|
|
 |

31st March 1999, 05:46 PM
|
|
Inactive Registered Visitor
Registration Date: Jun 1998
Location: Amherst, Ohio USA
|
|
Posts: 16
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 47 Karma: 10 
|
|
Laboratory Requirements
My company formed a partnership with one of the universities for exotic tests i.e.: metallurgical/chemical. The university doesn't have formal certification. How far down the chain do we need to go with QS9000 T/E? Will the university need to be certified/accredited? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
|

17th April 1999, 04:07 PM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,860
Thanks Given to Others: 1,896
Thanked 1,569 Times in 1,020 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
Question: Is this collaboration strictly for research purposes (R&D)?
|

17th April 1999, 04:14 PM
|
|
|
Hi.
I apologize for the delay.....have been busy, and also ill of late..finally getting back to normal....
First question would be if the university is considered to be a supplier to you. If so, then the rules of 4.6 apply....
I dont think they would need to be registered.....it would not be applicable....they would need to be made aware of your position with TE, and some general knowedge of it.
Marc poses a good question..is it for RD purposes?
|

19th April 1999, 11:27 AM
|
|
Inactive Registered Visitor
Registration Date: Jun 1998
Location: Amherst, Ohio USA
|
|
Posts: 16
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 47 Karma: 10 
|
|
To answer Marc, no it is not always strictly for R & D. We might ask for help in solving a problem.
To answer Byron, the university is not considered a supplier. So 4.6 should not apply, correct?
Thanks for all your help.
|

20th April 1999, 02:14 AM
|
|
An Early Cover
Registration Date: Mar 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
|
|
Posts: 122
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 0 Karma: 25 
|
|
Linda,
IMHO, the university has to be treated either as a supplier or as an extension of your organization. Frankly, I think treating them as a supplier might be the way to go. I would think that would be less demanding than considering them an extension of your company and would give you more leeway in how you document your involvement with them. You might want to discuss this with your registrar and develop your documentation in a way that they agree meets the intent of the standard.
Tom Goetzinger
gotoms@yahoo.com
|

22nd April 1999, 10:29 PM
|
|
|
Linda,
Tom is making sense. I think that would be the easiest way to handle the situation. If you classify them as a supplier, make sure you add them to your approved suppplier list, and then go through the subcontractor development exercises. At this stage, you can define the extent of the control you need to exercise over them, etc etc.
Keep us posted.
|

23rd April 1999, 01:09 PM
|
|
An Early Cover
Registration Date: Mar 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
|
|
Posts: 122
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 0 Karma: 25 
|
|
Linda,
If you decide to treat them as a supplier, the notes on 4.6.2 (approved subcontractor list) and 4.6.2.1 (prioritization of subcontractors for development) may be helpful to you. The university has to fit the criteria you have established as required of your suppliers. That just means you have to be careful how you word the criteria.
Hope this helps. As Bryon said, please keep us posted; that's how we all learn what works and what doesn't
Tom Goezinger
Tom Goetzinger
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|