wporter
17th April 2002, 11:39 AM
I heard from my registrar that the RAB may not recognize QS-9000 certification after December 2003, and that they will not be able to offer certificates to QS after that date. Anyone else hear this?
|
*Please be aware that SOME RECENT forum threads may not yet be indexed by Google. |
|
View Full Version : RAB and TS-16949 wporter 17th April 2002, 11:39 AM I heard from my registrar that the RAB may not recognize QS-9000 certification after December 2003, and that they will not be able to offer certificates to QS after that date. Anyone else hear this? Roger Eastin 17th April 2002, 01:48 PM Nope. I haven't heard anything like this. I thought the Big 3 owned the rights for ISO9000:1994 (for inclusion in QS9K) and so could mandate it as long as they wanted. Of course, the Big 3 and the RAB may not see eye-to-eye on this. Randy Stewart 17th April 2002, 02:22 PM Correct, they will not. Current certificates will expire on 12-15-03, that is when ISO9000:1994 goes away. The B3 may do something to extend the life, but that is yet to be seen. Just happen to go through this with our registrar this morning. wporter 17th April 2002, 04:07 PM Thanks for all your help Manoj Mathur 1st July 2002, 11:22 AM I noted that QS will die by its own but when no exact idea. Some says in 2003 while in one note it has been mentioned in 2006. But is is sure that merger of Daimler Benz with Chrysler and due to large number of American Companies supplying products to the Volkswagon in Mexico and the BMW and Mercedes plants in U.S. tending to TS 16949:2002 as universal Automotive QMS standard rak 10th July 2002, 10:05 AM As far as I know, QS 9000 will amble on till 2006. RAB will continue to recognize QS 9000 till this date. However ISO 9000:1994 will cease to exist from Dec 2003. So stand alone certification to ISO 9000:1994 will not be possible after Dec 2003. Howard Atkins 12th July 2002, 02:08 AM Please see the attachment to my post at http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=35012 of July 9. Here is the official explanation. |
|