|
|
|
Welcome
to Marc Smith's Elsmar Cove!
ISO
9000 - QS-9000 (Now TS 16949) Information Exchange
Word
On
The
Street
Is....
A Kentucky Bumpkin's General Commentary
NOTE: This 'column is no longer being updated... 1998-12-20
980906
Hot Damn! Getta Loada this....
Well folks - it's been a while. For me things have been half busy but it looks like I wasn't 'up-to-date. Cconsider:
"I talked to someone who heard from the horses mouth as recently as Monday of last week, that the b3 intend on replacing QS9K with IS0-16949. I have a copy of this and it is not significantly different from QS. It is an attempt by the international automotive makers to have one automotive quality standard. So it combines all the VDA-6s and European standards into one automotive standard. Not a bad idea eh? The BIG bombshell came when he also told me the b3 wants to be the only registrar!!!! The Independent Association of Accredited Registrar's (IAAR) is fighting this of course, but the b3 want this to be the gospel by the beginning of 1999!!! He said he would pass along the minutes from that meeting so I can see for myself what was discussed."
You might want to take a peek at the thread. This is a new one to me, but I do seem to fall behind in the news now and again.
Another Monster may be on the horizon:
>Let's
see if I can't stir the cauldron a little....
>The RAB is proposing to "certify" internal auditors and internal
auditor |
>training courses. (Another racket: and not tennis, folks.) They propose,
among
>other silliness, that the "certified courses" spend a great deal
of time
>teaching the ISO9000 standards. Just what the world needs more deftless,
>inbred auditors. Wake up, McFly!. Internal audits are not the same as
>registration audits. Their focus is different, They do things for different
>reasons. They just happen to use many of the same techniques. If the RAB
ever
>learns that lesson, they can apply to me for certification and accreditation.
>Boy! What did I have for breakfast today that made me so grouchy?
I'd use the old 'And the plot thickens' but for the fact that things have been thickening for several years now. Plexus is now well firmly entrenched. And we're in for some more confusion.
No one has lately mentioned interpretations for the 'new' QS9000 but they will eventually come, I suspect. Well, for me it's back to the forum. Most of the 'happenings' are there now! Stop by for a spell!
980318
General Comments:
I've been in Phoenix since December. It's rained a lot and I find the people here make Texan's look tame. They sure sing the praises of Phoenix. I'm not real sure about people who move to a desert on purpose. But - hey - who knows. They tell me it gets up to 115 to 120 degrees here in the summer. Car batteries rarely last more than 2 years. I hear "It's not the heat, it's the lack of humidity" that makes it tolerable in the shade. Ummm, I hate to say this, but 'It's the heat and lack of water, stupid...' Unbelievable smog. It really is *East LA*. No - really it's not terrible. There are a lot of nice places to go and such as one might expect in a large city. It's somewhat warm even during its coldest season. The nice months are November thru April. The rest is hot, hot, and damn hot. I'm renting a convertible and it's March so I'm in decent shape until May.
Well, it's nearly April. The most recent promised release date of the revised QS 9000 'standard'. To be honest, I'm not sure what's happening. I'm going to have to get off my butt and see what I can find out, if I can. I've pretty much been watching the news lists and the forum here for information. It appears both QS and ISO will be well worked over. The only draft I have of the upcoming QS9000 manual is from almost a year ago. It still has the ISO stuff. I've heard that's on the way out and that QS will be a stand-alone. In my best dreams. I'll have to see it to believe it.
I also hear the ISO spec is being drastically remodeled for Year 2000. Comments are in the forum with more specifics. The short is it may be reduced to about 4 elements or sections.
QS in general appears to be tooling along quite well. China is on it's way. Haven't heard much about deadlines lately. The numbers I have seen (if you can believe them) say quite a bit less than half (some say less than a fourth) of the supplier base has achieved registration. Ummm , well... What can I say. Things are getting confusing. The differences between registrars, as well as the ever changing interpretations, continues to amaze me. One client was requested to have an FMEA for outsourced calibration services. The control plan/PFMEA requirements can be a moving target. The semiconductor supplement asks for FMEAs from receiving to shipping.
As usual, there is real interesting stuff happening in the audit field. I ran across an ex-teacher with no manufacturing experience auditing in manufacturing. Some interesting interpretations there. I continue to be disappointed with many auditors - but I guess where there's a big need you take what you can get.
