How does ISO/TS 16949 differ from QS-9000?

Briefly,
How does ISO/TS 16949 differ from QS-9000?

[Roger Eastin]

This has been asked several times. There are, I think, several threads in the forum. Do a search and see what you come up with. I don't think Marc has come up with a .pdf matrix, though.

[Marc]

No - I haven't done a comparison matrix. I can't recall a specific thread with the specific differences.

I can say from my read it's not really significantly different. There is, in my opion, some latitude in places that QS didn't have and some clarifications if only by clearer verbiage.

For a company which is QS registered, there isn't going to be much different. The main point will be that your company 'expert' be ready to explain your systems in terms of the verbiage in 16949.

Make atention to 4.10.6 - "...the laboratory shall comply with ISO/IEC 17025 ..."

You may want to take a look at Aug. 1999 issue of Quality Digest. It outlines some of the differences. Marc, please give me your thoughts on this question. The company I work for is in final stages of preparing for QS9000 registration. Any advantages to revising that to try and be one of the first companies registered to ISO/TS16949 instead of one of the last to QS9000?

[Marc]

I've voiced my opinion that QS9000 is for all intents and purposes a dead document. I would not even consider QS9000 registration. I would press the 16949 route.

[Roger Eastin]

For what it's worth, I agree with Marc - go with 16949. I too think that the Big 3 will "distance" themselves from QS fairly soon.

[Laura M]

My clients haven't had much info on it - and when I suggest it they give me that "look" - what the heck are you talking about. Many are small and driven to do ISO/QS by there customers. We can suggest, but it'll take awhile for the companies anxious to hang a "9000" on their building to get used to the idea.