The owner of our small company, a supplier to the American steel industry wants us to maintain QS-9000 to differentiate us from "Garage Shops". Only one customer ever required QS, and we lost him anyway. It appears TS16949 will continue to require supplier ISO-9001 registration, etc.

Our suppliers are a joke! We purchase by-products, slags, and packaging supplies from handicapped people. Most of them don't test anything at all, or test characteristcs totally irrelevant to our use, so supplier SPC is not possible. Some of the larger ones are ISO, but many would just sell to someone else if we damanded registration. Is it possible to have non-critical suppliers for materials that go into the product or package for the application?

Should we convert to ISO9001:2000? It would make life a lot easier and still meet our customer's Big Three demands. How do I convince the boss? He still hasn't written a business plan after 5 years! Its also getting harder to "dance" with the auditors regarding these little non-conformities.


Thanks

Bob,
You are going to need to comply to ISO 2000 by December of 2003 anyway if you want to amintain your QS cert. ISO is a stand alone certification-QS is not. Just thought I'd let you know. Hope It helps in making your decision. Also, you can separate your requirements for automobile and non-automobile. It isn't as hard as it might sound. Just state automobile specific rquiremtns in your procedures. I have done this in the past and it works fine.

According to a discussion that I had with a registrar they are not going to look at ISO9001:2000 for QS registered companies untill they get guidance from AIAG.
QS is not a stand alone document but can it be given with ISO9001:2000 as this is not part of the QS standard.
Has anyone got a definitive answer.

Howard,

Our registrar told me that if we do not upgrade to ISO 2000 by December 2003; we will no longer have a QS certificate either. If this is incorrect I would appreciate any other comments as I plan to bring this to the Board of Directors on Monday (Jan. 21).

Bob - I would try to convince your boss to ISO9001:2000. It gives your company a lot more flexibility and it has as good a name as QS9K! I am somewhat confused, though. You said at one point in your message that you don't have a customer that supplies the Big 3 anymore and then later in the message you state that ISO9001:2000 will satisfy your customer's who supply the Big 3. I ask that because if you have customers that supply the Big 3, then you have to go ISO9001:2000 if you go with a 3rd party audit or you can go QS9K or TS16949 if you want a 2nd party audit (your customer audits you - but this has to be approved by the Big 3).

Are other people out there aware of the question on QS being a stand alone standard? I have questions in to the AIAG but never receive an answer from them. If our registrar states we will need to upgrade to ISO 2000 to maintain our QS certification; I have no choice than to believe them since they issue the certificate. To all the QS gurus out there-Do you realize you will no longer be certified to QS 9000 as of December 2003 if you do not upgrade to ISO 2000?

Where is this "must have 2000" coming from? QS-9000 is based on ISO-9000;1994 and I have read nothing stating that AIAG had any intention of upgrading the standard to fall in line with ISO -9000;2000.

Have I missed an announcement somewhere or is this a message from a particular registrar?

The latest I heard was that QS-9000 is still alive and kicking.

What is the official word?

Thanks

Note to Bob - If you are not a big 3 direct supplier, stay out of QS-9000. ISO-9000 will give you a good base and is just as saleable. I agree with Roger - go for the latest ISO.

Dave

I am going out on a limb here, as I am applying logic to QS (That is probably not a good thing:eek: ). QS is based on ISO 9001:1994. Companies that are QS are also ISO 9001, or ISO 9002. When 1994 expires, I think it will still be possible to maintain QS, but you will lose your ISO registration. Your certificate will only read “QS-9000 Compliant”. At least that is the way I see it.

But, I don’t think we will have to worry much about it. I see QS becoming officially obsoleted (is that a word?) by 16949.

So let me get this straight. I am in a plant now that supplies all over the world. We have 50% Automotive, 30% medical and 20% electronics. I was going for the TS16949, Is this going to be a problem for me. This plant has never been certified to any std. They tried about 2 years ago, but no cigar. Lead me in the right direction guys. My plan is to be certified by January 2003 TS or should I be looking at another option. We are a rubber company www.kokokuintech.com

If you're working with other people and your wanting to do a good job, always watch out for the person who's behind the person in front of you! :bigwave: :eek:

Greg,

I would hold off on TS for a couple of months at least. Wait until it comes out in its new realignment. If you need to get going immediately, then concentrate on ISO 9K2K. The realigned TS will be based on 9K2K. 9K2K also provides a great deal of flexibility for the organization. You might want to poke around the threads in that category for more information.

IMNSHO

My advice would be to go for ISO9001:2000 immediately, and then go for ISO/TS 16949 as well when it is revised and released in March based on the ISO9001:2000 structure.

