|
|
|
Welcome to the Elsmar Cove!
ISO 9000 - QS-9000 Information Exchange
1999-01-14
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:17:43 -0500
From: XXXXX
To: XXXXXX
Subject: Re: Scope of Calibration for QS9000 Third Edition
XXXX: The only source for official help comes from AIAG and its affiliate, the Plexus Training Corp. Whatever "opinions" you may get from the general public are just that: opinions.
Their definition of Scope is somewhat different than a "Scope of Accreditation" as defined by A2LA, as you stated in your message. Also, please note that I am not "selling" the Plexus services, just using that as a source of information. In fact, AIAG and Plexus have their hands in each others' pockets (financially speaking, that is :=)) and are tying up the "training rights" of the free enterprise system. But let's not get on that soapbox!
So, after checking out that information, give your current Registrar a call. They are not allowed to give consulting. However, they can tell you if you are headed in the right direction, according to their mode of thinking at the present time. But face it, what's the worst thing that can happen during the QS-9000 audit? A minor non-conformance for an incorrectly defined Scope! So, don't loose too much sleep over the issue at this point. There is also a strong rumor that AIAG will delay implementation of the 4.11.2.b.1 change.
Hope this helps. Regards, XXXXXX.
ISO/QS/Guide 25 Auditor, Trainer & Consultant
-------------------
980412
France Simonin wrote:
thanks for sending me the source for the complaints and comments on Plexus. Let me add one thing (to be published, if you please ) I am a consultant (my company is 6 years old) and both partners got an MBA (a level "little bit" over college, right !!!...) I went through the Plexus training and I confirm and state that the quality of the course and the participants was extremetly high and professional.
Best regards
---fsb
---------------------
My Reply:France,
I'm very glad you are happy with the Plexus materials and courses. However, taken as a whole yours is the FIRST 'complement' I have received about Plexus since I first published the page on them. This tells me something - guess what that is...
There is no doubt in my mind that Plexus has improved since I saw their materials - I sure hope so after all the time they have had to 'come up to speed'. This still doesn't mean I recommend them nor do I approve of their being in bed with the authors of QS9000 and their attempt to eliminate all competition in QS9000 implementation. I still believe the relationship and their efforts to eliminate competition sucks. In addition, all the information I have to date indicates they are still vastly overpriced. But that's OK, I guess.
Alex Chong and Dan Reid (to name 2 folks of several) got some of your money! And you will get that back by doing what I do - consulting. I guess the only difference is I didn't need Plexus to help me interpret and implement QS9000 - it's not rocket science. I developed my own materials (in colour, I might add) quite a while ago and, in fact, I give many of them away free! Every client I have worked with has been 'First Audit' successful - so I must be doing something right.
Every week I get e-mail like the following:
--------------
Subject: Thank you!
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:07:58 -0700
From: "V. H."<vh.@XXXX.com>
To: marcMarc -
This is just a quick note to thank you for creating and maintaining your QS-9000 website.
As we prepared for our QS-9000 registration audit, I spent some time at your website reading and downloading information. By looking at your examples of Quality Manuals I was able to write ours without "reinventing the wheel". In several instances I was able to spot and resolve "holes" in our procedures and documentation by studying your examples. From your website I was able to download the latest IASG interpretations, and ensure that we were properly addressing QS-9000 requirements. It has also been helpful to check the bulletin board and identify issues of current concern in the "QS-9000 world".
On November 7 our auditors recommended a "Pass" for Company X Technologies - on the first audit. Without access to your website, I know that the process would have been more difficult and tedious for us. Thank you again for all your hard work - it is appreciated!
Warmest regards,
V. H.
Quality System Administrator
--------------
And this is all FREE from my site! What, pray tell, did Plexus give you for free? Then again, I wonder. With consideration to your educational background - why did you need Plexus at all? Every day folks with no degree at all are using the free materials from my site to successfully implement QS9000 in their facilities. You don't need an MBA.
970616 - The Latest from Plexus - 3, 2, 1 - Contact! Most of the body of the e-mail is promotional (who we are, how we started, etc.) but it is their response.
Green is the actual e-mail text.
Blue text within represents my comments.