I also have noticed, as I listen to peoples tales, and with consideration to my own experiences, registrars are as wide spread as ever. One registrar is, if you really look at it, consulting heavily. Another is in and out. All things being equal, you almost have to choose a registrar based upon their personality. Entela came in to one past client and the auditor said something to the effect (the old client called me and told me this) that they are 'taking a more relaxed position (this is an ISO client) on the spec' and they did a real short, easy surveillance audit. Very short and quick. I'm not sure what this tells us...
Well, not much else is new. Be sure to stop by the forum for the latest news and questions. I don't find the time to keep this WOTS column up much any more.
1998 Line Break
1997-1225 Howdy!
Merry Christmas! Happy Happy New Year!
1997-1210
Some General Comments:
Well, here we go again. Another tightening of the belt. The following is from Quality Magazine's November 191997- issue. The RED type is/are my comments.
"The third edition of QS-9000, originally slated for September 191997-, has been postponed until next year and will become effective nine months after its release. This is to ensure that all concerns with the second edition are fully addressed and resolved, according to QS-9000 task force members. One of these concerns is the registration process. "What we’re seeing is that the frequency of accreditation-body oversight and surveillance is probably not high enough to give adequate assurances that the oversight is effective," Reid said. The plan for the third edition is to increase surveillance frequency, he added."
Now this from a list-server:
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 191997- 23:47:41 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Subject: Re: Registrar Experience/Cox
From: "Bill Cox" 17-NOV-191997-
22:19:04.51
Message text written by Clark
>Also, I've heard recently that there is talk of reducing the number of registrars
for QS 9000. Any info on this?<
Last I heard (Per GM's Dan Reid), there were 63
registrars, and the Big3 would like to have about 10.
Bill Cox
TQM Consulting
OK - we have a tightening of the money here through another Plexus-like Dan Reid alliance. Betcha. In response to the ever changing target of getting auditors to agree on interpretations, the blame is put pretty much solely on the registrar's heads and the threat of oversight is used. Having followed QS9000 from the beginning, actually from well before it was even released, the evolution is clear. The standard is about 3 years old. In the next 3 years it will become 'understood'.
Quality Magazine continues: "In addition, the task force is evaluating the possibility of developing a matrix for registrar quality performance to help suppliers choose registrars. The result could be that suppliers have access to data that show problems per 100 registrations for a registrar, Reid speculated. The third edition of QS-9000 also will:
Finally, the task force warned that certification to the tooling and equipment supplement is not available and suppliers should be wary of any registrar that claims it can provide this registration."
OK - and we're going to get to 'rate them' by means of a 'problems per 100 registrations' solution. Umm, I wonder how the 'problems' will be defined, etc. Sounds like wind meant to address the complaints and shift blame. It's like congress ragging on the IRS. Let's face it - congress makes stupid, confusing tax laws no one understands with lots of conditions, etc. designed to reduce taxes on specific interest groups (like, fer example, Big Business). Then congress blames the IRS for having an 'attitude'. This isn't much different. A promise of a 'new' future where the problems will go away!
As interesting as anything else, by the way, is the ISO TC176 interactions with the QS folks. Of course, although ISO is meant to be applied across the board, we are now looking at a possible sector definition. I heard the QS folks want to get out of the ISO royalty fees. The QS people are pushing an integration but are somewhat being rebuffed.
In general, this whole move is a liability based function. Businesses in general - through ISO or QS - are being required, just like banks, to be audited regularly. This was the *original* intent for ISO 9000 anyway, but it's getting every more interesting. The QS standard introduced system requirements based upon forcing their suppliers to more closely coordinate, synchronize and base their business upon their relationship with one (well, 3 - Ford, GM, and Chrysler) company. I'm not exactly sure what the motive is to get more QS stuff integrated into ISO 9000. The big three should leave ISO alone.
Even more interesting is the fact that the Japanese and other auto industries achieve lower costs and better reliability through methods which do not depend upon an 'industry standard'. The big three say this will all help their reliability and such. Hog wash. More shift of blame for bad management. The Tarus is loosing ground. GM has some problems. Even Detroit is now a Toyota and Honda town. QS 9000 will not 'win the game' for them.
