New QS-9000 Sanctioned Interpretations - 1 July 2001

[tomvehoski]

I just looked back at the qs-9000.org website and they have modified the intrepretation to read as follows:

C9 Supplier Development (4.6.2.1) (07/01/01)
“Goal of subcontractor compliance” requires subcontractors to achieve compliance within a defined period of time not to exceed 18 months from the effective date of this sanctioned interpretation. Minimum subcontractor compliance shall be certification by an accredited certification body to a current version of the ISO 9000 Quality Management Series of Standards, excluding ISO 9003; plus any requirements specified by the customer. Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1.
Note: The second note under 4.6.2.1 referencing “prioritization” does not negate this requirement.

I intrepret this to now mean that OEM approved sources are acceptable, even if they are not ISO certified.
************
Editor's note: This is the same interpretation posted in the post that started this thread so I think we're all still on the same track.

 

[Al Dyer]

This is getting too funny, maybe we should start to expect weekly -sanctioned interpretations-!

From the "current" interpretations:

"...Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1."

*How will OEM's approve second parties. (I volunteer)

*Assessment of whom, the supplier or sub-contactor?

Maybe the interpretation team needs some help in technical writing so their views can be understood. If I put that incomplete statement in a procedure, the powers that be would kick me in the A**.

I would also like to note that this is a change, not an interpretation. That is surprizing, the big three had a chance to revise the QS9000 manual, thereby requiring everybody to by a new manual and keep the economy afloat. They are such a benevolent group.

ASD on his soap box...

[This message has been edited by Al Dyer (edited 21 June 2001).]

 

[Al Dyer]

Marc, you posted:

Editor's note: This is the same interpretation posted in the post that started this thread so I think we're all still on the same track.

-----------------------------------------

I beg to differ, but the original post did not include the revised statement.

Am I reading your post wrongly?

ASD...

 

[Marc]

I was referring to the note in the interpretation which reads: "...Note: The second note under 4.6.2.1 referencing “prioritization” does not negate this requirement...."

I didn't check the note in the QSR which ml retcher says states:

-> The "prioritization" of
-> subcontractors for development is dependent upon the
-> needs of the subcontractor relative to the requirements
-> of QS-9000 and the importance of the product or service
-> they supply.

Is this what you're talking about?

 

[Al Dyer]

Marc,

Yes, just a small detail, let's get on with this great topic

ASD...

 

[Steelwoman]

An associate of mine is already calling this requirement the "Hallmark Holiday" pheonom... in the absence of enough holidays to make enough money, let's CREATE one... in the absence of ENOUGH ways to make more $$$ off QS, lets create a new requirement. We are a Tier 2 supplier and I JUST had my auditor in here last week... this issue came up in the audit (though no mention of this new interpretation, both the auditor and myself unaware of it), and our auditor was adamant that the standard only required DEVELOPMENT toward certification, not actual certification in a time frame. We have many small companies we buy products from that have good systems in place but have no intention/need/desire to pursue any kind of certification. This is ridiculous, IMHO.

 

[Steelwoman]

Hey, another question: By definition (page 133 of the Standard, definition of SubContractor) a subcontractor is "defined as providers of production materials, or production or service parts, directly to a supplier to Chrysler, Ford, General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document." If we ONLY supply to supplier (Tier 2,not Tier 1) that would make US the sub, right? So technically OUR subcontractors might be exempt from this new requirement? Just asking.... might be grasping at straws here, but unless I'm just being dense thats an argument I think I could make.

 

[JRKH]

.....Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1.
****************************************

This stikes me as negating the entire interpretaion. As Al pointed out, who and how will the OEM's approve 2nd parties. My take on this would be that if you are registered to QS by an OEM approved 3rd party registrar, then you should be approved as a 2nd party auditor for your own suppliers. After all, haven't we always been expected to audit our suppliers in the past?

I have been rereading the posts this morning trying to make sense of this.

On the one hand, if we require our suppliers to become QS certified, then they must require their suppliers to become certified, who then in turn must require their suppliers to become certified...................AAAAGGGGGHHHHHH

On the other hand, if we stick strictly to the minimum requirement that our suppliers become ISO certified, and conduct audits ourselves(2nd party)we may avoid most of the garbage this new interpretation implies.

I hope this makes sense. It's pretty early on a Saturday.

James



------------------
Low tech is better than no tech.

 

[Dirk Jansen]

Originally posted by Steelwoman:
..By definition (page 133 of the Standard, definition of SubContractor) a subcontractor is "defined as providers of production materials, or production or service parts, directly to a supplier to Chrysler, Ford, General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document."

This is also the definition for Supplier.
In QS, 4 "parties" are defined:
1 The customer: whom you sell to
2 The subcontractor: where you buy your (prod) material
3 The accreditation body: where you get your certificate
4 The supplier: you, as the "owner" of the certificate.

Dirk

 

[Sam]

The last sentence in the interpretation reads" Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1."

I could not find the definition of OEM in the QSR. I will "ass ume" that it means Original equipment manufacturer.
Unlees we are in the refurbishment business we all make new "OEM" parts to be installed on the vehicle. That must make us an OEM.

That being the case, I should be able to certify my sub's to ISO 9000.

Just a (clouded) thought.