Received as stated in the header:
Received: from scc.net (root@SCC.NET [204.221.51.34]) by www.drikka.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA29840 for <Marc.Smith>; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from plexus.SCC.NET (LPM1-P04.SCC.NET [199.199.195.204]) by scc.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) with SMTP id NAA05923 for <Marc.Smith>; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:06:38 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:06:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199706161806.NAA05923@scc.net>
X-Sender: bmplexus@scc.net (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"To: Marc.Smith
From: bmplexus@scc.net (plexus)
Subject: Plexus trashingMarc,
Risking the the very real chance of a personal attack from the contributors to your web-site, I will attempt to replace rumor and slander with a few facts about the Plexus Corporation, and in particular, the development of its ISO 9000 and QS-9000 Training Systems.
No attacks from here! People visit for information. I have a hard time visualizing any visitor wanting to personally attack you for any reason. Only trying to ascertain the facts! This is not personal. It is business. The information herein is the best I have. All sources of input can be proven by copy of the original e-mail message. I do reserve the right to have opinions and to present opinions of others so long as they are based in fact and are not slanderous.
Alex Chong was and is a successful businessman in a variety of business ventures. Several years ago Alex was given some inaccurate information about the ISO 9000 Standard from a consultant who apparently was trying to frighten Alex into purchasing his services. Essentially, the consultant told Alex that he would soon be out of the import/export business if he did not register to the ISO 9000 Standard. At the time, Alex did not who he could trust about the ISO 9000 Standard because he got different answers from different people. So, being the type of person he is, he traveled to Switzerland to ISO headquarters to get some real answers first hand. What he was told at ISO headquarters is that though the Standards' body spends a great deal of time writing and approving standards, it does not provide for the implementation of the standards, nor had (has) it recommended any implementation/training programs. But in fact, ISO Central Secretariat is regularly sent many programs to examine and most are by their words -- trash.
So, with that information, Alex set out on his own to find a high quality ISO 9000 implementation program. By this time he also had been asked by the South Korean government to investigate the quality of ISO 9000 implementation/training programs available on the market. Alex looked at dozens and found none he would use, let alone, recommend to the South Korean government. He found them, even the reportedly good ones, lacking in two areas: they were incomplete and they were overly prescriptive (prescriptiveness generally led to two problems -- wrong information and/or dependency on consultantation).
Failing in finding a program that met his standards, he set about with some people with whom he had worked on other training projects, to devise a way to develop an ISO 9000 implementation/training program that would be complete and would deliver an implementation that would enable the implementing organization to not only achieve compliance or registration, but would help them develop as an organization in such a way as to enable them to develop and grow well past their registration audit. He pulled together twenty-two experienced professionals, who in composite had assisted over 400 companies through ISO 9000 registrations (many also had extensive automotive experience, but since QS-9000 was still in the talking stages, no one had led a company through a QS-9000 implementation). From their tested & true materials, the very best was synthesized into a training system. The emphasis was placed on the trainer and the accuracy of the information, not the "look" (Plexus Corporation is presently working on a rewrite of its materials to make them "look" better). To make sure the material was accurate, Alex enlisted the help of past and present members of ISO/TC 176 to review the materials. With their help the materials were the best they could be at that moment in time. The materials were beta tested and members of TC 176 were invited to the inaugural Plexus Trainer/Coach Training Session (they did attend). The result was rave reviews.
Good news sometimes travels as quickly as bad, and the Big Three became aware of the Plexus Corporation story and the training materials that had been developed. They asked to take a look at it. I don't believe they got into bed to look at it, but then your readership may know something I am unaware of!? They asked Plexus Corporation if it had thought of developing a QS-9000 Training System. At the time, Plexus had not. Further, they not only wanted it developed, they wanted to co-own it so they could help develop its content. Their rationale was that a lot of charlatans were trying to get rich off the auto industry by offering bogus QS-9000 implementation assistance -- assistance that was not only off the mark but injured a movement (QS-9000 Requirements) with solid intentions by leading customers/organizations down the wrong path. The Plexus QS-9000 Training System was the result.
I would find this more convincing with the exception that QS is only a couple of years old and the problem so far with implementation has been interpretation of the QS 9 manual and it's accompanying documentation. Many of the 'charlatans' have been honest folks trying to figure what the hell QS 9000 was/is asking at a time (still - right now included) when the 'Big 3' are still figuring out what is happening and what it wants. Just two weeks ago I recieved word both GM and Ford have their own APQP requirements appended to the AIAG manual. In fact, I believe the specificity for each company to some degree precludes a generalized approach and may for another year or so. Maybe longer if the rewrite of QS 9000 this fall is at all extreme.
Much like a letter to the editor, I am at the mercy of the editor to convey the content I have provided in attempt to set the record straight. I have not recieved a call directly from the individuals who have sent messages to you. I invite them to do so. Some of our severest critics have accepted our challenge of examining our materials and our training/coach training in detail. They have to a person come away with positive assessments.
Like good consultants, trainers, coaches or anyone under any title working with an organization to implement a new system, the Plexus goal is to help the worker. Each individual in our training and each individual in the implementing organization will be impacted by the new system (ISO or QS). Whether they are reluctant, energetic, hostile, receptive, or whatever to the change, they will be impacted. It is our job to make the implementation work. Anyone with one shred of integrity will do that. And though no ethical person can completely guarantee a registration to an implementing organization, Plexus trainers do everything possible to assure that the organization's quality goals are met, including registration.
Perhaps, it is not only registration (reports coming back to Plexus tell us that registration is a very natural outcome of our training systems -- a 100% outcome) by which implementation assistance should be measured, but also by the gains in quality the organization achieves over time. Registration happens once (unless it is subsequently lost) but a system must evolve to meet the changing demands of customers. Plexus assisted implementation helps with that too.
The Plexus Corporation stands proudly behind the Training Systems it has developed. And it reaches out to other groups to join in the effort to provide reliable and consistent assistance to organizations that need our help. Unlike some of the contributors to this site, we do not trash other systems to benefit ourselves; in fact, we seek to join forces with credible training systems. If we all do good work, we all win.
Alan J. Peterson
Plexus Corporation, St. Paul, MN
Well, that's a good company history and general comments are understood. Sorry you feel that negative comments are 'trashing'. I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder. Rhetoric included, your reply stands unedited - and is appreciated!
970615To fill you in, Plexus is a company which puts together THEORETICAL courses for junior colleges. By Theoretical, I mean they don't really train - so they have *** NO *** EXPERIENCE.
Plexus is ALEX CHONG who is in bed with DAN REID of GM in this 'tax' effort. Brother Alex is making a killing.
970511A fellow from a community college called me recently - like today. Well now, it seems they were taken by Plexus to the tune of about $100,000 for their materials. The call was to ask if I am interested in taking the material and 'working' with it to bring it to a form where it's presentable. Need I say more?
970507 - the following is from Australia:I read with interest your expose of Plexus. It's even come down to Australia. Lucky us! Without really having any idea of what Plexus was, I knew it was a load of rubbish as soon as I heard the person who runs the show in Aus was Plexus certified. This man has trouble spelling QS.
970309 - the following is from a friend:> Regarding Plexus....here's more information that i promised the other
> day..> My first concern was that the Plexus training material was created by
> people who were from secondary education, and by in large had never been
> in the field to do what they were trying to teach others to do. The
> material is perhaps well suited for a one semester course in QS9000 (or
> ISO9000 using the EPic program), but it doesn't fly in our country, as the
> approach will not work with our culture's learning techniques.
>
> Even though I been "certified" as a Plexus trainer, Plexus (i.e. Alex
> Chong) has said that I can't do any training until I have a Plexus
> provider in our country. (O.K. I agreed to be a "Plexus Provider"...) then
> I found out that I couldn't be a Plexus Provider until we had established
> Plexus as a company in our country (well,,,,I agreed to that until I found
> out that I was going to have to do all the translation, all the work and
> give them $100,000 USD, plus 49 per-cent of the company....I don't think
> so....) The material is incomplete, has mistakes and holes in the
> system....I wonder about the level of review!?!?I would like to input here that sample training material I have reviewed which Plexus has put out is as my friend describes. Black & white, poorly done, extremely basic content. I personally would be ashamed to put out such low-level material. I again express my belief that this is a kick-back scheme. And a poorly orchestrated one at that. Folks, it's hard to be friends with, and trust, not to mention work with, people who abuse a relationship. GM and Chrysler are abusive. Always another angle to get a buck whether they earn it or just 'require' it. It's no less than paying a mafia your 'dues' to be allowed to do business. They don't physically bomb you out - they just won't sanction you and will recommend against you.
970201
First of all, I beg each of you who visit here to know - if you haven't already seen in reading the pages on my site - I am highly opinionated. And I use strong language. So - Read on if you can deal with my opinion and thoughts. And sometimnes I missspell words, too... I only try to express the truth as I see it thru my eyes which is, I believe, evidenced by fact - not just here-say and/or opinion. . Tell me if you think I'm wrong. I'm always willing to listen to alturnate views. From college, I believe in GOOD debate.
Brief history history of big 3 control requirements (as I see it):
A number of years ago, the big 3 took to out sourcing as a means to reduce in-house cost and expense. They found their work force was as unionized as the railroads. They had conductors everywhere who didn't do diddley. Firemen on the diesels - that sort of thing. Out sourcing thereby reducing work force was nice. Problem - loss of control in many areas. From timing of projects to general coordination and communication. Technology is helping - LANs to the now open internet. This begat the PPAP, APQP and associated AIAG definition and coordination efforts. A noble idea, and PPAP and the APQP are admittedly good documents (notice no interpretations FAX in committee exists for these).
I'm not so sure how good their 'quality' systems were internally (I have a 1989 Mazda 626 with 240,0000+ miles with NO major repairs other than the front axel assemblies at 125,000 miles...) before, but they also found they were out auditing everyone all the time. Then came the ISO 9000 standard and - WOW! Like Steve Jobs when he visited Xerox's PARC facility in about 1981(?), the big 3 saw a light bulb light up. Problem was (and is) trying to get these three spoiled brats to agree on anything is next to impossible. For evidence, I cite Ford which has not yet stated a date for registration. In fact, Ford has a whole slew of it's own stuff, including QOS. Ford's 2000 project and cost are their focus for the next couple of years. At hand I have a Ford reference guide which defines all the elemental links they see as requisite. Ford is taking the approach that they want good parts in consonance with their vision. GM and Chrysler seem determined to continue to beat suppliers over the head by passing on costs and demanding simultaneous price cuts. GM still has the Lopez Fever. I saw one GM RFQ asking production prices on prototype parts. To top it off, they would not GUARANTEE specific quantities. If the model did not sell as forecast, they could reduce their volume 50% or more. You, sir or madam, as the supplier who provided a quote based on a specified quantity, are the looser.
Any who - I guided one of the first 100 companies in the world to registration without Plexus's program. Despite the ambiguities the big 3 built into QS 9000. Despite their confusing rhetoric. Despite the fact that it was the auditor's first QS 9000 registration audit. Despite the fact that the lead auditor was an ex-GM supplier quality manager who saw QS in terms of TFE. Despite the fact that the interpretations committee was busy doing things like redefining SHOULD to mean SHALL.
The bottom line to this is (GM and Chrysler, for the most part) the big 3 want to control your company while you take the labour heat and expense. Experimentations are already taking place where suppliers provide employees to install parts right in the assembly plant (Brazil is one 'test' area) much like Volkswagon now does. Talk about cutting labour and costs!
If you don't think this Plexus 'program' will cost those companies seeking help from consultants, you also believe in the tooth fairy and in temporary taxes which expire. As my daughter says, "Right, Dad..."
Hope you're ready for this one, folks. The following is from Automotive News (December 30, 1996). The original article was written by Ralph Kisiel - staff reporter.
Note: Red type (like this, although not always BOLD type...) is NOT part of the article. They are my COMMENTS and thoughts...
Blue type is ORIGINAL text - my emphasis. Blue BOLDed text is MY BOLDing meant to hi-light.
Original article in its entirity available at the bottom of the page.
Here go the excerpts:
DETROIT -- The competition over who will offer QS 90000 training to automotive suppliers is so hot that a fracas erupted during a meeting among the big 3 and a room full of agitated (sic) private consultants.
The big 3, in an effort to provide suppliers with a "consistent" QS 9000 training program, say they back a curriculum developed with the help of Plexus Corp. of St. Paul, Minn.
Consistent? Did I see consistent? Show me 5 companies which are consistent with each other. My word to the big 3: In all this you talk about training. If this was just about setting people down in a class room and teaching them what it's all about, all would be fine. It doesn't happen that way. And few companies have the resources to send people out for training like this. It happens in-house (see below) whenever you can get everyone together.
You want consistent, produce a stand alone document which doesn't require an ongoing interpretations committee. Stop changing the traditional meanings of words (eg: should in QS talk means shall and/or must. I always thought (and as it is in the ISO documents) that should meant it (whatever 'it' is) is a good idea and recommended, but not a requirement.
The big 3 prefer that all suppliers go through the same QS 9000 training program. But some consultants are concerned that suppliers will seek out only those consulting firms certified by Plexus. Others don't want to dance to the big 3's tune, contending their own training strategies are better.
Concerns ignited into fear (Fear, hell. Anger is the better word) during a Dec. 9 meeting at the Marriott Hotel in Southfield, MI., when the big 3 and Plexus representatives "encouraged" private consultants to sign up as Plexus players.
Can you say Black Mail???
"I'm not sure this is the American way!" shouted one frustrated consultant, suggesting that the automakers are trying to squelch free enterprise.
What started as a quiet rehash of QS 9000 and it's benefits erupted into a shouting match as consultants felt that some of their business was being threatened. (YES we feel threatened. This is nothing less than a TAX under threat.) Tensions had to be subdued by calling a break.
Essentially, the consultants were told, they had better pay to play, and use the big 3 play book to boot. The minimum cost: a $3000 Plexus "license" fee.
All together: "My friends' company needs some business!"
I wonder who at Plexus has the 'in' at GM to have gotten this 'honour'... They get to collect a tax from us for some paper we couldn't use. Like 'canned' procedures, this BS sounds and smells good, but then the reality sets in. Each company - hell, each facility within a corporation - is different.
Kirill Liberman (Pinnacle International) said consultants have their own training programs that are more refined than what Plexus is offering. The Plexus program is "too generic," he said.
God knows this is true. I will confess, first, that I have not seen the Plexus program personally. I DO know that every company I am in is different. I have a general approach, however each program is finely tailored for the needs and requirements of the specific company. Not to mention tenor and other issues, such as the degree of management involvement.
Another consultant suggested that the big 3 are not satisfied with ramming QS 9000 down the throats of suppliers. Now they are trying to strong-arm consultants into using their hand-picked program.
The Plexus training system puts the instructors in the plants, where they will be "teaching a company how to fish, not just giving them the fish," said Dan Reid, manager of supplier quality development at General Motors.
Mr. Reid, I take this as a personal insult. You are obviously ignorant of the realities.
Ummmm - hey Danno! Wake UP! Turns out most of us consultants do not sit home or at the office playing. And we DO train them HOW to catch the fish, when they will listen. And we do it in their facility when they will hold still. I suspect we baby sit and hold hands - and not because we want to - a lot more than you do... Most companies fully expect to be handed a system which, like software, will plug in and work. Most do not want to have a knowledge source in their company. That's another 'head to feed'. We do our best to provide an EDUCATION. My current client and I look at our sessions like piano lessons when we were kids. They don't really want to sit there for 4 to 8 hours a week with a group of people discussing 'another damn system - just like the government. But they know they must LEARN QS 9000, and they understand that to learn it, we must talk about it in detail in ways specific to the company. For example, if you're making a cleaning solution and adjusting the mixture ratio is part of the process, what is rework? Or repair? Is it applicable to them? If so why? If not, why not? I seriously doubt a canned program would address the individuality required.
Talk about a red herring. Mr. Reid - You're full of rhetoric. Even your analogy is a sad statement. I guess you mean fishing for business from the big 3. No sir, I recommend to anyone - do NOT get into the automotive business unless you really like headaches.
However, the big 3 are part owner of the Plexus program, and that goes beyond endorsing it.
Ummm - I don't know the details here yet. But something sure smells. Maybe it's Dan's fish...
Plexus offers no direct training to a supplier. Plexus 'trains' consultants and others.
Plexus is known as having an 'in' as a supplier of training programs to community and jr colleges, by the way.... maybe if they reduced their fees and sent us the books for say, maybe $300 instead of $3000...
...the average cost of ISO 9000 certification in a company with 100 employees is $60,000. The Plexus cost was around $24,000...
First of all - ISO is NOT QS.
I guess I'm one of those 'show-me' guys. Is this $60K external costs? In what way was this cost cut? Just what was saved and how? I smell politics here. A statement made with no particulars. Like a Bush 15% tax cut. I don't want to hear about it unless you give me enough detail for me to believe it can be done. I don't buy the old 'trust me'. I want some facts and figures. I know of a company which sat there for almost 2 months with 5 contract people there to 'write procedures' who were given no direction during that time. Not only was the company burning up the dollars, they wanted Danno's fish without learning how to fish. I myself, in my first ISO effort some years ago, sat in a cubicle for 6 weeks doing nothing while getting paid. The plant manager fired the guy who hired me and told me to 'hang tight' while they figured out which way to go. As the money burned up. This is the guy who told me that document control was not a pressing problem just after I showed him one days scrap from one station working to an obsolete print cost the company in excess of $50,000 (materials and labour - rework was not possible). Hey - I guess to me $50K a day is more than take-home pay. I hear that over a year, $50K a day adds up! Of course, as a consultant I could be wrong...