I have spoken with someone who has seen (but won't copy me) a number of drafts of the yet-to-come and delayed QS 9000 revision. No - he wouldn't give specifics but said it has some significant changes. Oh boy! I can hardly wait! He said many of them are real stupid. Which goes without saying.
Working with the Motorola project auditors from LRQA has been a pleasure. I am so used to auditors who are relatively new - and who are often terribly unqualified (one I met had never even been in manufacturing - he was an ex- junior college teacher) or at best borderline. Two of the auditors were old 'NQA-1' auditors. They started their careers in the 1960's and were easy to work with. The experience was the best I have had in years. Meeting the Intent was understood. They did not have the paradigm problem I so often find. I also should add that the folds at Motorola Guadalajara did one hell-uva job. In what really turned out to be 6 months, they burned it up - got everything done! I was excited...
Well, 'nuff said for now. Don't forget to check out the Message Board from time to time. Most of the time I post 'new' information there for comment.
1997-1001
General Comments:
As I look at this page I see it has again been quite a while since I have updated this page. It seems I am so busy that I neglect to take the time. And in part I have neglected this page because I (finally) got the 'question' board up and running and hope most comments, etc. will go there. And in part because I do this all myself and it has GOTTEN OUT OF HAND!!!! But, I'm sitting here in Guadalajara and want to update you a bit on 'what's new' - although not much IS new!
As I have said on this site, my expectations of QS 9000 failing in general acceptance with time were (are) wrong. Companies are following like, well, like sheep. And it's as out of hand as I did predict. But then, the confusion caused by QS is in large part a driver for companies to pay me to 'interpret', etc. so I shouldn't complain.
Seems there is 'pass-down' fever. One company making the transmission for a military vehicle is passing the QS requirements down to it's suppliers. The interesting part is that they only make less than 500 units a year. Try proving capability where the run is less than 500 units per year. I guess my point here is that it's just getting silly. But then, the last thing I would consider if I owned a company would be to sell product to any of the 'big three'.
I am seeing QS help some companies, but in general companies which are already ISO will see little (if any) gain from QS. The transition from ISO to QS (for most companies) is an easy one once they understand QS (as well as one *can* understand QS). If you have been visiting the question and comment 'board', you will see some interesting comments.
Many people are asking me about the upcoming QS revision. I have not heard anything in the recent future. They can't change it much or there will be a lot more money flowing out to people like me and disgruntled companies. I suspect it will be at most a simplification. Not long from now we should know.
Nor have I seen any recent interpretations. The last I saw were last spring/winter (they're posted here).
No significant news from my Detroit friends. Most of our discussions have revolved around generalities. QS discussions are limited. The shock is over and most companies are into the process if not already there. It is expected that by next August (1998) all relevant players will be QS registered. The main question is "What next?" from the 'big three'. Most are convinced there will be a new agenda as soon as QS plays out but no-one knows what it will be - nor do I.
OTR (Over The Road) Trucking Comments:
The trucking industry is beginning to wake up to ISO in part because of QS and in part because of international business. I went to a otr trucking user group conference in Cleveland last week. Response was poor. Mostly I got "What is this ISO thing?' I did expect more people to know something about ISO. The majority had never even heard of ISO. Some of the big firms are ISO (or are working on it), though., including TNT (one helluva big world-wide company) and Schneider. Not many others are registered. When I checked it out a couple of months ago only a few companies (like less than 10, as far as I could tell) were ISO registered.
GM, Ford and Chrysler are asking the OTR companies for ISO and for their own 'stuff'. I called Ford and got a supplier QA kinda guy and asked him the big Q: What does Ford expect (in addition to the QSA-S "Quality System Assessment for Services" requirement). I got a long-winded, idealistic speech about how, if one looks closely enough at documents like the Q1 requirements, one will understand what applies and what doesn't. Most of you probably know I stuck up for Ford for quite a while in this mess, but this guy did the trick on me.
Ask a simple question and you get a politician's answer. If you ask what day it is, they tell you Clinton raised campaign funds illegally (as if THEY don't and never did, not to mention the fact that only a few republican extremists like Pat Buchanan and what's-his-face [the fat-ass republican radio guy with all the Disinformation] and my mother ("If it's republican, vote for it!") give a rats ass about it all). Bottom line is their answer is generally unrelated to the question.
