Based on ISO 9000, TS 16949 is an international fundamental quality management system (QMS) specification for the automotive industry and is the first International Organization for Standardization (ISO) technical specification.

The International Automotive Task Force (IATF) and the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Assn. (JAMA) produced TS 16949 with support from ISO Technical Committee 176 (TC 176), the ISO committee that deals with quality management standards.

QS-9000 Morphs

TS 16949 evolved from the DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors (GM) quality system requirements (QS-9000) and the quality system assessment (QSA) manuals released in August 1994.

Large sections of QS-9000 text (outside of the ISO 9001:1994 text) are still recognizable in TS 16949. Surprisingly, QS-9000 was not a DaimlerChrysler, Ford or GM idea. Actually, the automotive suppliers suggested it in a June 1988 ASQ Automotive Division conference with the Big Three automakers’ purchasing vice presidents.

Where We Were

By the mid-1980s, suppliers were subject to numerous military, national and customer standards. Large automotive suppliers dedicated full-time employees to each customer account just to address the varying customer quality requirements.

For tier two suppliers—those who sell to a tier one supplier—the situation was worse. They were subject to numerous unique tier one supplier quality standards, which also included the standards of the final customer. Furthermore, tier two suppliers typically have fewer resources for dealing with variation than tier one suppliers have.

In 1987, the ISO 9000 family of QMS standards was released. Its use promoted the use of consistent quality terminology internationally and resulted in significant harmonization. The standards were slow to take root in the United States, however.

The Big Three elected to use the ISO 9001 standard as the base for QS-9000, mainly because there was a widespread rumor at the time that companies would have to be ISO 9000 certified by the mid-1990s to do business in Europe.

While nothing in ISO 9000 was objectionable to the Big Three, it lacked some elements in current automotive industry documents, such as business plans, customer satisfaction, continuous improvement, manufacturing capabilities and much of the advanced quality planning content.

Adding to Supplier Profits

The benefits of QS-9000 have been documented. A 1998 ASQ/Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) survey of more than 200 suppliers reported the average cost of QS-9000 registration to be about $120,000.

All but $20,000 paid by the supplier to the certification body—17% of the total reported cost—turned out to be discretionary cost on the part of the supplier, such as for consultants or training. The average sales of the survey respondents was $130 million, and they reported an average savings of 6% of sales as a result of the QS-9000 registration, which is about $8 million per company.

This 1998 survey also correlated greatly with the 1997 version of the same survey, which had more than 600 respondents. That survey indicated a 3-to-1 return on total costs and almost 17-to-1 return on certification body fees. Tin addition, about half the suppliers improved their parts per million defect rates by about 50%.

This contrasts with the benefits of ISO 9000. In a 1999 McGraw-Hill ISO 9000 survey with over 1,100 respondents, the average total cost of ISO 9000 registration was reported to be $156,000, with an average total savings of $187,000, or a savings-to-cost ratio of only 1.2-to-1. Less than 19% reported their defect rate was significantly improving and of these, only one-third reported the improvement was attributable to the ISO 9000 registration to a high or very high extent.

The difference in quality improvement and savings between QS-9000 and the ISO 9000 scheme is primarily due to the additional sector specific requirements and process controls imposed on the third-party registration system--for example, QS-9000 appendixes B, G, H and I.

Interest in adopting QS-9000 within the Big Three original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) globally was high from the beginning. To accommodate the international roll-out, the second edition of QS-9000 was released in February 1995.

The second edition was the first version to be deployed by OEMs worldwide. This required the translation of the requirements, certification scheme information and training materials into several languages, including German, Spanish, French, Italian, Japanese, Chinese and Portuguese.

Global Standardization Launched

In May 1995, during a QS-9000 roll-out meeting in Europe for suppliers and certification bodies, representatives of the European automotive OEMs approached the task force to point out similar harmonization efforts had already been undertaken in Europe. In fact, there were already three national automotive supplier quality requirements manuals in Europe: VDA 6.1 in Germany, AVSQ in Italy and EAQF in France. QS-9000 was now a fourth. As a result of this discussion, it was agreed additional harmonization should be pursued for the benefit of the shared supply base.

In Italy, Fiat Auto, IVECO and 16 primary suppliers representing 85 suppliers in total had worked on AVSQ. In France, Renault and PSA, which consists of Peugeot and Citroen, teamed with FIEV, the French automotive supplier association, and four primary suppliers representing some 300 suppliers in total, to publish EAQF.

In Germany, Adam Opel, Audi, BMW, Daimler Benz, Ford Werke and VW worked with their automotive trade association, VDA, and 18 primary suppliers representing some 500 total suppliers in the development of VDA 6.1, one of a number of common manuals in the VDA 6 family of quality documents. VDA 6.1 has been translated into several languages and has been deployed internationally, as has QS-9000.

Extensive efforts were undertaken early in the process to identify where the content of the documents was similar and where it differed. Much of this effort involved translation of the documents into English, the only language common to the group.

When these manuals and QS-9000 were compared, they were all found to be remarkably similar. Most differences were in areas of emphasis and in the amount of guidance included with the requirements.

The most significant differences were in the methods of determining conformance to the requirements. The European approaches were based upon second-party (customer/supplier) audits, with a general agreement for reciprocal recognition of each other’s audits.

Subsequent meetings of the U.S. and European OEMs were scheduled, and the group became known as the IATF.

