|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
 The Old Elsmar Cove Forums
 Registrars and Registration
 Confidentiality
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Confidentiality |
|
pmaizitis Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
posted 21 January 2000 12:10 PM
   
QS-9000, Appendix I, #6, Confidentiality ... DaimlerChyrsler, at the July 1999 Registrar meeting, is requiring registrars to contact D/C (Hank Gryn) to flag major quality problems during audits. This appears to contradict the requirement for confidentiality as stated in QS-9000. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 21 January 2000 02:02 PM
Who/what is D/C Hank Gryn? Could you please elaborate? IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
posted 21 January 2000 02:10 PM
Marc....I suppose Pete should respond, but I read it as D/C Daimler Chrysler...and Hank, someone from D/C? IP: Logged |
|
pmaizitis Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
posted 21 January 2000 03:40 PM
Hank is the DaimlerChrysler (D/C) contact that was given for reporting major issues found during audits.
[This message has been edited by pmaizitis (edited 21 January 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 21 January 2000 03:46 PM
Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard about that. IP: Logged |
|
pmaizitis Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
posted 23 January 2000 09:29 AM
Marc: Its a little disconcerting since it starts putting the registrar in a second party versus third party auditing mode and role. I have some questions/interpretations into IASG for clarification. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 24 January 2000 12:22 PM
I set this site up over 4 years ago because of the lack of info on qs9000. As serious as you may see this, I have long 'objected' to the business plan requirements. Only 2 years ago, Dan Reid (whilst still at GM) stated outright at a meeting in Detroit that it was intended that eventually the business plan its self would become auditable. I think the outrage was enough that they didn't go that far in the 3rd revision, but they wanted to. I must admit I've never seen ISO registration in the same light as QS registration. QS registration has for the most part (my opinion) been a second party audit. IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
posted 24 January 2000 01:49 PM
We had our auditor tell us that our customer told the registrar that they need to spend more time on PPAP....that QS companies were still haveing problems with PPAP. Sounds like a 2nd party audit to me! Our auditor became so paranoid that he started initialing the PPAP packages that he audited. I guess he wanted to be able to say "but it was only an audit and I didn't look at that one." Not sure if it was targeted at us or all GM suppliers. Did other 3rd party auditors out there start doing the same, or was that just our guy? IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
UBB 5.45c
Main Site Search 