Umm, can't they understand that we want them to spell it out rather than giving us philosophical bull shit? This guy digressed into a philosophical 'quality' diatribe that was, to say the least, BORING. I don't mind philosophical discussions. In fact, I like quality related discussions very much - BUT, not when I'm trying to get a simple answer to a simple question. Give me a break! Tell me what you expect - specifically... So now I've got one helluva phone bill for that call alone... Never did get a straight answer from the chap. Oh, well, so what else is new you say?
1997-0609
A recent bit of feedback:
->Two of my largest customers are GM and Ford. And unfortunately,
I really
->feel the whole purpose of QS-9000 (one system) is slowly fading into
->QS-9000 AND Big Three "Plug-Ins" or additions to QS-9000. For
example,
->Ford has published their own take on APQP. And recently I just received
a
->separate document from GM that is GM's APQP. It's all getting rather
->complicated to follow, and it is definitely not a "one system"
game plan as
->envisioned.
->
->As for Ford's QS applicability, if you remember at one time, Ford was
->going to eliminate Q-1 in favor of QS-9000. Now they won't be doing that.
->Instead, they'll keep Q-1, modifying it to include QS-9000. Again, it's
->like the Big three are saying, yes, we want our suppliers to be registered
->to QS-9000, but no, we don't want them to forget some of our old programs.
->
->This QS stuff is a nightmare sometimes. I'd die for a position someday
->that only involved ISO. I could do that with my eyes closed.
->
Took your info as info - that's why I wrote and said thanks. I just got back
from Mexico and still haven't gotten the Q1 I got back in Feb out to look at
it. Yes - the whole thing is confusing. The Ford guy I spoke with while at Motorola
in Guadalajara said "QS 9000 implementation plan
& Q1" - well, he sorta murmured it. He had laryngitis (or however you
spell it - he was horse). Anyway - look at Australia where a couple of Japanese
companies are asking for QS.
Yeah - ISO is on its way to a big change, though, too. And OH! What will the QS revision bring? By the way, I love the 'Plug-In' analogy you used.
By the way - is there any way you could leave me the document number(s) and where/who to call for both the Ford and GM APQP documents? I really gotta have those! That's the first I hear of it. I know Stat-A-Matrix isn't up to date as of 3 weeks ago as I took their APQP, PPAP and FMEA courses and didn't hear a word about the APQP separate requirements. And as you know, I've been giving Ford a break for only asking Q1 and not setting a date. I guess I hate ultimatums. I keep thinking to myself, "Or what???"
->As for references regarding the Ford & GM "plug-ins"
for APQP:
->
->GM - APQP: Midsize and Luxury Car Division Operating Policy, Revised August
->1996 (couldn't find any document numbers)
->
->Ford - APQP0104.98D Ford Automotive Operations Advance Product Quality
->Planning Status and Reporting Guidelines (states in the document that these
->Ford requirements are in addition to the AIAG APQP requirements - joy.)
->
->Rod Parrish,CQA
->RAMCO Manufacturing
->ISO/QS-9000 Administrator
1997-0529
QS 9000 registration is only
significant if you want to sell
to GM and/or Chrysler.
(Or Ford in Australia)
QS 9000 registration does NOT GUARANTEE
GM and/or Chrysler WILL buy from you.
Up until recently I understood that Ford wanted ONLY ISO 900x, QOS and Q1 EXCEPT In Australia where Ford definitely DOES require QS. I have just been informed that Ford has included QS9 requirement(s) within their Q1 document. I am in Mexico for a couple of weeks and have not yet confirmed this to be the case. Note that as I now understand it Ford's Q1 does not require a specific QS 9K registration date, but rather that you be working Towards QS 9K registration and that you have a Plan to get there.
QS 9000 does NOT address any international trade issues specifically.
QS 9000 does NOT fulfill ANY other country's automotive requirements, except by coincidence due to general similarities. (eg: QS 9000 does NOT contain all of VDA 6's requirements, so it is NOT a substitute for VDA 6 compliance....)
So what if you don't meet GM's December 191997- or Chrysler's July 191997- registration deadline? You cannot bid on new business. Current contracts will continue. I was recently informed by a resource that GM and Chrysler are adamant that they will NOT change their requirement dates.
I am witnessing flow-downs into Tier II suppliers already, as well as to several Tier IIIs. Get ready! You're next!
It's been a while since I really have gotten into this WOTS page. I figured I had best take a few minutes and revisit this diatribe page - so here goes...
