'The undertaking by the automotive industry via AIAG is massive. With nearly 50 000 Tier-1 suppliers and 500 000 total suppliers throughout the chain...'
'....AIAG Assessment Certified and asked if he would care to comment.'
'Currently the response rate is very low...'
'...but the automotives delve into production areas as a focus. Most of these require specialized and/or unique systems. Only through a comprehensive SAQ do I as an assessor even
know where to *begin* to look.'
Interesting discussion on the Car industry y2k program.
John
---------
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:33:44 -0500
To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com
From: "John M. Grover" <jgrover@millenniumplus.com>
Subject: re: AIAG: Self assessment questionnaire
At 02:28 PM 2/6/1998 -0500, Jay Abshier, Mgr- Corporate Year 2000 Office Texaco Inc wrote:
>I agree totally with Chris Warwick's comments on the AIAG questionnaire. It
>appears to me to be self-defeating and it amazes me that the AIAG let these
>consultants get away with this. I would love to discuss this with someone
>at AIAG or one of the automakers, but they do not reveal any names or phone
>numbers, at least in the one copy I saw. Mine, however, is below.
>
>In asking for information from suppliers, each company must decide what they
>are trying to accomplish and ask for no more information than is required to
>reach that objective. In my case, I want to assure my company that it's
>suppliers are aware of the full scope of potential Year 2000 problems, that
>they have a team in place to address these problems and have a deadline for
>fixing them. In the case of systems that our systems INTERFACE with, we
>need to know enough to ensure that these systems will continue to talk with
>one another. Anything beyond that wastes my time, their time and is
>invasive.
>
>SNIP<
>
I took the liberty of forwarding the above to an associate of mine who is AIAG Assessment Certified and asked if he would care to comment. He did so directly to Mr. Abshier and copied me. He has given me permission to share his response with the rest of the MailList and it follows:
Return-Path: <bruinz@email.msn.com>
From: "Bill Newman" <bruinz@email.msn.com>
To: <abshijb@texaco.com>
Cc: "John Grover" <jgrover@millenniumplus.com>, "Jack Tyson"
<jtyson@uta.com>
Subject: Thoughts and Opinions ... AIAG Self-Assessment ...
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 17:45:33 -0500
Hi Jay:
I am responding on behalf of AIAG and the Year 2000 effort ongoing. I am aTier-2 supplier in the automotive industry (one hat) as well as a certified Y2k assessor (other hat) and have spoken on behalf of AIAG and its supplier readiness program. Let me preface also by saying that if you would like to
include Jack Tyson in this discussion (from UT Automotive), he is cc:d above. I receive relevant list postings from my colleague John Grover. He too is cc:d above and belongs to your list.
The undertaking by the automotive industry via AIAG is massive. With nearly 50 000 Tier-1 suppliers and 500 000 total suppliers throughout the chain,
you can quickly sense the urgency and scope of the matter. The Self-assessment Questionnaires (SAQ) are very detailed, I will agree.
Currently the response rate is very low, and one option under
consideration is the release and follow-up of a "kinder and gentler" SAQ. However, to produce a complete system like an automobile in a complex environment as assembly operations, requires a myriad of systems. Each system status must be known to assess overall risk to the supply chain. Ergo the large and detailed SAQ.
In your post you began:
>I agree totally with Chris Warwick's comments on the AIAG questionnaire.
It
>appears to me to be self-defeating and it amazes me that the AIAG let these consultants get away with this. I would love to discuss this with someone at AIAG or one of the automakers, but they do not reveal any names or phone umbers, at least in the one copy I saw. Mine, however, is below.
Lawyers will propel some behaviors, true, but the comprehensiveness of the
matter is the driver. As a certified assessor, my job when called upon
is to do a risk assessment (like a balance sheet) at the time and facility of the supplier questioned. Obviously we look for the technology risk (old systems, EDI, old mainframes running COBOL, etc.), but the automotives delve into production areas as a focus. Most of these require specialized and/or unique systems. Only through a comprehensive SAQ do I as an assessor even
know where to *begin* to look.
In any system effort there are situations which demand because of time constraints a less-than-optimal solution. And I agreed that the SAQ is not bullet-proof. But IMHO it is better than any other industry initiative out there (including the SEC and ITAA since very little deals with on-site validation) and is certainly proactive given the objectives of supply chain readiness.
Feel free to post this response on the list and to forward to me
information regarding its subscription.
Best regards, wdn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William D. Newman CMC @ Waterford, Michigan USA
* A-OK Applied Technologies Group * 248.340.7070 *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Certified Management Consultant with specialties in:
Information Technology Management
Technology and Organization Integration
Simulation and Production Software Development
Year 2000 Advisory
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the IMC website at imcusa.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
