QS-9000 - R.I.P. (aka QS-9000 is Dead Meat and a 'Failure')

[Randy Stewart]

Rob, check the "Can We Drop the TE Supplement" topic in this thread. I have been talking to Ford concerning the new TE.

Marc,
We have our 1st surveillance for TS and 11th for QS/TE on Oct. 9 - 10. My discussions with our registrar has been confusing to say the least, so I trust that when we get a face to face that I can make a little more sense out of it.

 

[Rob Nix]

Thanks Randy. I already had checked that post (slight memory lapse).

 

[Marc]

Blast from the Past!

1998 to 2003! Quite a thread!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

In two weeks, QS-9000 will be officially obsoleted. Somebody in Detroit should erect a monument to QS-9000. Fortunes were made. Careers were built. The presses kept running. Tradeshows, seminars, courses, training consulting, auditing, books, websites, sanctioned interpretations, billions of man-hours spent on meaningful and meaningless discussions.


Adios

 

[Mustang]

I'm thinking out in front of AIAG headquarters would be appropriate...

 

[Barahir]

I'm thinking out in front of AIAG headquarters would be appropriate...

Agreed. When I was up there in mid-September for some internal auditor training they still had the QS-9000 wall clocks up in many of the classrooms.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

In two weeks, QS-9000 will be officially obsoleted. Somebody in Detroit should erect a monument to QS-9000. Fortunes were made. Careers were built. The presses kept running. Tradeshows, seminars, courses, training consulting, auditing, books, websites, sanctioned interpretations, billions of man-hours spent on meaningful and meaningless discussions.


Adios

QS-9000 came out to help improve the supply chain.

Let's not forget that during this 12 year period, quality performance went from atrocious to many companies performing near to 0 ppm and 100% delivery, month after month.

Cars are much better, and the Big 3 came much closer to the vaunted Japanese quality levels.

Other than that, I suppose QS was a failure...?


PS: Now, if only the Big 3 could figure out their problems are actually being caused by themselves, not the suppliers...., we could tackle that part of the equation.

 

[Jim Wynne]

QS-9000 came out to help improve the supply chain.

Let's not forget that during this 12 year period, quality performance went from atrocious to many companies performing near to 0 ppm and 100% delivery, month after month.

Cars are much better, and the Big 3 came much closer to the vaunted Japanese quality levels.

Other than that, I suppose QS was a failure...?


PS: Now, if only the Big 3 could figure out their problems are actually being caused by themselves, not the suppliers...., we could tackle that part of the equation.

You seem to recognize the problem (OEMs treating their suppliers like enemies) while simultaneously ascribing remarkable curative powers to QS-9000. How can QS-9000 possibly be seen as a logical (and causative) antecedent to improvements in design? There is simply no basis for believing that (A) PPM levels are a reliable indicator of anything*, or (B) that improvements in them wouldn't have happened without QS-9000.

*Improved PPM levels are often achieved through increased sorting by suppliers, not by process improvement. So long as PPM is measured only on the customer's dock, it will never be a meaningful statistic. QS-9000 did nothing to improve process control in any demonstrable way.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

You seem to recognize the problem (OEMs treating their suppliers like enemies) while simultaneously ascribing remarkable curative powers to QS-9000. How can QS-9000 possibly be seen as a logical (and causative) antecedent to improvements in design? There is simply no basis for believing that (A) PPM levels are a reliable indicator of anything*, or (B) that improvements in them wouldn't have happened without QS-9000.

*Improved PPM levels are often achieved through increased sorting by suppliers, not by process improvement. So long as PPM is measured only on the customer's dock, it will never be a meaningful statistic. QS-9000 did nothing to improve process control in any demonstrable way.

Well, I suppose you can cling to whatever opinions you wish, I won't debate opinions. It doesn't get anywhere.

But that fact still remains that thousands of companies have improved.

I personnally have observed several hundred companies who have improved significantly during the period of their QS certifications. While I would not argue that QS was magical, or the sole cause. I expect that some improvement would have continued to occur, even without QS.

However, THEY (the companies I refer to) generally and openly credit their QS-9000 based programs as the system that helped drive them to their current levels of performance.

Don't quibble with me, I'm just the reporter. If you don't want to believe the news, I suppose that is your prerogative.

PS: at least we agree on the customers...

 

[Jim Wynne]

Well, I suppose you can cling to whatever opinions you wish, I won't debate opinions. It doesn't get anywhere.

But that fact still remains that thousands of companies have improved.

I personnally have observed several hundred companies who have improved significantly during the period of their QS certifications. While I would not argue that QS was magical, or the sole cause. I expect that some improvement would have continued to occur, even without QS.

However, THEY (the companies I refer to) generally and openly credit their QS-9000 based programs as the system that helped drive them to their current levels of performance.

Don't quibble with me, I'm just the reporter. If you don't want to believe the news, I suppose that is your prerogative.

PS: at least we agree on the customers...

I've said this before here, and I'll say it again: after having reviewed thousands of PPAP submissions from suppliers, I can say with confidence (and data) that submissions from QS-9000 registered suppliers have been uniformly less likely to meet the requirements than submissions from non-QS-9000 suppliers. Please explain to me how QS-9000 suppliers have improved their processes without any widespread evidence of understanding even basic concepts of process control. I can say with a fair amount of confidence that (A) for many suppliers who were registered to QS-9000 in the initial push of the late 1990's--especially GM suppliers, who faced a realistically absurd deadline date--the skids were greased, and (B) most of the QS-9000 suppliers I've dealt with should not have been registered.