ISO 9001:2000 for QS 9000?

[Daniel]

Our company is QS 9000 certified based on ISO 9002:1994 version. Appreciate if you could advise how can we convert to the ISO 9001:2000 standard? How much work is it needed?

Thanks !

Dan.

 

[Dan Larsen]

Actually, I think I'd be less concerned about what it will take to get to ISO 9000:2000, and more concerned about what upgrades you may need to get to 16949. This is based on the fact that you already meet the QS requirements, which in my estimation already meet (or exceed) the expectations of ISO 9000:2000.

In the next year or two, look for 16949 to go through a rewrite to make it consistent with the structure of the new 9000. Once this is done, look for AIAG to embrace 16949 as the replacement for QS.

Since you're already registered, it's best to discuss this whole issue with your registrar. They should have the inside track on what changes you should anticipate.

 

[Mitzie]

What, pray tell, is 16949?!

 

[Dan Larsen]

Sorry 'bout that...ISO TS 16949 is the ISO version of the automotive interpretation of ISO 9001. Reads very much like QS-9000, but has a bit more to contend with. The big 3 have started to accept it as an alternative to QS with some "customer specific" ramifications.

From what I'm hearing, QS will not be re-written to the new ISO revision, TS 16949 will. AIAG is involved in the TS 16949 rewrite. Look for TS 16949 to effectively replace QS in the future (I'm guessing 3 years plus a transition period).

 

[Mitzie]

Ok, then, here's my dilema: I'm working for a partially ISO registered company (only some locations are registered) and some locations are gearing up for QS this year. What should I do about the new ISO 2000 standards and TS16949?

It has been my contention to the company that we should quit trying to figure out what areas of our business we can maintain at ISO and just go forward with QS for everyone. I feel that it would be beneficial to the company as a whole if we have only one mindset. If something doesn't apply to a specific location or department, then it doesn't apply. But I feel that we can most definitely benefit from some of the QS requirements that we don't currently have to have for ISO, i.e. control plans, FMEA's, etc.

Your opinion?

 

[Al Dyer]

Go for TS-16949 and wait for all others to catch up!

ASD...

------------------
Al Dyer
Mngt. Rep.
[email protected]

 

[Dan Larsen]

I agree with Al. If you want to gear the systems to one standard, I think you should look at TS 16949. If you want to take small steps, go ISO 9000:2000, with an eye to TS 16949 as an up-front guidance document, then upgrade once 16949 is revised to coincide with 9K2K.

I would not look at QS at this point. Personally, I believe it will be out in the next few years and all the QS registrations will be switched over to the TS. There are registrars avialable to audit to the TS, so why not?

As for you thought about a universal system...I would tend to agree. The caution would be how and why exceptions are taken. For example, if all the plants perform manufacturing operations, it will be hard to justify FMEA and control plans as part of one plant system but not another.

 

[Dan Larsen]

One more thought...you mention FMEA and control plans. In the past (and, I think, even now) there are quite a few who consider these tools as "window dressing" for the automotive industry.

But, they are both very powerful tools when they're used properly and effectively.

I think you're right in seeing them as beneficial. Now all you have to do is convince everyone else.

I once told an ISO house that wanted to know about an upgrade to QS, "You can do it as one big project or just let it happen. If you have an effective ISO system (i.e. apply concepts of preventive action and continuous improvement), the QS tools WILL find their way into your system."

 

[Mitzie]

Opting out of QS is not an option. My next question at this point, based upon the replies to my questioning so far, would be should I forget about the current QS requirements and re-gear MYSELF towards TS16949, which should also achieve QS for the company, no?

Also, how much different are the requirements in that standard than those in QS?

And the reason that I stated for some locations requiring FMEA's and control plans is because the actual business of my company is not really manufacturing, we perform logistics functions, i.e., shipping and sequencing operations for the auto industry. Which makes what we do "sorta" fit and "sorta not" in several areas.

[This message has been edited by Mitzie (edited 16 February 2001).]

 

[Dan Larsen]

Based on your latest post, I'd assume you supply the auto industry. I believe that all of the Big 3 now recognize registration to TS 16949 as an alternative to QS. Considering the future, I'd still suggest TS 16949 as a guide. (By the way, the TS reads almost identical in format to the existing QS. There are some additional requirements, though).

The real problem is that you're on the cusp with respect to the transition of TS 16949 to becoming a consistent pair to ISO 9000. My initial thought would be to be creative. Use ISO 9000 as a base document (it contains a cross reference to the old 1994 elements), then create a cross reference of the current TS requirements to the new ISO standard and fit the current TS requirements into the your system that is structured to fit ISO 9000:2000.

I'll admit I'm getting maybe a bit creative here myself, but if you're developing a new system it may be wise to start thinking in terms of where the future is going in the standards. I think you may have a number of different options here, and they probably depend on your company culture and the demands of your customers as much as where everything is going (or likely to go) in the future.

If you'd like to discuss this in greater detail outside the forum, you can e-mail me or give me a call…check my profile for contact info.