I have a question regarding which quality standard would apply to the following company:

This company is looking to get registered to some form of ISO. The company manufactures wood gages. There is not any mass production or design performed at this location. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

I "wood" :biglaugh: (Sorry I couldn't help it) have to say ISO 9001:2000, unless you are looking to certifiy your product.

If you have not selected a registrar and want a couple names let me know.

Welcome to the Cove, JSmith! :bigwave:

I would agree with ISO GUY that the standard to use is ISO 9001:2000. Every other standard you might want is based on it. Being in Clawson (Lovely town, Clawson is) I also have to ask if the gages are used in the auto industry. If so, then eventually you might want to look at either QS 9000 Tooling and Equipment (TE) Supplement or ISO/TS 16949:2002. QS and TE are going away shortly and we don’t know if there will be a TE supplement for TS. So, for now concentrate on ISO 9001:2000.

Why am I not surprised by your repsonse Jim? :D

I suppose you're going to scare this poor guy into avoiding ISO? :p

Now, Richard....remember the original poster is new.

Actually, Jim asks a very important question. I thought about it too just after I hit the "Submit Reply" key. To expand on Jim's question, I would also ask what are your customer's saying? I have worked with organizations that obtained registration for the discipline, not because it was mandated. I also worked with a company that became compliant, but did not register because they wanted the internal benefits of compliance, but did not want the expense of registration. Regardless of Jim’s motives, the question is still a valid question. (oh man…I’m defending Jim!)


:bonk:

:truce: Nothing personal Jim. You've started some great dicussions/debates on here, but like other people here, I sometimes have to wonder about your motive. ;)

As to the original question, I agree with the others. ISO 9001:2000 would probably be your best bet as that is typically the default standard in most (not all) maunfacturing facilities and is also the most well known, especially by people outside of quality. You may end up using a different standard based upon your needs or reasons, but I would start by taking a look at 9001:2000.

Jim Wade Said:
Why not, for example, 9004:2000? Or 9000:2000?

I don't know about you, but I haven't heard of anyone registered to either of those.:D :p

:bigwave: Jim,

By your logic I could list a number of reference books about 9001:2000. I could also mention several people to talk to about getting information about 9001:2000. The list could be endless, but that is not the point of this topic.

The question is what standard to get registered to. I was simply saying that the 9001:2000 standard (as a whole) would be a good option to look at first when considering registration.

If someone asks for reference information regarding 9001:2000, then I would of course mention all the documents you mentioned and perhaps some others.

Jim,

I believe I understand you point. However, would it not be easier to establish a QMS, which could later be certified to ISO 9001:2000, if you first read (and presumably, understood) the document itself?

I understand and agree there are other models for an appropriate QMS. If the requirement was to establish an effective QMS that also addressed all requirements of ISO 9001:2000, I believe it would be of benefit to refer to the standard from the beginning. And also the supporting documents i.e. ISO 9000:2000, ISO 9004:2000, ISO 10013, etc...

Jim Wade said:

the white of "avoid 9001:2000 [not necessarily ISO 9000] like the plague and focus instead on continual improvement of processes and outcomes"




I thought you said you would never try to scare anyone into avoiding it :D

:bigwave:Jsmith,

I would like to apologize for us getting sidetracked (that happens quite a bit around here:)). I hope that some of this helps answer your question.

I wouldn't exactly consider that a glowing endorsement. :vfunny: :biglaugh:

Okay Jim. From now on I will be very careful and consider every single word I say and every possible interpretation that may be inferred as long as you are around waiting to pounce.

The orignal question was what to get registered to. Since companies get registered to ISO 9001:2000 (not 9000, not 9004, not any of the guidance documents) I only said 9001:2000, as a registration option.

Apparently, from now on we must use the entire list of documents when discussing anything related to ISO 9000. :rolleyes:

Why oh why are those Brits so difficult? :D

Jim Wade said:
PS be careful with the national references - now severely deprecated here in the Cove


:truce: Nothing personal, just having fun. Now that you mention it, it does seem that the sense of humor around here has dropped a bit. :p

Richard Olson said:

:truce: Nothing personal, just having fun. Now that you mention it, it does seem that the sense of humor around here has dropped a bit. :p

Have you tried here?

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=33

Jim Wade said:

Saw this and thought of you ....

"Enthusiasm finds the opportunities, and energy makes the
most of them"
-- Henry Hoskins <who he? Ed.>

rgds Jim

Me an opportunist? How dare you? When I look up the word deprecate, I will respond.
:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

I know this is off-subject, but I just had to ask: Energy, how did you decide to pick "Energy" for your Cove name?

Mike S. said:

I know this is off-subject, but I just had to ask: Energy, how did you decide to pick "Energy" for your Cove name?

Mike,

My Company's Name is Tenergy Water. See it now? Visit our web site @ tenergywater.com. Don't expect to see me or anything about Quality Programs. We're still working on it! :biglaugh:
:ko: :smokin: