Experience and old habits
Martin and Jim,
I hear where you're coming from. I had to learn a whole new way of thinking myself when I got involved in this line of work. I'm lucky to have the opportunity to work with some of the best folks in the country - and perhaps the world - on TS2. Talk about a blind squirrel finding a nut!
I would urge the consulting community to attend AIAG training on TS2 before making the assumption that TS2 is going to be handled just like QS-9000 was. The emphasis on TS2 is squarely on processes and conformance to ALL customer requirements - part quality, delivery performance, process performance, and so on. The "paperwork mill" approach to QS that many (perhaps most) companies used (including, I'm now embarassed to admit, my first implementation) will not fly in the TS world.
"Elemental" audits are going away as well. Process Approach auditing as mandated by the IAOB will focus sqaurely on the ability of an organization's processes to meet customer requirements - ALL customer requirements. CB auditors will be expected to understand and analyze an organization's processes, and structure their aduits accordingly, developing specific, focused questions based primarily on process performance and determining if customer requirements are being met. The auditors will dig a lot deeper then ever before, especially when a process isn't performing to customer requirements. It's going to feel a lot like a second party audit in that respect. The Quality Systems Checklist is intended to be used as a planning aid (to ensure that all TS requirements are covered in the audit plan), and at the conclusion of audits to ensure and document that all TS2 requirements were examined.
Guys, the IAOB (and the automakers they represent) are dead serious about this. Check out the IAOB website and read the communiques. Attend one of the AIAG rollout sessions. I haven't confimed this independently, but one of my contacts that works with AIAG said that last year, the automakers recalled more cars than they produced! And the lion's share of that is due to supplier quality issues. I've worked most of my career, and I know that the automakers themelves are not exactly blameless in this, considering some of their procurement and cost-reduction policies, But let's face it - in this business, it's the Golden Rule. They have the gold, they make the rules. And they're sick of losing market share to the Japanese because most people perceive Japanese cars as being better quality and more reliable.
I have personally heard the DC rep to the IAOB state, on more than one occaison, that if the automakers do not see significant improvement in supplier quality, THEY WILL GO BACK TO SECOND PARTY ASSESSMENTS! The GM rep has publicly stated the same thing. I don't think anyone wants that, and before you pooh-pooh the notion and think to yourself "Nah, that'll never happen."
let me tell you. I looked the DC guy in the eye whil he was saying it, and I believed him. **** skippy I believed him.
Under the new scheme, if the IAOB gets reports from the automakers about quality issues with suppliers, THEY may choose to initiate the decertification process themselves. You can see that outlined in the "Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition", availble from AIAG. For TS2, CBs have contracts direct with the IAOB, and the IAOB has responsibility for conducting witness audits for TS2 - NOT the IAOB. If a number of suppliers with quality problems are clients of the same CB, then the CB's contract with the IAOB could well be in jeopardy. There's only about 50 CBs worldwide sanctioned to perform TS2 audits - that alone should tell you something (the list is on the IAOB's website).
The winds of change are blowing, and knowledge is power. Before you assume that TS2 is going to be like QS, get the straight scoop from the folks that are close to the process - AIAG and Plexus. You won't regret it, except as you may regret getting involved in automotive in the first place!
DW
