posted 02 March 2000 09:26 PM               

We were also informed AIAG will oversee all registrars and the Registrars ALLOWED to audit to the TS standard will go from 2000 who can audit to QS to 30. This is due to alot of suppliers having containment issues and never being wrote up during audits for any major or minor noncompliances.

posted 03 March 2000 07:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dawn:
Surveillance audit today for QS9000: XXXX announced to us QS is obsolete at the end of the year. We have 3 years to comply with TS16949. 16949 will be revised at the end of the year to add the ISO2000 revisions. Never a dull moment......
.

---

I guess none of us would be surprised in the obsolensence of QS...certainly has been rumored anyway...but for a registrar to announce it? Anyone else heard the same? How 'bout other registrars out there?

NOTE: Registrar name removed by request.

posted 05 March 2000 03:09 PM               

If this surprises any of you, Shame! on you.

Let's see. 1994 to present = 6 years. QS9000 has lasted 6 years. And how many dollars have businesses spent? I wonder...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dawn:

...Registrars ALLOWED to audit to the TS standard will go from 2000 who can audit to QS to 30.

---

The numbers Dawn's registrar cited are suspect - specifically the 2000 number ascribed to the number of registrars. According to the Quality Online article there are 13,128 QS9000 registered companies, 115 registrars and 3200 'certified' auditors. If they limit registration to 30 registrars that gives each registrar about 437 companies and 320 auditors. So - each company will very nearly 'own' an auditor. Yes - there will be close to 1 auditor for every company. If the registrar charges US$1200 per manday for an auditor and the auditor gets about US$500, that leaves US$700 for overhead and profit per manday. It would really be interesting to know how many mandays total that all auditors claim in a year so we could know the size of this. You know, if there are 320 auditors and they each (averaged out) work 200 days a year (40 five day weeks leaving 15 weeks for travel and vacation / holiday) - Well - That's 64,000 mandays. That's US$32,000,000 for the auditors to split (US$100,000 per auditor) and US$44,800,000 for the registrars. This is obviously a sizeable business. It might better serve to just station/assign one auditor at/for each company and eliminate the registrars. Like the DoD does with DCAS. Approaches a compliance police force.

Ah.... More fun to come, folks!

You know, with all the tests and courses the auditors have to go through, I hope they're going to make more than the current rate. With only 3200 'certified' auditors in the world, they could 'strike' for higher pay. Geezzz... I dunno.... If they're already making US$100K a year..... But then again, all that travel...

Well, folks, I'll soon be switching the site 'mains' from Elsmar.com to Elsmar.com... Isn't evolution wunnerful?

In addition, I just got this off the news server:

---------- snippo ----------

From: manus@aol.com (Manus)
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Date: 02 Mar 2000 21:24:20 GMT
Subject: General Motors
Organization: AOL

A couple of companies that I am associated with just received notification from General Motors that they will now have to comply with ISO TS 16949 instead of QS 9000.

I know that TS 16949 is the replacement for a number of automotive standards, but it was the stance that those manufacturers in the United States who supplied "the big three" were not going to have to comply. I received this information from a number of sources and they agreed with each other (including AIAG, and a couple of registrars).

Does anyone why GM is implementing this requirement?

--------- snippo ----------

posted 08 March 2000 11:07 AM               

In a very recent meeting with high ranking GM representatives, they were very clear in announcing that ISO/TS is not a requirement. They also reiterated that the ISo/TS standard was still a pilot program and 30 registrars should not be using their pilot program status to gain market share or steal other registrars business. All such incidences should be reported to GM. I have been gathering a file, because I have seen registrars take advantage of their pilot program status as well. I suspect some rouge GM SQA/E are at work in the situation Mark has mentioned. I would be happy to bring any documented instances of "forced" TS compliance to the attention of the B3.

2 years ago the B3 announced that all QS-9000 auditors needed to be recertified. their objective was to "weed out" bad auditors. Unfortunatly I think this has back-fired (for many reasons too numerous to list here) and "the system" has weeded out some of the very best auditors. Now auditors have to take another expensive training course to be qualified to audit TS. I wonder how many more good auditors will be weeded out?

I think that once this "pilot program" mess is finalized, other registrars will be allowed to join the party. In 1994 only 5 registrars were chosed to issue QS certificates, we all know how that turned out.

posted 10 March 2000 08:09 AM               

quote:

---

This is a technical specification put together by the International Automotive Task Force (IATF). Primary members are from AIAG (US), France, Germany, UK, and Italy. Each of the participating IATF OEMs will have their own Customer Specific Requirements in addition to this techinical specification.
On December 2, 1999, GM World Purchasing put out a memo to all GM global suppliers recognizing ISO/TS 16949. GM is not requiring suppliers to upgrade but are strongly recommending that suppliers upgrade during their next QS-9000 surveillance audit with two conditions:

* The certification scope must include both ISO/TS 16949 and the accompanying ISO/TS 16949 GM-Customer Specific Requirements.