I see that QS is taking hold better and faster that I ever imagined it would. To a large degree I have been WRONG. On the other hand, I have also been right. How have I been right? As QS 9 progresses it is being changed. This fall you will probably be seeing significant changes in the revision which is coming out. I predict some moderation.
Neither GM nor Chrysler is backing down from QS. I saw them fluttering around a bit for a while, but they have remained strong. I really believed they would back down or seriously dilute QS 9. Not the case, at least so far.
Clarification on what will happen if you do not meet the registration date has taken place. Now it appears the direction is that you will not be allowed to bid on new business if you miss GM or Chryslers registration date. While I do have some remaining doubts, there are one helluva lot of POs in the pipeline and there will be even more so by December (for GM). I personally don't worry about Chrysler. I've never personally be real excited about Chrysler in general and my perception of Chrysler is that their quality systems are close to as inadequate as they have ever been. The Neon is a perfect example.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, QS 9 is being flowed down to Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers already by Tier 1 suppliers, so expect to see it in your neighborhood soon if it hasn't already moved in.
I am still seeing drastic differences in registrar and auditor interpretations. This disappoints me very much. I took two weeks of courses in FMEA, APQP, PPAP, MSA, etc. recently [continuing education, as it were]. It seemed every couple of questions were answered with the now standard "Ask your registrar what their position is and how they interpret it". By the end of each course, the instructor was saying, "I hate to say this again - I really apologize, but ask your registrar what their position is and how they interpret it". The class would laugh and chuckle and we would go on. It got to be a class joke. There were a few hoots and cat calls now and again. My point here is that the problem of interpretation of QS 9 still exists. The interpretations have helped very little. Doing what I do, I am exposed to a number of registrars, not to mention auditors, and it is very disappointing to see how each can interpret the same sentence or paragraph so differently. yes - some areas are quite clear, but many are still very open to interpretation. And if you think it's bad for you, think of how I feel telling a client we will have to 'check with the registrar' on how they interpret a paragraph. Makes me look stupid sometimes, or at least that's the way I feel...
By the way - the classes I took were by Stat-A-Matrix. MSA was OK, but too statistically oriented with almost no reference to QS 9 compliance. A lot of theory and direct application without bringing QS into it. They tell you statistics is a prerequisite. Believe me when I say they are not lying. The class was good, but my statistics and QS background is pretty good and I expected more QS orientation and information. The FMEA, APQP and PPAP classes better addressed the relationship to QS. I also got my first 'dose' of Radisson hotels. If the one in Beachwood [Cleveland] Ohio is representative of the chain as a whole, it really sucks big time.
Not much else is new with me. I'm in Guadalajara, Mexico right now with Motorola for a couple of weeks and then it's off to Thailand for a couple of weeks. My recent and current travels keep me away from my Detroit friends most of the time now-a-days so I'm not getting the scoop I used to get not long ago. Country to country phone calls are too expensive for me to call a friend to chat about the most recent news and gossip. E-mail limits how much 'scoop' I get. And QS is keeping me pretty busy. I guess I should be happy QS is ambiguous and 'difficult'.
I've been getting some interesting comments on the site here through e-mail. Seems some of you love it and a few people have taken the time to call it some rather interesting names. At least so far none have gotten very personal. I did have to laugh at one e-mail where the guy didn't like the layout of the site. He told me about his 21 inch monitor and how it should be better laid out for his monitor. I didn't answer him. I'm only one guy and I can't lay out the site to suit him. I made the site myself and I have tried to keep it as simple as possible considering everything including different monitor sizes, resolutions, browsers, etc. And I don't have thousands of $ to pay someone to do a 'professional' job. I get no advertising revenue and do it as a service to help people. Yes - there are typos, spelling errors, and the like. Oh well. Life is rough sometimes. So if you're disappointed in it - hey - there are other sites.
I do extend my thanks to all who visit and leave war stories and gossip and information. I hope it has in some way helped you! Some people have told me I have the wrong information and I try to make appropriate changes. Again, thanks for the info.
Well, back to 'real' work. More WOTS to come in the months ahead! (I'm sure you can't wait!
