Has anyone successfully wrote a new Q Manual for a company with a split ISO 9K2K/QS 9000 certification? I've been told by our registrar that we should not try to include QS 9000 in the new manual covering ISO 9K2K, but don't I have to include both in the Q Manual and then reference to our procedures which I have done? He has also told me that I have to answer 4.2.2 (c) in the Q Manual not in a procedure. This is not the way I understood the standard. I have deliberately left the procedures out of the Q Manual because I felt there were too many in the last one which became rather redundant when the procedures covered it too. I appreciate any input you may have.

Strike 1 on new manual!

I have written a QM for ISO2K and QS9000. I have taken the relevant positionings from the draft of ISO/TS 16949.

As I understand it 4.2.2 c all is needed is a flow chart in the QM.
No need for a procedure at all.

Because of the QS requirements the QM has all the references to the QS demands.

Even for the special QS demands you do not necessarily need a procedure, reference in the QM is enough

I forgot to say that this has not yet been submitted for approval.

Howard,
Just how have you formatted your flow chart for 4.2.2 (c)? Should I just use a flow chart showing the processes a job would follow thru the facility from estimate until shipped? As far as QS requirements, I have been advised to not add the QS references to my QM for ISO 9K2k.:confused:

I used a very generic chart from customer requirements thru feasability, development, test production , production , shipping and customer feed back.
The records were indicated as outputs of the stage.
I must translate it and then post it.
I do not understand why you have been advised not to add the QS to the QM, do they want 2 systems?

Howard,
I don't exactly know just what he is thinking. I am waiting on clarification and hope to have that before our surveillance audit Nov. 13. I will post his ideas back here when I get them. Thanks for the discussion on this topic.:)

I also have a dilemna regarding a new registration. Our customer base is about 1/8 automotive. We are presently not ISO registered. Having registered several previous organizations, the ISO is pretty straightforward. But, is it possible to have a (Registered) system for which I may run a full APQP regimen for some customers.....but also maintain a more typical process regimen for other (non QS) customers? I know....I know......the APQP process could benefit BOTH. But, frankly, a smaller company can't maintain that much administration, particularly when the bulk of customers can't even spell "FMEA"!

Could I include a decision point during the design planning process as to which "road" a project will take....based upon individual customer requirements? The automotive customers will require one regimen.....while (others) would use a parallel protocal? Can I develop an ISO 9000-2000 program and "self declare" QS9000 compliancy to my (smaller) automotive customers? Or, do I spin this all around.....go for the QS registration......but develop the two paths.....

Advice...please!!!!!

:frust:

RickG,
You do realize that if you register to QS you will be required to apply it to all your customers. However, you can go for a double certification (mandatory after 12/03) of ISO9K2K & QS9000. This would allow you to do what you have alluded to in your post. We are in the middle of just such a transition. Of course this is assuming that your automotive customers are mandating QS9000. If they are not just go with the ISO9K2K or plan for the future and get a TS16949 certificate.