Migration to ISO 9000

The international launch of QS-9000 was also being noted by ISO member bodies and TC 176. In November 1995, ISO TC 176 chair Reg Shaughnessy contacted the task force as a follow-up to a TC 176 resolution passed in the ISO TC 176 plenary meeting in Durban, South Africa.

In this annual meeting, TC 176 resolved to undertake efforts to avoid proliferation of sector specific standards such as QS-9000 by investigating collaborative efforts with the automotive group. The aim was to convince the automotive group to adopt the use of ISO 9001. This was consistent with the ISO directives at the time concerning sector specific requirements.

There were several additional meetings and numerous communications before the next ISO TC 176 plenary in Tel Aviv, Israel, in November 1996, to explore the possibilities of collaborative efforts. It was soon apparent to all that the ISO 9001:1994 text alone was insufficient for use by the automotive industry, so efforts were then focused on how best to accommodate them.

At the November 1996 TC 176 plenary, a resolution was adopted to ensure the generic quality management needs of the automotive industry would be addressed in the future revision of the ISO 9000 family.

Alternatives as to how this might work were discussed, but the prevailing thought was to use another type of document in the ISO portfolio, a technical report, to house the additional requirements. Additional meetings between IATF and TC 176 leadership led to IATF being recognized as a liaison member to ISO TC 176, under a new category.

The TC 176 plan then was for the automotive industry to participate in the ISO 9000:2000 revision process already under way to see whether enough additional content could be added to make the next version of ISO 9001 fit for automotive industry use without supplement. Eight IATF members became engaged in the various activities of TC 176 and its subcommittees.

However, this participation came about too late. The year 2000 design specifications for the revision were complete by then, so much of the significant content brought forward by the automotive group was rejected as being outside of the design specifications or not applicable to other product sectors.

In discussion with the other sectors involved with TC 176, such as medical devices, aerospace and telecommunications, it became apparent ISO TC 176 would either have to find a way to accommodate the automotive sector specifics outside ISO 9000 but within the ISO portfolio of documents or the automotive group would continue to publish its own supplier requirements. These other sectors preferred that ISO 9001 contain only the minimum requirements for quality assurance while each sector published its own sector specific requirements.

The ISO Sector Pilot

In consultation with TC 176, it became clear the best path was through a pilot project with the automotive group so ISO could gain some experience on how to address sector specific requirements going forward in conjunction with a revision to the ISO directives.

At the November 1997 ISO TC 176 plenary meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, another resolution was adopted that approved the pilot to go forward according to the plan jointly developed by TC 176 and IATF.

This plan called for the development of an ISO technical report as the vehicle for the automotive requirements. It also targeted a decision to be made by the end of the first quarter of 1998 with regard to which version of ISO 9001 to use: the 1994 text, which would allow the project to begin immediately, or the 2000 text, which would require a delay in beginning the project but would include the Japanese OEMs.

The work group would consist of subject matter experts (SMEs) from TC 176 subcommittees 1, 2 and 3 and the IATF if the short-term option was chosen, or the IATF and representatives from JAMA if the long-term option was selected. The SMEs on the work group would ensure consistency with ISO protocols for terminology, standards and auditing.

The issue of Japanese OEM involvement was raised a year earlier by TC 176. JAMA preferred having one or two representatives join the ISO pilot project when the work began on integrating the new ISO 9001:2000 text. Once the short-term approach was selected, the pilot progressed rapidly based on the IATF work already done, using the third edition of QS-9000 as the baseline.

The Japanese OEM affiliates in the United Kingdom had considered adopting QS-9000 some years earlier as part of the UK automotive trade association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

At that time, SMMT stopped short of endorsement and use of QS-9000 over some terminology differences. The Japanese OEMs had indicated QS-9000 was not particularly objectionable, but rather that their process was different. In fact, Toyota’s North American operation issued a supplier quality manual several years ago telling suppliers to use techniques from the Big Three supplier quality reference manuals covering issues such as failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) and measurement systems analysis.

ISO TS 16949 Released

The draft document was balloted by TC 176 in the third quarter of 1998 and approved for release. During the ballot, ISO’s central secretariat noted availability of a new document type in the ISO portfolio, a Technical Specification (TS), if IATF wanted to use that category rather than the existing technical report category.

This was supported, and in November 1998, ISO TS 16949 was released as the first ISO TS. IATF announced ISO TS 16949 would be an optional document for automotive suppliers to use to satisfy existing customer certification requirements.

Images

Picture of the International Automotive Task Force (IATF) at a Paris meeting working on the common document.

Picture of the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) from a meeting on QS-9000 and ISO TS16949.

Note: This article is based on the author’s previously published material in the ASQ ISO 9000:2000 Handbook, chapter 48, (ASQ Quality Press, 2001) and in Quality Progress’ “Standards Outlook” columns of April 2000, January 2002 and October 2003.

R. Dan Reid, an ASQ Fellow and certified quality engineer, is a purchasing manager at GM Powertrain and a member of the American College of Healthcare Executives. He is co-author of the three editions of QS-9000 and ISO/TS 16949; the Chrysler, Ford, GM Advanced Product Quality Planning With Control Plan, Production Part Approval Process and Potential Failure Modes and Effects Analysis manuals; ISO 9001:2000; and ISO IWA 1. Reid also was the first delegation leader of IATF.

Tag Cloud