posted 12 July 2000 09:09 AM               

From:Adelaide, South Aust, Australia
Registered: Jul 2000
Posted 10 July 2000 at 11:45 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Update from Australia -- GM-Holdens rep on QS9000 task force [Mike Filazzola] acknowledges 16949 is on their agenda, and will replace QS9000 but timing indefinite. Past QS9000 timing would suggest Aussie suppliers will have one year after US deadline.

posted 08 November 2000 09:14 AM               

BVQI is a registrar.

posted 28 November 2000 09:27 AM               

So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation.

posted 28 November 2000 11:06 AM               

quote:

---

"Not only does the Big 3 intend to keep QS9000 in place, but the 3rd edition is inteded to remain. No revisions are on the board at this time."
"So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation."

---

I like your Theory, But, "Food for thought"
If QS9000 is not scheduled for revisions, then why would I have to comply with ISO9k2k?
It would not be part of the QSR.
***************
EDITORS NOTE: Added 'quote' to make easier to read. No other changes were made.

posted 28 November 2000 12:21 PM               

I read on our Certificate that our company has been assessed and approved against the following quality assurance standards: ISO 9002, BS EN 9002, and ANSI/ASQC Q9002-1994, and the quality system requirements of QS-9000, 3rd edition, blah blah blah.

What that tells me is that we are certified to both ISO and QS. With compliance to the new revision to ISO being mandatory in 3 years, regardless of what edition of QS we are at, I still have to comply with the current revision of ISO.
Now this is per my understanding of what the registrar stated.

Am I incorrect in my understanding? Does a QS-9000 certificate automatically cover my compliance to the current ISO by default?
If one standard, through revision, becomes more stringent, or at least much more defined than the other, why would I not have to comply with the totality of the two?
If the Big 3 are really content with QS as is, then they will end up with suppliers that will exceed their requirements per the statndard. Not a bad deal I say.

posted 28 November 2000 02:24 PM               

As I understand the situation:
Qs & Ts incorporate references to specific wording in ISO9001:1994

When it gets "regrouped/renumbered" and becomes ISO9000:2000 - will this mean that companies will need to maintain and use where/as needed - invalid obsolete ISO 1994 reference versions in order to maintain compliance with QS??

We are investigating upgrade form 9002 here & I have somewhat promoted the move to do so - but if the compliance issues become complicated to this extent maybe I should re-think my position.

Regards
Jim

posted 29 November 2000 04:01 PM               

Yes, it is true QS-9000 is not going to be revised again. The B3 purchase the rights to use the text of ISO 1994 indefinately. The release of 9000:2000 has no bearing on a QS-9000 registered company. The only exceptions are those companies that have 2 certifications or a split scope of registration. Example: it is possible for a company to have one of their product lines certified to 9000:94 and another line certified to QS-9000. The line certified only to 9000:94 will need to upgrade their system to 9000:2000.

Will ISO/TS replace QS? I think so, but there is no official word. Will it happen within the next 3 years? probably not, even if ISO/TS does meet the 2002 revision deadline, there will still be a transition period a la 9000:2000.

posted 30 November 2000 08:23 AM               

On page 3 of my copy of QS9K 3rd Edition, under Implementation, it reads, "Verification of conformance to ISO-9001(2)is a necessary condition for registration to QS-9000" There is no revision level mentioned in the requirement, which would imply whatever is current by default.
If 9K:2K provides clear definition in any area that has been left open and general by QS, (management review for instance), why then would we not be required to conform to the updated requirements?

posted 08 December 2000 06:50 PM               

Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler (B3)purchased the rights to use ISO 9001:1994 indefinatly. This means they can use the text of the 1994 standard as long as they want to. Why would they purchase the rights to use this standard, if they were going to use 9000:2000? They (B3)wouldn't.

Now, keep that in mind and remember that QS 9000 (the requirements) is a trademark of the B3. It only applies to parts suppliers to the B3, it is (in fact) a customer specification (as opposed to being a standard, like ISO). Since it is a specification they can change (or keep it the same)it as they please.

posted 19 December 2000 06:32 AM              

ISO/TS is the additional standard for automotive for ISO 9000:1994, when this becomes ISO 9000:2000 will it need changing, if so when??????

posted 08 February 2001 07:21 PM               

* General Motors - November 9, 1999
* Ford - October 7, 1999
* DaimlerChrysler
* PSA Peugeot Citroen - 15 October 1999
* Renault - 15 October 1999
* Volkswagen AG - December 1999

KPMG gave you good advice. 16949 is it.

For all intents and purposes, the QS-9000 'period' lasted about 7 years and cost companies untold hundreds of millions of dollars.

A last comment... Nothing will really change. Where 16949 is not as specific and 'demanding' as QS-9000, customer specific requirements (Ford, GM, et al) more than make up for any 'holes'. Also Honda and Toyota (to name 2) are nowhere to be seen. As with ISO 9001, many companies don't buy any of this stuff.

posted 08 February 2001 08:17 PM               

Does the statement "Not Invented Here" apply!

Many of the B3 can't even get their own internal "supplier" facilities registered.

Saginaw is a lovely city.

A Not Happy ASD...

posted 04 March 2001 12:22 PM               

I have a copy of the GM specs if anybody needs it.

posted 27 March 2001 01:45 PM               

When the AIAG got together and wrote the QS-9000 requirements they illegally copied the ISO standard (the italics, as we all know) and published QS in that manner. Apparently ISO sued the AIAG and won claiming copyright infringement. The AIAG did wind up paying for the use of the ISO standard. So the AIAG, in all their wisdom, decided to stiff us TE companies any print only the TE changes to QS. That is why TE states, "The TE Supplement shall be used with QS-9000 as on document for the Tooling and Equipment Industry." From my understanding AIAG would have to pay ISO again to reprint their standard in the TE version of QS. I know it sure would make my life a lot easier if they printed it in one book instead of two, but I'll work with what I have.