Does anyone know the affect the near to be issued ISO:9001:2000 will have on the QS 3rd Edition?
It seems it would have an affect since QS registration include ISO. IF this is the case, those with QS 2nd Edition registrations may as well require to implement TWO upgrades to their quality system: QS 3rd and ISO:9001:2000 within the year.
It would appear that ISO is taking on a more QS look, adding APQP and other exciting QS elements. If we are in compliance with QS-9000, we should not have to change the effects of ISO 2000, correct?
I hear many, many rumors QS-9000 is an obsolete standard in the making. Would it not be more beneficial if QS just reverted to ISO, and become an international standard like everyone else?
Or maybe ISO will become QS first? At any rate, why wouldn't we have to upgrade QS to be in compliance with the new ISO standard, to be able to confirm we are QS and ISO compliant? (I'm just as confused as you are Kelly).
I ran across this 'forgotten' thread. Anyone keeping up with the ISO9000:2000 'project'? Other thoughts?
With TR16949 - Will GM and Chrysler keep up the QS9000 farce? Now that it's a Money Machine, CAN GM and Chrysler let go? Is QS9000 just a Personal interest to Dan Reid and his crew? Has FORD really said OK to do TR16949 as an option to QS9000?
[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03-10-99).]
The last draft of ISO9000: 2000 that I have makes it pretty clear that things such as the Quality Manual does NOT have to be rewritten to comply with the new numbering in the ISO 2000 version. There are plenty of changes in that draft that are worth noting, but it still is not as prescriptive as QS9K. I doubt that the B3 will use it to replace QS9K. However, as Marc has shown with his 'forgotten post', TR16949 may replace QS9K because it is more acceptable to the European community (than QS9K). Now if you read TR16949 (Marc has this in his .pdf files), you will see many similarities to QS9K. It is a bit less prescriptive than QS, but has most of the detail. Stay tuned...