QS-9000 - R.I.P. (aka QS-9000 is Dead Meat and a 'Failure')

[barb butrym]

well I have dredged through the copy, and don't see where the big three will be doing the registration, just that AIAG will control..(as they do now?) or am I missing something? Perhaps that was implied, and discussed elsewhere?

Looks similar ..... no great surprises there, just a few interesting notes.
Still hard to conceive that jan 99 will be the date of doom. who are the registrars of choice? Probably the ones that messed it up the first time....

[Marc]

Is the January 1999 date heresay or has someone seen it written somewhere? Am I missing something (which is likely)?

I see it is 'labeled' a "technical report".

Comments?

[Roger Eastin]

The only thing I know for sure is what I read in Quality Digest magazine. That is where I read Steve Walsh's comments on TR16949 (my first message in this thread). Since then, I have heard several individuals say various things, such as the implementation date of 1 Jan 99. I haven't seen anything else confirmed as of yet. I suspect the "TR" will come off when it has been reviewed and considered "auditable". Walsh said that would happen in November. Recently, I heard that only Ford was going to adapt it (for the near term). Welcome to the QS/ISO free-for-all...

[barb butrym]

looks like a viable replacement...an improvement actually......It will be interesting to see how it is phased in. As long as there are no exclusivity rights to registrars I'll embrace it

Since my first response to Roger's original posting, I have obtained the minutes from the meeting held 8/25/98 where the B3 first dropped this bombshell. It is all true about what the B3 plan to do. Nothing has been decided since then, but I will be sure to post anything that I see documented concerning their decisions.

[Roger Eastin]

What meeting was held on 8/25? Was this an AIAG meeting, ASQ meeting, or a B3 meeting with suppliers? It is interesting that one hears about these things through meandering communication lines (although I suspect that Christian has a straighter connection than others). An application date of 1 Jan 99 doesn't give suppliers much time to respond. I agree with Barb that the document looks like a good one, but in the ISO standards world, a turn-around time of 6 months (from the time I first heard about it anyway) seems almost like a time warp. Usually ISO likes to study these things for a lot longer time than this.
Areas like the B3 being the auditors (along with a select few others) and the fact that this document seems to merge QS with VDA6 more, take time for a supplier to assimilate (intellectually, let alone to one's Quality System). Should we have a folder for this new standard? 1 January is just around the corner...

[Marc]

This reminds me of the Plexus meeting a while ago. It's a matter of how close you are to the source. When this topic was posted I immediately e-mailed my 'close group'. One fellow wrote back saying "Yeah - we've been working on it for a while new" (note that 'while' was not defined). He sent me the copy that is posted.

Man - we must be pretty far down the feed chain. I'm trying to find a publication which catches these 'incidents' early.

[Marc]

Well, it's been a year now since this thread was started. How long you figure it will take QS9000 to die? Comments anyone?

By the way - the ISO folks e-mailed a complaint so the posted document was removed. Sorry about that!

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 27 November 1999).]