Is ISO 9001:2000 Required with QS-9000?

S

Steven Truchon

Is ISO9K:2K Required with QS9K ?

After talking with my registrar at the beginning of 2003, it was determined that since we were going to begin a transition to TS, that we would maintain our QS cert as long as necessary and simply drop the ISO (1994) part all together come 12/15/2003. The intent then was to go forward under just QS9000 until we gain TS certification. We are a tier 2 & 3 automotive supplier with no stated customer requirements to ISO 9K:2K, until now, one of our automotive customers is asking for an ISO 9K:2K cert (in addition to QS) by 12/15/03.
Is there an requirement that all QS certifications have the separate ISO 9K:2K certifications, or can the QS certification stand alone until its sunset in 2006? Im speaking outside of specific customer requirements of course, Im inquiring for "in general".
Thanks!
Steve
 
T

Teri - 2011

My understanding was that QS would be a stand alone after 12/15/03. Never heard of anyone stating that you had to have the 9000:2000 with QS.

After all if you transition to the 9000:2000 why not just go TS?
 
R

Rob Nix

Actually, I believe the "sunset" for QS (by itself) is 12/2003. Since it is a supplement of ISO'94, it goes when ISO'94 goes. The only acceptable continuance of QS til 2006 is related to Tooling & Equipment suppliers. There is no new TE supplement, and since it supplements QS, they both stay til 2006 (but the certificate cannot reference ISO-9001:1994).

Is not QS-9000 replaced by TS-16949 this month? Help me out here guys and gals. :eek:
 
D

db

This is a sticky thing. QS ends in 2006 (except for DCX). However, TS states that your vendors will be registered to ISO 9K2K (unless waived). I think GM will automatically allow QS instead (but then again it is customer specific stuff).

Bottom line is...if your customers are okay with you having QS stand alone, then your registrar shouldn't be overly concerned (IMNSHO).

I must say that I wonder why you can't meet the deadline (at least be compliant to 9K2K). Most of the stuff in there is similar to QS and the rest is primarily administrative.

Hope that helps.
 
T

Tom W

We recently tackled this questions. We decided to just "upgrade" to TS2 to avoid any of this. (That is not the only reason, but for the sake of this thread we will pretend it is) We were told that we could continue on with just a QS cert, unless ANY of our customers required ISO. Then we would have two seperate audits and two seperate certs. We supply more than automotive, so we do have customers that only care for ISO 9000 and not QS. We went with TS2 to satisfy everyone. :rolleyes: WELL with the exception of aerospace / military / medical / computer / and any other non subscribing industries. :vfunny:
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
QS is stand alone but the customer can require what he wants .

If he wants he can request ISO9001:2000 as well as QS because now there is no linkage between QS and ISO 9001.
According to TS
[font=Arial,Bold]
7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development
[/font]
The organization shall perform supplier quality management system development with the goal of supplier conformity with this Technical Specification. Conformity with ISO 9001:2000 is the first step in achieving this goal.
NOTE The prioritization of suppliers for development depends upon, for example, the supplier’s quality performance and the importance of the product supplied.
Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body.
In fact as I understand unless your customer gives you a waiver then you cannot buy from a QS only registered company as he does not meet this requirement.
 
D

D.Scott

I'm having a bit of trouble with this one Howard. This says "Conformity is required...", "conformity with ISO9001:2000 is the first step ...." then states "shall be third party registered". How can these all apply? Do you have to be registered, in compliance, developing toward a goal or what? Also notice the NOTE: Will this allow minimal development for some while full development is required for others?

There are a lot of QS only companies still out here till 2006. If what you are saying is actually true, I think you are going to see a whole bunch of waivers passed out real fast. If waivers do get issued, there goes the integrity of the whole system. IMHO, whatever the official stance is, they should just leave well enough alone and let QS transition by 2006.

Dave
 
D

db

D.Scott said:
I'm having a bit of trouble with this one Howard. This says "Conformity is required...", "conformity with ISO9001:2000 is the first step ...." then states "shall be third party registered". How can these all apply? Do you have to be registered, in compliance, developing toward a goal or what? Also notice the NOTE: Will this allow minimal development for some while full development is required for others?

There are a lot of QS only companies still out here till 2006. If what you are saying is actually true, I think you are going to see a whole bunch of waivers passed out real fast. If waivers do get issued, there goes the integrity of the whole system. IMHO, whatever the official stance is, they should just leave well enough alone and let QS transition by 2006.

Dave

I think GM says in its CSR that QS is allowable ILO 9K2K. As for the others, the QS would not be enough. An interesting thing is I heard from a source that said they were told they had 3 years before this took effect. I cannot find anywhere that substantiates this, although I heard an OEM rep say the same thing.

And the OEMs blame the Registrars for the death of QS :rolleyes:
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
Dave
I was suggesting the way it could be interpreted by an auditor for example.

In fact GM Customers Specifics https://www.iaob.org - Link was: /forms/GMCSR_ISOTS_oct03.pdf


4.1.11.1 Customer acceptance of QS-9000:1998

[font=Arial,Arial]Registration to QS-9000:1998, (QS-9000, 3<SUP>rd Edition) </SUP>shall be accepted as an alternative to registration to ISO 9001:2000[/font]

and a lot more.
Daimler Chrysler
https://www.iaob.org - Link was: /forms/DCCSSpecifics0903_2ed_revised.pdf

say

4.1.6 Supplier Quality Management System Development
(ISO/TS 16949 cl. 7.4.1.2)

[font=Arial,Arial]DaimlerChrysler will accept registration to QS-9000 in lieu of ISO 9001:2000 until July 1, 2004.

Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting the supplier compliance requirements to cl. 7.4.1.2. The organization must be certified by an accredited certification body to a current version of the ISO/TS 16949.

[/font]

I believe this is a bigger problem in the US than in Europe, most companies that I know in Europe have updated to 9001:2000 a long time ago as part of their reqular development, non automotive customers are requiring it.
I have seen though that in the States a lot are waiting because their attitude to ISO 9001 is that it is unnecessary as other customers do not require it.

This is another cultural thing, I believe that when the standard was approved there was a general understanding, especially amongst the Europeans that this was accepted practice. It is generally unthinkable not to have an ISO9001 certification.
 
Top Bottom