As primarily an automotive supplier, we were going to get a dual registration of to 'be revised' TS 16949 & ISO 9001:2000. But as the financial issues have come to light, we a hoping to get by with TS 16949. Up to this point that seemed the way the automotive industry was moving. Then I read elsewhere in the forums that the USA didn't approval the revised TS 16949 (most likely the automotive industry doings). So were do we go?... I don't know. But one thing is for sure is that automotive will still want the supplier to be Certified to at least ISO requirement regardless.

Dawn,
I liked what you had to say about having supplier set up by automotive supplier and nonautomotive. That way everyone is happy.
Mooser

This is actually this is my 4th plant to get certs for QS/ISO. It is the most vesatileThe last plant I coordinated to the ISO9001 and QS9000. I guess my best bet is to stay that course. That should encompass all that we do currently:p Can I get a consensus on that please.
This will save lots of work for this plant as well as $$$$$$:eek: He who is slowest in making a promise is most faithful in keeping it. :smokin:

For what its worth, I'm 100% with M. Greenaway on going for ISO (2000). I would advise any company who is not a direct supplier to the big 3 to stay away from QS-9000 or TS-16949. The requirement from automotive seems to be ISO (whatever is current).

If and when you become a direct supplier or your customer requires more, you can look at it then.

Just my opinion but why would anyone want the extra hassle of QS/TS if they are not required to have it?

Dave

Back to the point from Dawn - it seems to me that a while ago (1-2 years ago), someone mentioned that QS9K is a stand-alone document because the Big 3 had bought the rights to ISO9000-1994. The question came up about what would happen to QS 9K when ISO9001:2000 superseded ISO9000:1994. An answer was that nothing would HAVE to happen to QS (because they had bought the rights). Anyone else remember that?

I remember the thread - that pretty well sums it up.

Greg,
I think you're headed in the right direction and I would do what you are doing if I were doing it myself. When the revised TS comes out in March you can add to your system.

Also, Our registrar is who stated we MUST upgrade to ISO 2000. The AIAG actually got back to me (in quick response I might add) and stated that this is incorrect. That we do not have to upgrade. I may be having a not so pleasant conversation with our Registrar tomorrow.

I hadnt heard that QS had bought the rights to ISO9001:1994, and it sounds a bit bizzarre, unless we are just talking copyright on duplication and publication of the exact words.

QS9000 could potentially be a stand alone document, but I dont think there will be any third party certification given against this standard when ISO9001:1994 is obsoleted. I have heard that UKAS will not support QS9000 as it will no longer be an international standard (can anyone confirm this ?).

As such the status of QS will rapidly diminish from an international standard (all be it big 3 automotive), to a set of customer requirements.

I'm sure you're right that they did not buy the document per se - only the rights to use the text verbatum within QS-9000.

I enquired to ASQ on the subject and this is their reply:

The QS-9000 Task Force is securing an agreement with ISO to extend the use of ISO 9001:1994 version until 2006.
Your registrar would not be informed of this yet.
I will be asking the Task Force to put this out in writing to the
registrars when it is official during our next meeting at the end of the month.
I hope that this helps.

Kool:bonk:

And the thick plotens.... :thedeal:

Originally posted by D.Scott

Note to Bob - If you are not a big 3 direct supplier, stay out of QS-9000. ISO-9000 will give you a good base and is just as saleable. I agree with Roger - go for the latest ISO.

DaveI would agree 100%.

But - there are several companies - Caterpillar is one I believe - that have adopted QS-9000 as their saviour and are requiring :bonk: suppliers to register to QS-9000. I just agreed to a QS-9000 implementation project because of this requirement. I didn't dream of another QS-9000 implementation in my future...

Just posting this as 'over the bar' conversation as there is a reality occurring beyond the 'big three'. I think there are a couple of other 'biggies' which have adopted QS-9000.

My personal opinion is they (companies like Caterpillar) are wanting the APQP aspects and related stuff (such as the MSA, Control Plan and FMEA stuff) to be a part of all their suppliers basic systems. While I have never supported QS-9000 as a document as worded and interpreted (read audited), I have long believed the intent and the requirements as a whole are good. I'm an FMEA freak. To me APQP is "Good Business Practices" that you do not need an MBA to understand the value and importance of. Initially I revolted against their Business Plan requirements (4.1.4) but I have also seen that many of the suppliers had 70% to 90% of their business based upon business from one or two of one of the 'big three'. In retrospect, I better understand (I think) the original intent of the requirement.

Again, just some thoughts. :thedeal:

Dawn this sounds like a great saga - please keep us informed.

I would be amazed if ISO agreed to this, wouldn't it undermine the 2000 standard ?

I would have thought that ISO would be trying to force the QS writers to revise QS in line with ISO9001:2000 (or have they already done that with ISO/TS 16949:2002 ?).

