QS-9000, Appendix I, #6, Confidentiality - DaimlerChyrsler - Hank Gryn?

L

Laura M

Marc....I suppose Pete should respond, but I read it as D/C Daimler Chrysler...and Hank, someone from D/C?
 
P

pmaizitis

Hank is the DaimlerChrysler (D/C) contact that was given for reporting major issues found during audits.
------------------
Pete Maizitis

[This message has been edited by pmaizitis (edited 21 January 2000).]
 
P

pmaizitis

Confidentiality

QS-9000, Appendix I, #6, Confidentiality ... DaimlerChyrsler, at the July 1999 Registrar meeting, is requiring registrars to contact D/C (Hank Gryn) to flag major quality problems during audits. This appears to contradict the requirement for confidentiality as stated in QS-9000.

------------------
Pete Maizitis
 
P

pmaizitis

Marc:
Its a little disconcerting since it starts putting the registrar in a second party versus third party auditing mode and role. I have some questions/interpretations into IASG for clarification.

------------------
Pete Maizitis
Lead Auditor
(broken link removed)
 
L

Laura M

We had our auditor tell us that our customer told the registrar that they need to spend more time on PPAP....that QS companies were still haveing problems with PPAP. Sounds like a 2nd party audit to me! Our auditor became so paranoid that he started initialing the PPAP packages that he audited. I guess he wanted to be able to say "but it was only an audit and I didn't look at that one." Not sure if it was targeted at us or all GM suppliers. Did other 3rd party auditors out there start doing the same, or was that just our guy?
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
I set this site up over 4 years ago because of the lack of info on qs9000. As serious as you may see this, I have long 'objected' to the business plan requirements. Only 2 years ago, Dan Reid (whilst still at GM) stated outright at a meeting in Detroit that it was intended that eventually the business plan its self would become auditable. I think the outrage was enough that they didn't go that far in the 3rd revision, but they wanted to.

I must admit I've never seen ISO registration in the same light as QS registration. QS registration has for the most part (my opinion) been a second party audit.
 
Top Bottom