1997-0508
FORD Australia IS definitely requiring QS registration. Believe it (or not) four local vehicle manufacturers got together and agreed that they would use QS 9000 as the common assessment tool. Ford Australia have definitely put down Dec 31 191997- as MANDATORY for suppliers wishing to quote on new business. Ford and GM regularly send out memos to suppliers requesting an update on their progress to QS. Toyota Aus. and Mitsubishi Aus. have also requested that QS registration is attained. This all sounds good in theory i.e. one system for all suppliers, the crunch comes with section III requirements. Ford Aus. retains most of the Ford - US requirements. GM AUS retains some of the GM - US requirements and of course Mitsubishi and Toyota have developed their own section III requirements. So the question is, "What's changed?" Answer: nothing. Aus. suppliers worked to four requirement pre-QS and now work to four requirement post-QS.
I'm not sure whether you are aware of the mistake in MS 9000 re: scoring method?
I was reading Quality magazine and page 10 of the May 191997- issue has some things (including a couple of graphs) on QS implementation positives. The article says QS9000 certification pays off. The figures appear to substantiate it.
The third edition of QS 9000 is due to be released late this fall. The current version will be obsoleted by February 1998. Format changes are expected. Sections 1 and 2 may be combined. Well, we'll see!
Discussions are still somewhat rampant about the statistical possibility that all the companies can be QS registered by December. Duh. I guess they had to have a goal.
1997-0323
Not much new from Detroit as of late. The current wave has not changed. Ford's still on its own track away from QS while GM and Chrysler keep up the heat. In some respects, the Plexus incident seems to have cooled GM down a bit. Along with the revelations that many of the third party auditors were screwing up their audits from the beginning have not brought the QS 'program' any increased love and importance. Foreign automakers still smile when someone mentions QS - content to let GM and Chrysler beat the hell out of everyone. Makes them look that more attractive as customer targets. Companies vent their wrath on GM and Chrysler. It's been a while since I've seen any statistics on whether Chrysler's late-July requirement and GM's end of December 191997- requirement are possible. WOTS is that its not, but that's heresy.
QS is rolled out in Thailand.
1997-0221
I have had several conversations this week with friends in Detroit. The current wave has not changed. Ford is somewhat disorganized right now. One fella likened Ford to post-Lopez GM. Some disarray and disorganization. Ford is hot on the Ford 2000 program. There was complete agreement that Ford will still reference QS9 to some extent but as reported here many times before, they have no intention of embracing it like GM and Chrysler. Everyone I spoke with had pretty much the same understanding - Ford is letting GM and Chrysler push everyone on QS thus remaining a 'good guy' to automotive suppliers. This does not relieve them from QOS, QFD (when 'appropriate') and other Ford specific programs.
The bottom line in our conversations was that Ford has every intention of considering quality, however LOWEST PRICE will rule Ford's purchasing decisions through the turn of the century and into the 21st century.
Haven't heard much lately about the 'auditor shortage'. So far, seems most everyone's being served. On the other hand, with only 4 months to go, I find it hard to believe all of Chrysler's tier 1 suppliers will be QS registered.
QS is taking the world by storm. I have had inquiries from Jakarta and Bangkok, to name a few places, where QS is being rolled out with the big firms on the path to 'cleaning up' in so far as consultant work (read fees) goes. I hesitated to use the verbiage "taking the world by storm" to start this paragraph, but I believe it is appropriate. Even the ISO committees are looking and saying, "Gee - maybe WE can incorporate some of this stuff!" My take is that most people/groups doing this are doing so without understanding much about QS and all its ramifications. Don't get me wrong - heck, if they can require every automotive business in the world to achieve QS registration, my retirement fears are over. Just to start, it takes ISO 9001's 10 pages and expands it (by reference) to 8 complete documents, each of which dwarfs ISO 9001 in length (number of words) not to mention complexity (and I know you don't want to hear me talk about QS9 interpretations). So - to me personally, it's like opening up a small gold mine (as opposed to the large gold mine for groups like Excel, UL, Lloyd's, etc. Those folks will really clean up.) So - we have all the headless proponents screaming for QS9 - but they're not the ones who have to do it... ; ) YOU do!