* The certification must be conducted in compliance with the IATF automotive certification scheme by a certification body contracted by the IATF Ovcrsight (sic) Office.

---

posted 10 March 2000 01:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard Atkins:
Please see this info http://qualitymag.com/articles/2000/mar00/0300f4.asp

---

posted 11 March 2000 10:55 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dawn:
Surveillance audit today for QS9000: XXXX announced to us QS is obsolete at the end of the year. We have 3 years to comply with TS16949. 16949 will be revised at the end of the year to add the ISO2000 revisions. Never a dull moment......

We were also informed AIAG will oversee all registrars and the Registrars ALLOWED to audit to the TS standard will go from 2000 who can audit to QS to 30. This is due to alot of suppliers having containment issues and never being wrote up during audits for any major or minor noncompliances.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 04 March 2000).]

---

posted 14 June 2000 10:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura M:
Why are my clients customers (Delphi) still telling them to get QS-9000 then?
My Delphi contacts haven't heard of TS16949 (except from me.)

---

quote:

---

Yeah, sure, it's (QS9000) going away by the end of the year!! Although I believe it will go away, I think it will be more like "fade" away.

---

posted 12 July 2000 11:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Truchon:
...use the time to prepare but not to go into action because it will be awhile yet...

---

posted 18 July 2000 02:40 PM               

I'm a first timer and I am totally stoked about this forum. I've done some research and talked to some registrars. The results:

Fact- QS 9000 will not adopt the 2000 revision of iso 9000 when it is officialy released.

Fact - ISO 9000 2000 will be released in Nov./Dec. Of this year

Note - that will render QS-9000 as a qms that does not reference the latest version of ISO 9000.

Fact - ts16949 will incorporate the 2000 version of iso-9000 in march of 2001

Note - this will make ts 16949 the only b3 accepted qms that includes the 2000 version of iso 9000

Fact - aiag (aka b3 ) are members of iatf and iaob and directly involved in ts 16949 development.

Fact - iaob's office is in the same building as aiag.

Fact - the b3 own substantial interest in several major german/euro automakers

My opinion ( logical conclusion)

The b3 ran in to logistics problems and incuured additional expense and an increased hassle factor when dealing with their german/euro counterparts. Having seperate and differing qms' probably limited their ability to cross utilize components, suppliers and design elements. There was probably some cross auditing of each other going on also.Ts 16949 represents a consolidation in concert with recent busines trends in the areas of mergers and globalization of efforts for large multi national corporations.

QS will be superseded by ts 16949. The same three year grace period offered to iso 9000 registered companies might or might not be available. (Your registrar will know more when the b3 finaly admit what is going on). If you are in the process of just starting your immplementation(like me) don't waste your time with qs, go right in to ts and make sure you utilize the 2000 revision of iso9000(1) elements since that will be part of ts when it is officialy released and the ts designation is removed.

Regarding the the amont of pain involved in transitioning from qs to ts:

Sit down and do your own analysis, the changes might not be voluminous but they are a royal pain as far as I am concerned.I would even go as far as to say that ts 16949 is down right intrusive. Those folks who believe that the level 1 document won't need to change might want to consider that when ts is finally released it will contain the 2000 version of ISO 9000 which as we all know represents a dramatic change in structure. Some experts frown upon a level 1 structure that replicates that of the qms but I find it is easier for my self as well as the obvious third party audit benefits.

Go to your management now! Ask them if they ever saw the movie jaws and then tell them you need a bigger boat.

I know it's like a bogus deal, but sometimes you just have to ride the waves as they come dude.

Isodude@isodude.Com

------------------
isodude

Edit note: Got rid of the 'shouting' capitals.

posted 18 July 2000 04:02 PM               

Stoked?..... Stoked??? Hmmmm - I've been a lot of things LATLEY but I'm not sure Stoked was ever one of them

Is that "what Marc gets" just before he tees off on somebody ? ? --- on second thought WHY IS ISODUDE YELLING at us Dudes & Dudettes?

But seriously I for one appreciate the fact update.

posted 18 July 2000 08:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Biz:

Is that "what Marc gets" just before he tees off on somebody ?

---