M,

From what I have seen and heard is most of the new stuff in ISO 2000 has been taken from QS; there would not be a whole lot left to upgrade. Also, TS is being revised to be in line with ISO 2000; possibly even the format. Or so I am told....:biglaugh:

The deltas between ISO9001:2000 and QS are small but the situation that every one has a different answer to the question of wether a QS registered company needs to upgrade to ISO9001:2000 is annoying to say the least.
Most Tier 1 are demanding QS or TS not just OEM's, in fact OEM's are now demanding their own standards, FORD for example, see threads at FORD specific.
It is obvious that the direction is to ISO/TS 16949:2002, which is aligned to ISO9001:2000.
I believe that the answer to customers should be that " we are waiting for publication of ISO/TS 16949:2002". This should be acceptable to them.
The problem is what will the timelimit be for transformation. If the transformation to ISO9001:2000 is DEC/2003 then you must start working now to ensure that the transformation is on time.


Dawn
The QS-9000 Task Force is securing an agreement with ISO to extend the use of ISO 9001:1994 version until 2006.
Your registrar would not be informed of this yet.
I will be asking the Task Force to put this out in writing to the
registrars when it is official during our next meeting at the end of the month.
This is a ridiculous situation, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing

Further to this discussion.
In the link that Laura provided in thread http://www.16949.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4145 Link to UL checklist (http://www.ul.com/services/iso2000.html)
Here are a number of quotes:
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC.
December 15, 2000
The following information defines UL’s approach for the transition of registered firms from ISO 9001/2 1994, to ISO 9001:2000. This transition plan has been established based upon ISO transition guidelines, as well as input from accreditation bodies, government, and the marketplace........

12. Will all sector specific standards incorporating ISO 9001/2 1994 be
revised to include the ISO 9000:2000 Requirements?
No.

Automotive
QS-9000 - Ford, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors have not announced plans to integrate QS-9000 with ISO 9001:2000. QS-9000 will remain effective in its current form until further notice.

T&E Supplement to QS-9000 - Ford, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors have not announced plans to integrate the T&E Supplement with ISO 9001:2000. The T&E Supplement will remain effective in its current form until further notice.

ISO/TS 16949 - The IATF has confirmed that ISO/TS 16949 will be revised to include ISO 9000:2000.

13. Will QS-9000 or T&E Supplement clients be required to upgrade to
ISO 9001:2000?
No. UL will continue to conduct QS-9000 and T&E Supplement assessments to the current editions, which include ISO 9001/2 1994. Clients may request that an ISO 9001:2000 upgrade assessment be scheduled if they would like to comply with the ISO 9001:2000 requirements.Does this help!!!!!!

Reading Howard's UL statement and Marc's Caterpillar situation, one would think that QS9K could go on forever. This seems to reinforce the point that the Big 3 bought the rights to ISO90001 :1994, so it doesn't matter whether ISO9000 is updated or not (from a "QS perspective").

If there is a move to renew QS 9000, that would be a major reversal in there policy. If you look at the site www.iaob.org/iatfpr/iatf_communique_1000_files/frame.htm and check out the slides as well you see that QS is scheduled for extinction at the end of 2003. This is there Automotive Task Force site.

Mooser

Yeah, Roger, for those who don't know any better, QS-9000 may go on like the Battery Bunny!

Regarding Caterpillar, my company has in the last few years done a goodly amount of business installing large paint systems for their engine and tractor plants. However, in the process of developing the proposals and initiating engineering, I discovered that Caterpillar was not ISO nor QS certified and did not require their suppliers to be. Rather, Cat has this thing called "Supplier Guidelines for preparing Quality Plans" that usurps the ISO and QS standards. It reads very closely to the recognized standards but it appears Cat has taken its own approach in developing its own internal standard.

Can this be the new trend in quality certification?

As a manufacturer and supplier of finishing, abatement, and waste water systems, we are involved in both automotive (tier 1, 2 3,...) and non-automotive markets. If QS9K-TE stays around after ISO9K:1994 goes away, then as a responsible Quality Manager, I should look into separate registrations to ISO9001:2000 and QS9K-TE. These will probably require separate manuals but shared procedures. And if another automotive customer [other than B3] requires TS16949 then I must integrate it into my QMS, correct? Merged with the ISO QMS, right? I'm so confused.


It seems the hurrier I go; the behinder I get!

So........

Lets say I go to the ISO :2000 for this plant. I can wait on the TS16949. We don't presently supply the B3. We however are teir 1, teir 2 supplier to other auto companies, electronics, and medical. 22 customers. This would be a good thing right????

Medical, now that was an interesting find. To my knowledge ISO 7868 is another avenue we need. This Blind sided me on that standard. Researching now. I keep finding stuff!!!!!

So my plan is to cert. to ISO 900:2000 QS9000, wait on TS if I don't need for now:rolleyes: I am waiting for my Reg. to call.



Life it happens!