One writer to the site (Umm, well, here - this 'site') was quite perplexed. Seems the supplier is a tier 2 and tier 3 supplier. A customer was in and the customer did the ol' "We're gonna take advantage of section 4.6.4" and brought in GM reps. GM's reps quickly informed their customer's customer that they were required to be registered to QS 9000 prior to January 1998 (the standard GM end-of-December 191997-). The tier 2 supplier being surveyed said "That's news to us" to which their customer, the supplier to GM, quickly added "Oh, yeah - we forgot to tell you..." The writer wanted to know why, since the spec does not REQUIRE tier 2 and below to registered by that date, they were targeted. Well, the answer is, of course, QS9 at any cost (to you)! There's a mindless breed running around shouting QS! QS! QS! as if it's as simple as pie to put together. Bottom line is they finally were notified they have to be compliant by end of December 1996.. Well, they have 10 months! Get on your mark, get set, GO! For the QS9 'gold'!
Summary: Folks - your customer can require anything from you they want and it is up to you to decide whether you want them as a customer. If you're already a supplier to the big 3, you are already certifiably insane, so you probably won't mind all this, but the bottom line is, 'If your customer requires you to provide an inspector who does nothing but stand on his/her head with his/her tongue stuck out and his/her finger in his/her nose (or other orifice, for that matter) for 10 hours a day, you don't have a choice if you want to meet the customer requirements'. Period.
OK - so now, what's the word on the Japanese and other car manufacturers? Pretty much unchanged. Lots a smirks and a lot of silence. My sources from Toyota, BMW and a couple of others are set with glee. They are keeping noticeably silent in public. Behind the doors they like the idea of GM and Chrysler being the 'bad boys' requiring and brainlessly pushing practically instantaneous QS9 registration. It makes them much more palatable and satisfying as suppliers vent their spleens on GM and Chrysler. They, if fact, see no big thing with QS. They believe their requirements are sufficient. The consensus is that GM and Chrysler have no more of a handle on 'quality' now than they did 5 years ago. QS9 is not seen as a quality document. They see it as a Lopez like imperative with all the implications of Lopez's programs (can You say PICOS?). They admit QS9 has it's good parts, but they are few and far between. Their opinion as a group is that the QS9 drive excludes true quality initiatives and that QS9 is not particularly cost effective.
Summary: Everyone other than the sorta big 2 (GM and Chrysler) are quite willing to let GM & Chrysler push suppliers on the QS9 issue. They have their own idea of what they want - and it's not what the sorta big 2 want - but they don't mind the sorta big 2 making suppliers do it. It's no skin off their backs. You still have to meet their individual requirements.
1997-0101
This past year has been like a shake-down cruise. Most of the QS front has proven to be akin to pandemonium. Many companies are working towards QS compliance. Differences in interpretations between, as well as within, registrars is evident. Two registrar contrasts are KPMG as opposed to UL. Entela is proving to be fair and consistent (probably because they only use direct-hire auditors). There has been (as expected) a flood of QS experts surface, not to mention a deluge of auditors and auditor wanna-bes. One fella I talked to about ISO 9000 about 5 years ago recently called. He proudly told me he got his provisional auditor approval. Umm - (no offense if you're reading this) Wow! I'm impressed. Sorta a day late and a dollar short. What we all need is another provisional QS 9000 auditor. On the other hand, the word is out - lots of hiring going on. Most of the work for provisional auditors is on a 'temporary' basis. Make sure your registrar uses only direct-hires.
Statistically there is no way every company is going to be registered by the end of December 191997-. Consider the World Wide Scenario. Tier I's are not the only companies registering. Tier I's are flowing down the requirements as are Tier II's. This may be addressed by creative manipulation of the definition of supplier approval categories by the big 3 on down.
Many companies are trying to figure how QS elements apply to them. One aspect is the situation of companies such as chemical firms (eg. vinyl providers). How does the APQP provision apply to them? How do batch processes, where compounds and liquids are routinely 'fine tuned', address the rework criteria? Most of it is really common sense, but things get mangled pretty fast when everyone gets their opinion in.
Companies other than the big 3 (read Toyota, BMW, Mazda, et al) are not exactly hopping on the QS 9000 band wagon. They tend to ignore it maintaining their company specific requirements. Most of what is in QS is a given for those in the automotive forefront anyway.
Keep your eye on Ford's QOS. It's an important system.
I'm trying to temper my criticism of the document a bit. It's not easy for me to stay quiet sometimes.
Forums and Site Provided and Maintained by Marc Timothy Smith 
This page last reviewed or revised:
Sun, 2007-02-04 5:13 PM
EST USA (Coordinated Universal Time [ZULU] -4 hours)
