IASG Sanctioned Interpretations for QS 9000

[Qualiman]

Dear friends:

I am aware that QS is almost death. However someone gave him a long, long time up to 2006. There are a lot of Organizations (suppliers in the QS slang) that will be renewing their QS registrations instead of changing to TS, surely because they consider that decision the best. Up to them, they have the right.
The IASG Sanctioned Interpretations , as of March 2003 did not made any change regarding that the official base of QS is still the ISO 94 version.
To me, is not logic that all companies that will be renewing their QS registrations after December 15, 2003 will continue using the ISO 94, no matter at that time the 94 standard is obsolete.
I understand that is a matter of decision of the Big Three. They are the customers, but I cant understand that position

Some opinion?

Thanks,
Qualiman

 

[Howard Atkins]

As you said QS is dying, because of this there is no one who is going to update a standard for 3 years when there is another standard 16949 already existing.
There is no conflict in the demands of QS9000 and ISO 9001:1994 so the only problem for the QS is that you need to maintain the needed procedures.
Hope this helps.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Since ISO 94 is written into the QS standard (italics) and not just a base, it is no big issue. Not all QS registered suppliers to the B-3 are production part suppliers and in the TS applicability statement under Scope it says " . . . is applicable to sites of the organization where . . . parts, for production . . . are manufactured." So they we be required to maintain QS, additionally, all TE certified locations do not have another standard to move to. The additional requirements for R&M under TE would be lost if those suppliers moved to 9K2K or TS.