New QS-9000 Sanctioned Interpretations - 1 July 2001

M

ml retcher

If you are talking about a joint venture???? then the second part of the interpretations being released make more sense.
*********************************************
"Joint ventures, mergers, acquisitions (effective 7/1/01)
A supplier shall notify its registrar of the following site changes: closure, transfer of ownership including merger, acquisition or joint venture. Notification shall be provided by the supplier to the registrar of record within 30 days from the time such site change was announced. Failure of the supplier to comply with the notification requirements shall result in a major non-conformity issued from the registrar of record, a major nonconformance which can only be clsoed by the registrar conducting a special on-site surveillance audit up to and including a full audit.
Within 60 days of supplier notification to the registrar of record, such registrar shall complete the following: determine the timeliness, scope and extent of surveillance audit requirements, and if necessary, conduct a special surveillance assessment, up to and including a full audit.
 
R

Roger Eastin

David - good point, I was wondering that myself! Do Sanctioned Interpretations only apply to QS9K or do they "cross the line" and apply to TS16949 also? I suspect they only apply to QS9K, but I've seen stranger things happen!
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
I thought all of QS applies to TS unless specifically stated otherwise. Not true?

Laura should know - or maybe Howard.
 
A

Al Dyer

Originally posted by Marc Smith:
I thought all of QS applies to TS unless specifically stated otherwise. Not true?

Laura should know - or maybe Howard.

Not all of QS applies to TS. TS encompasses ISO 1994, soon to be updated.

I think that the big three will revise their TS-16949 customer specific requirements to cover this new QS requirement.

If they don't do it that way they will probable have it in the 2001 version of TS when it released.

MHO

ASD...
 
D

David McGan

I don't recall seeing this requirement in TS16494. So if we become registered to TS16949, will this requirement no longer apply?
 
L

Laura M

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


Separate company - cheap because of low overhead, cheap labor. Just do as they are told by "big company." The big company PCP/FMEA even shows "ship to ..." with the controls that the big company provides to them. Data get faxed back as approval and release before parts are used. Like I said, it was instead of the 'big company' setting up an inside department. So the little company has everything a mfg dept would typically have. Big company even provides training, I think. As far as the QS audtis of the big company - the auditor has stated that he may need to visit there, but so far the data and acceptable quality has kept him out.
 
M

ml retcher

I am hoping that our "Grandfathered" suppliers will be exempt from this clause. Most of the suppliers we use have been with us since 1995 when we were registered. They were all "grandfathered" in and we keep that list under document control. If that is acceptable then I will be OK with this new clause. If not the small businesses will definately feel the big three taking away their business.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
It doesn't sound to me like this will be an issue subject to 'grand fathering'. Sounds to me like Do It Or Else.
 
R

Roger Eastin

Does not TS16949 have its own "Sanctioned Interpretations"? I thought this because TS includes other automotive quality standards such as VDA6, etc. When QS9K changes revisions, VDA6 does not necessarily change. So I thought that QS9K could spin off its own interpretations without impacting TS, VDA6, etc.
 
A

Al Dyer

Roger:


I don't know of any "sanctioned interpretations" for TS but I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the works. As to the rest of your post, I agree and think thats how it will shake out. Let's wait and see.

ASD...
 
Top Bottom