Marc
17th October 2000, 05:09 PM
The Future of QS-9000
From a site now gone (This is edited on 19 December 2005)
**********************
I read a recent report by you that uses a lot of supposition about the retraining of QS 9000 Auditors is really all about. This is not a death knell, as you imply to the whole establishment of QS 9000 but a refinement.
In the August 1998 IAAR Conference held with the Big 3, being a Lead Auditor working FULL TIME for a major registrar, I was allowed to go, they discussed several reasons behind these seemingly punitive retraining efforts for the registrars serving the big 3: Level of service Level of competence and sophistication Suitability to assess the automotive suppliers
Bottom line, the message sent is this; We are tired of auditors that are not familiar with the auto industry working with our supplier base. They are also sending the message that, "If you only have ten or twenty QS registrations, we think you should find something better to do." You see, along with the reduction in supplier base for the auto industry with QS. The big three are looking at reducing the number of registrars to about ten or so, in order to reduce variation. I'm an auditor with big three tier one experience. I've used the reference manuals in actual situations it makes a big difference versus an auditor who comes from the nuclear industry. You also suppose that most auditors are sub contractors, that is diminishing also. The majority of new auditors, since the grandfathering of Lead Auditors by the RAB was back in 1994 are now coming in at a provisional level and need to be trained. Subsequently, they need to be full time with a registrar to do so. Most large registrars are weaning themselves away from sub contractors at this time. This was also the foreseen justification by the big three planning committee.
Need to have auditors that understand what the heck APQP, FMEA and MSA are. The ones that decide not to attend the courses and just fade out of QS are just what the big three want. I think the big three are tired of paying for auditors mistakes that's why they monitor our performance by our clients performance. They put our name next to the supplier on a performance list. If we have a number of suppliers on probation, then its brought to our attention.
The first round of Auditors that attended the TE supplement course were given the exam questions for the exam. Many had difficult passing the ISO portion according to the big three (In case you're curious, I attended the course, I passed all portions with flying colors). Before you make suppositions next time; ask around, you might find out another side of the story.
*******************end**************
Comments, folks???
From a site now gone (This is edited on 19 December 2005)
**********************
I read a recent report by you that uses a lot of supposition about the retraining of QS 9000 Auditors is really all about. This is not a death knell, as you imply to the whole establishment of QS 9000 but a refinement.
In the August 1998 IAAR Conference held with the Big 3, being a Lead Auditor working FULL TIME for a major registrar, I was allowed to go, they discussed several reasons behind these seemingly punitive retraining efforts for the registrars serving the big 3: Level of service Level of competence and sophistication Suitability to assess the automotive suppliers
Bottom line, the message sent is this; We are tired of auditors that are not familiar with the auto industry working with our supplier base. They are also sending the message that, "If you only have ten or twenty QS registrations, we think you should find something better to do." You see, along with the reduction in supplier base for the auto industry with QS. The big three are looking at reducing the number of registrars to about ten or so, in order to reduce variation. I'm an auditor with big three tier one experience. I've used the reference manuals in actual situations it makes a big difference versus an auditor who comes from the nuclear industry. You also suppose that most auditors are sub contractors, that is diminishing also. The majority of new auditors, since the grandfathering of Lead Auditors by the RAB was back in 1994 are now coming in at a provisional level and need to be trained. Subsequently, they need to be full time with a registrar to do so. Most large registrars are weaning themselves away from sub contractors at this time. This was also the foreseen justification by the big three planning committee.
Need to have auditors that understand what the heck APQP, FMEA and MSA are. The ones that decide not to attend the courses and just fade out of QS are just what the big three want. I think the big three are tired of paying for auditors mistakes that's why they monitor our performance by our clients performance. They put our name next to the supplier on a performance list. If we have a number of suppliers on probation, then its brought to our attention.
The first round of Auditors that attended the TE supplement course were given the exam questions for the exam. Many had difficult passing the ISO portion according to the big three (In case you're curious, I attended the course, I passed all portions with flying colors). Before you make suppositions next time; ask around, you might find out another side of the story.
*******************end**************
Comments, folks???
