|
|
 |
|

25th February 2000, 12:56 PM
|
|
|
QS-9000/TS16949/ISO 9000:2000
If TS 16949 is going to replace QS-9000 and the other European standards, will it be updated to reflect the changes that are going to come through from the ISO 9000:2000 revision? As QS-9000 is derived from ISO 9001, this leaves me wondering.....
|

26th February 2000, 05:39 AM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
I haven't heard anything yet about any plan to coordinate them numerically or otherwise.
|

28th February 2000, 10:45 AM
|
|
An Original Cover!
Registration Date: Dec 1998
Location: Greenville, SC
|
|
Posts: 471
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Karma Power: 54 Karma: 45 
|
|
According to an article in ActionLINE, Hank Gryn from Chrysler and Steve Walsh from Ford, ISO/TS 16949 will NOT replace QS9K for the forseeable future. (Of course, I'm not sure what their window of time is for the "forseeable future".) They also mention in the article that since there is a 3 year period to convert to ISO 9000:2000, QS9K will not issue another edition for that length of time. Also, they expect ISO/TS 16949 to be updated by the end of 2001 (to conform with ISO9000:2000). It is an interesting article.
|

28th February 2000, 11:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the information gentlemen. You don't happen to remember what month the article appeared in ActionLine magazine do you Roger? If so, please let me know. I am going to subscribe this week, but will also order the back issue if you can remember.
Thanks again.
|

28th February 2000, 11:44 AM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Roger Eastin:
... ISO/TS 16949 will NOT replace QS9K for the forseeable future.
|
The important point is that it doesn't matter what happens to QS9000 if Ford, GM and Chrysler accept 16949 in lieu of QS9000 - which is, as I understand it, the case right now.
|

28th February 2000, 03:28 PM
|
 |
Inactive Registered Visitor
Registration Date: Mar 1999
Location: FL
Age: 44
|
|
Posts: 73
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 45 Karma: 10 
|
|
This may be a technicality, but isn't "in lieu" basically in place of? Which means 16949 is taking QS9K's place.
|

29th February 2000, 01:51 AM
|
|
An Original Cover!
Registration Date: Dec 1998
Location: Greenville, SC
|
|
Posts: 471
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Karma Power: 54 Karma: 45 
|
|
|
The issue is the current one - Jan/Feb 2000.
|

1st March 2000, 04:30 AM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
They're saying one or the other. But take a look - european automakers are accepting 16949 as are others. For example, as I understand it in Germany VDA 6.1 is the 'current' standard but 16949 will be an aceptable alturnate.
Is QS9000 dead? Not yet but I bet you don't see companies registering to it in 4 years. Yes - in lieu of - instead of.
|
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
|
|
|
|
|