New QS-9000 Sanctioned Interpretations - 1 July 2001

[Roger Eastin]

I know that the interpretations do not say anything about where this requirement stops on the food chain, but do you see this targeting mainly tier 2 suppliers?

 

[tomvehoski]

I would think that this would affect any subcontractor that is selling directly to a QS-9000 certified company. I would expect it to be much like what happened with the ISO Guide 25 requirements - after the deadline QS companies started getting written up on surveillance audits for not having their lab/calibration subcontractors certified. This caused the QS registred company to pressure and/or drop their non-certified subcontractors.

There may be some relief with the additional registration requirements in Appendix I (Paragraph 4, Page 112) of QS-9000. This paragraph states that some elements of QS-9000 may be waived by the supplier for a small company that does not have adequate resources. This seems to conflict with the new interpretation. Also, how small is too small?

We have called several registrars we deal with to determine what their interpretations are. So far, nobody was aware of the changes yet.

Tom

[This message has been edited by tomvehoski (edited 20 June 2001).]

 

[Laura M]

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:
I know that the interpretations do not say anything about where this requirement stops on the food chain, but do you see this targeting mainly tier 2 suppliers?

I think this is the issue. I have a Tier 3 client that is being instructed to become QS9000 by the Tier 2. By the way, the automotive is about 5% or their total business, and they are not sure if they want more. Based on this interpretation, can they say - we're "good enough." Or does the last statement in the interpretation of "other requirements specified by the customer" still makes the request for QS9000 ligit?

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:

I know that the interpretations do not say anything about where this requirement stops on the food chain, but do you see this targeting mainly tier 2 suppliers?

I don't know - it sounds as if it's 'all the way' down. Heck - 2nd and 3rd tiers have already been passing QS-9000 requirements down stream.

Maybe in the NEXT version of sanctioned interpretations we'll find out...

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by tomvehoski:

There may be some relief with the additional registration requirements in Appendix I (Paragraph 4, Page 112) of QS-9000. This paragraph states that some elements of QS-9000 may be waived by the supplier for a small company that does not have adequate resources. This seems to conflict with the new interpretation. Also, how small is too small?

Excellent observation, Tom.

 

[Jim Biz]

Thanks Marc: I read the post too quickly.
(OR maybe I'll need to find out who put that nonconforming liquid in my coffee cup?)

Anyway mentioned this situation to one of our sub's last night - he's wondering about "creative merger" or "multi site certifications"

Currently we are 9002 but would like to upgrade to Qs in the future & would have the same problem with one or two of our subcontractors... example- we have a retired couple that does small part bending for us - part time working in their garage but very cost effective. Have never had a problem with their work & would be difficult to ask them to pay even 5K to be certified.

Regards
Jim

 

[Marc]

-> Anyway mentioned this situation to one of our sub's last
-> night - he's wondering about "creative merger" or "multi
-> site certifications"

This sounds interesting! It may be an excellent topic for a new thread. To be honest, it really sounds like an exciting project. Including a separate company on one cert.

I'd love to head up such a project! I know I could make a case for it.

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by JRKH:

In the standard it gives the acceptable methods of registration. I believe one of them is ceritfication by the customer. Perhaps this is one way around this.

Nope - the interpretation specifically says "... certification by an accredited certification body ..."

 

[Laura M]

In other words they are certified by your certification process? I've actually had a situation where an auditor allowed a Tier 1 "subcontractor" (the way we used the term, not the way QS uses the term) to be treated almost like a separate department. WE provided job instructions, quality requirements, gaging, etc. Basically the information that would typically be in a manufacturing department. They did the work. Their work was encompassed in our ppap documentation. They were really only a separate business as far as the IRS is concerned, but we treated them like a department. Is that what you're getting at?

 

[Marc]

Yup - that sounds like it. Technically they're a separate company, right? Or are they really a division of the parent?