have well defined performance metrics. If you feel
document reduction or simplification would improve
your quality system, identify the following when assessing
your documentation:
Documents that are not needed for compliance and
are not adding value
Vague or ambiguous instructions and procedures
Overly complex or detailed instructions and procedures (e.g., more than 5 pages)
Lack of a logical document hierarchy
Redundant information and data appearing on multiple forms or records
Inefficient paper flow (i.e., work flow)
Processes without clear linkages to upstream and
downstream processes
Continued on page 5

4 Plante & Moran

QUALITY ASSURANCE UPDATE

It May Be Time to Re-Tool Your

Quality System
Continued from page 4
While it may appear to be
a daunting task, redesigning your quality system
can be a simple and valueadded exercise if some simple and basic themes are
followed. Sort paper into
value and non-value
stacks. Phase out the nonvalue stack and focus on
the value-added documents. Ensure your valueadd processes are defined
and measurable.
Implement effective control systems and retrain
your people in the new
system.
Other things to consider
in the design and execution of your quality system are as follows:

Improvement Cycle
(Shewhart/Deming)
Choose best
strategy, adjust
process, repeat
cycle

PLAN

ACT

Analyze outcomes,
compare to objectives,
develop recommendations

Systematically assess your system both qualitatively

and quantitatively
Use business system performance metrics to quantify process results and value
Established performance levels for processes and
systems and hold people accountable for achieving
those levels
Implement and execute a PDSA cycle
Decentralize ownership and responsibility for quality/business systems including metrics
Convert your internal audit system from a policing activity to a positive assessment tool
Develop and implement a structured continuous
improvement system linked to business strategy
The choice is clear; you may continue to accept less
than acceptable performance or value and drown in
paper, or take advantage of the transition period to take
control of your business and relieve the burden of a
quality system that is measured in pounds of paper
rather than dollar savings.

Systematic
Approach to
Process
Design/Improvement

CHECK

Establish objectives,
identify parameters
and resources, set
standards, and clarify
procedures

DO

Implement the plan,

observe, measure,
collect data

Fig.2

TS/ISO 16949 Is Here

Continued from page 3
Although ISO/TS 16949 is not currently mandated, suppliers are expected to develop transition plans, and while
the OEMs have not yet imposed deadlines for registration
to ISO/TS 16949, a clear message was communicated that
suppliers should develop plans and time lines for transition. An expectation was set for the transition time
lines to be reasonable and recommended by the end of
2003. Plans should include the organizations direct suppliers (subcontractors) of production parts or materials.
ISO/TS 16949 includes requirements for supplier development similar to QS-9000. While there are no deadlines stated for subcontractor compliance, it is expected
that audit findings for supplier requirements will be
based on a defined plan and implementation for supplier
development.
For copies of ISO/TS 16949:2002, supporting documents,
and customer-specific requirements, visit the AIAG Web
site (www.aiag.org).

Plante & Moran

27400 Northwestern Highway

P.O. Box 307
Southfield, MI 48037-0307

QUALITY

ASSURANCE

UPDATE

Ohio Locations

Michigan Locations
Ann Arbor
350 S. Main St., Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
734.665.9494 FAX 734.665.0664

Gaylord
1999 Walden Drive
Gaylord, MI 49735
989.732.1000 FAX 989.732.5698

St. Joseph/Benton Harbor

777-C Riverview Drive
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
269.927.4434 FAX 269.927.2525

Auburn Hills
2601 Cambridge Court, Suite 500
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
248.375.7100 FAX 248.375.7101

Grand Rapids
Bridgewater Place
333 Bridge St. N.W., Suite 600
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616.774.8221 FAX 616.774.0702

Southfield
27400 Northwestern Highway
P.O. Box 307
Southfield, MI 48037-0307
248.352.2500 FAX 248.352.0018

Battle Creek/Coldwater
67 W. Michigan Ave., Suite 500
Battle Creek, MI 49017
269.962.4079 FAX 269.962.4225

Kalamazoo
107 W. Michigan Ave., Suite 700
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
269.385.1858 FAX 269.385.2936

Traverse City
1010 S. Garfield Ave.
Traverse City, MI 49686
231.947.7800 FAX 231.947.0348

East Lansing
1111 Michigan Ave.
East Lansing, MI 48823
517.332.6200 FAX 517.332.8502

Mount Clemens
10 S. Main St., Suite 200
Mount Clemens, MI 48043
586.465.2200 FAX 586.469.0165

This publication is distributed with the understanding that Plante & Moran, LLP is not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional
advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assumes no liability whatsoever in connection with its use.

Cleveland
430 Hanna Building
1422 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115
216.523.1010 FAX 216.523.1025
Dublin
655 Metro Place S., Suite 500
Dublin, OH 43017
614.791.9200 FAX 614.791.9495
Lancaster
110 E. Main St.
Lancaster, OH 43130
740.653.7144 FAX 740.653.2947
Toledo
3434 Granite Circle
Toledo, OH 43617
419.843.6000 FAX 419.843.6099

plantemoran.com