Officially finished?

[Roger Eastin]

I have not heard this, but I am not surprised. I guess you haven't had your head in the sand too long, have you? One more nail in the coffin...

 

[Marc]

Dan: Where did you hear this?

 

[Dan De Yarman]

I had heard that the QS Task Force has been disbanned. So for all intensive purposes QS is dead, right? Has anyone else heard or read anything about this?

I have had my head buried in the sand because I was preparing for our registration audit; so if this has been discussed elsewhere please point me in that direction.

Thank you,

Dan

 

[Dan De Yarman]

I heard it from my Lead Auditor during our Registration Audit, of all times. I am not sure if Perry Johnson has privledged information or just my auditor, but he said it with perfect certainty. I would imagine the AIAG won't say anything until it is absolutely necessary, so verifying this may be difficult.

I have a call in to my auditor about a finding from the Rgisration Audit, I'll ask him where he heard it from.

 

[isodude]

Dude,

The disbanding of the QS task force does not suprise me. It lines up with all of the facts regarding the demise of QS 9000 and the onset of ISO/TS 16949. Dont forget to ask your auditor if the big three are still actively driving the IAOB effort. I'm sure the answer will be yes.

I did some snooping and got the direct line phone number of Steve Walsh who is Fords AIAG dude.I left a voice message regarding this topic and of course, he didn't return the call. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

(313) 594-0417 Allen Park ,Mich.

[This message has been edited by isodude (edited 04 August 2000).]

 

[Steven Truchon]

Surveillance audit #5 today.
I asked our Registrar about this.
He just finished his re-certification and the subject came up. His input to me was:

TS16949 is acceptable in place of QS9000 currently. "IF" TS is to replace QS it would become public information around the time that 9000:2000 takes effect. The only thing that is official at this time is that the "officials" are tight-lipped on this.
He went on to say that there has been no dismantling or disbanding in the QS governing community or AIAG.

This is, of course, for whats it worth...

 

[Steven Truchon]

I visited the Excel Partnership and AIAG websites and both clearly state that TS16949 is NOT a replacement for QS9000. It is also clearly stated that TS16949 is the statndard that will permit a company to satisfy all nations current individual automotive quality standards. I read accounts that B3 acknowledges and accepts 16949 but not one word about abandoning QS9000.

So, my question is: What evidence has been presented that gives the demise of QS9000 any substance? I am getting the impression that there is a lot of hearsay from many who are speculating, but from the sources that seem closest to the issue are saying otherwise.

---Confused (but thats nothing new LOL)

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by Steven Truchon:

I visited the Excel Partnership and AIAG websites and both clearly state that TS16949 is NOT a replacement for QS9000.
----------------snip--------
So, my question is: What evidence has been presented that gives the demise of QS9000 any substance? I am getting the impression that there is a lot of hearsay from many who are speculating, but from the sources that seem closest to the issue are saying otherwise.

I don't think they're saying otherwise. They're simply saying as of this date QS-9000 is still acceptable.

OK - I'm guessing. I bet QS-9000 will not be revised in the future. After thousands of companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 6 years, it's not going away tomorrow. But in 3 or 4 years no one will be registering to it. No reason for it. If the AIAG announced QS-9000's demise today quite a few suppliers would ne somewhat unhappy.

 

[Steven Truchon]

Thanks Marc.

I just got this email reply from a person at AIAG, for what its worth.

Dear Steve:

There has been no change in the status of QS-9000 or ISO/TS 16949. QS-9000 is still mandatory and ISO/TS 16949 is optional. As far the the Task Force, it has not been disbanded.
Thank you,
Stacy

 

[Marc]

They probably MEANT to say "...either QS-9000 or ISO/TS 16949 is mandatory (one or the other)..." For example, GM requires *either* QS or 16949.