My point is that the majority of costs in an implementation effort are directly related to company policy and reaction - not external consultant costs. In the case of a company hiring 5 writers, I tried to explain this is not a good methodology. I was told to butt out. In December they failed their 3rd pre-audit miserably. Management had still, after nearly a complete year in the effort, failed to have one management review meeting (among many other things). This case is typical. They want Danno's fish without having to catch it. They refused to understand they had to learn something. Their attitude was "Give us the documentation and get out".
Out of all of this is a blame the consultants attitude when the 'blame' should be where it belongs - with the company's top management. You know them. The guys who pay consultants money so they can tell us they have no intention of taking our advice.
Are there 'bad' consultants? Hell, yes. There are bad consultants and there are bad automobiles (lemons), bad dentists, bad plumbers (as Dick Nixon found out...), bad lawyers, etc. To me this reaction came in response to complaints by companies about the cost for which the consultants are being blamed. I had a plant manager tell me once that he had no intention of doing a management review - that it was not a registration body's business how he ran his plant. It was two months before the guy got the idea when the first audit was performed and he was nailed on it. Paid for my advice, my advice was discarded. I sincerely doubt Plexus' 'course' would have made any difference in any of these cases.
Bottom line? I was going to buy it until I found out Plexus hasn't helped any company through it nor, apparently, has their course been used by anyone. Talk about a set-up... Read the following:
970201The following is from a message string:
> From: Xxxxxx Person@abc.com>
> To: qs9000@quality.org
> Subject: Re: qs9000 training providers
> Date: Friday, January 31, 1997 10:48 AM
>
> Xxxxx Yyyyyy wrote:
> >
> > I want to find out the current situation re QS9000 training in the
> > US. In particular I'd like to clarify the role the organisation
> > Plexus occupies and the role (if any) for training organisations not
> > under the Plexus umbrella.
>
> The Plexus situation is VERY shady. First off, at a meeting held in
> Southfield, Michigan, the Plexus people said that the big-3 evaluated
> "several" training programs and chose Plexus. This meeting was full of
> QS-9000 consultants and training providers. NONE of these companies had
> been contacted regarding the evaluation of their training systems. Also,
> the Plexus people had no clear answers to any of the questions asked by
> the attendees. Most of these questions centered around the length of
> time their program took for implementation. The only solid time frame
> they would commit to was more than twice (sic) as long as it takes the average
> consultant to assist a company in QS-9000 implementation.
>
> Plexus also admitted that their system had not been proven. They had
> never taken anyone through QS-9000. Again, the room was full of
> companies that had. Many of these companies not only assisted companies
> in QS-9000 registration but have a structured system for doing so. Also,
> the results of the Plexus program, no guarantees. If you make it you
> make it if you don't you don't.
>
> >
> > It has been suggested to me that organisations other than Plexus (or
> > not linked with Plexus through attendance at their accredited
> > training and not using their training material) will not be able to
> > provide QS9000 training with the level of 'assurance' that Plexus and
> > its customers will provide because of their 'special
> > relationship/contractual arrangement' with the Big 3. (I do not know
> > what this relationship is).
>
> I think the truth should speak for itself here. With other firms having
> a proven system, that costs less and takes less time, we really have no
> "assurance" with the Plexus system. In my opinion the only "assurance"
> you have with the Plexus system is that someone at the Big-3 will be
> profiting from it.
>
> >
> > ... exactly what is happening in the marketplace. ie are there
> > unsanctioned training providers and is their market share growing or
> > decreasing, what has been the experience of Big 3 suppliers with such
> > training providers, do they have any weaknesses etc
>
> I am sure there have been good and bad experiences. I meet consultants
> regularly who are just not qualified to assist anyone with ISO or
> QS-9000. They exist, but surely Plexus is not the answer to this.
> Careful selection, or "buyer beware" on the part of suppliers will.
>
> Xxxx Yyyyyy
> Senior Quality Specialist
> Xxxx Yyyyyyyy, Inc.
Want to find out MORE from Plexus's own mouth (assuming you trust info from someone who has NEVER 'done it' to tell you how to do it - which my daughter can do - and she's only 9 years old...)? Go ahead - Contact Guy Hummel at Plexus Corp. 612 644-4900 or Beth Baker at the AIAG 810 358-9763. On the other hand, if you want to talk with someone who has done it, there are a number of us out here!!!
Forums and Site Provided and Maintained by Marc Timothy Smith
This page last reviewed or edited: Sun, 2007-02-04 16:59 (Coordinated Universal Time [ZULU] -5 hours)
