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

[Roger Eastin]

I know I started this thread, but I didn't think the thread would grow into a size 50 sweater! Anyway, it is interesting that, as Howard pointed out, the requirement for TS16949 has started (although I have never heard of that car manufacturer - I'm not much of a car connoisseur)! Maybe, they're opening the door...

 

[Marc]

Is 'It' Dead Yet?

From: (Manus)
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: General Motors
Organization: AOL

A couple of companies that I am associated with just received notification from General Motors that they will now have to comply with ISO TS 16949 instead of QS 9000.

In know that TS 16949 is the replacement for a number of automotive standards, but it was the stance that those manufacturers in the United States who supplied "the big three" were not going to have to comply. I received this information from a number of sources and they agreed with each other (including AIAG, and a couple of registrars).

Does anyone why GM is implementing this requirement?

 

[Greg Cloerkes]

I guess the automotive world is becoming more global. There are suppliers which a suppling to the OEM in differnt places ofvthe world from different places. TS 16949 is supposed to become the common quality standard for the automotive world. So sooner or later each OEM will have to require compliance to the same standard.

 

[Roger Eastin]

This is what confuses me about the information "flying around" about TS16949 and QS9000. Christian Lupo mentions in the TS16949 forum that high-ranking GM official whom he knows told him that TS16949 is not a requirement. Then, you read this thread where some GM reps make TS16949 a requirement!!! This is beginning to sound like "Who's on first?!".

 

[Marc]

I guess to me it's pretty much business as usual. I expect nothing less than what we're seeing. We're all bitching because the bar is being raised (or changed) regularly. Not exactly Catch 22, but close. It's frustrating to meet a requirement and then, after a 'comfort level' is achieved (Ah! We've done it! Now - back top business!), we're again shaken with a revised requirement.

 

[Christian Lupo]

I didn't want to mention the GM official's name on a public forum, so I guess my comment is a little ambiguous. Since I'm close to the situation, it wouldn't be very PC for me to mention names, and I don't expect amnyone to give me the name of the SQA/E over a public forum. But, if anyone wants to contact me I will make sure it gets to GM. A lot of people are saying GM is requiring TS, but when I ask the questions, who, when, what, no one wants to answer. Its been difficult to get some action from GM without anyone really steppin' forward. My email address is in my profile, and I would be happy to discuss specific instances and what other actions are possible.

 

[chuy sanchez]

we going again !!!

I JUST READ THE RQUIREMENTS OF TS/16949 EDITED BY GM ON ***DEAD LINK REMOVED*** AND LOOK LIKE IS FOR european suppliers, but no say anything about it implementation, someone have read yet?

thanks

 

[Marc]

I can't gain access to the info - the site is restricted. What do they say there?

 

[chuy sanchez]

on this site you can enter on public area, on developer suppliers, or engeenering area. So you can access all the info,
but this main thing is : they are required this rules as soon they are on the marketing and only for european suppliers...

please if you can access i would like your comments.

 

[Marc]

Thanks, Howard! As always we appreciate your help!

Now... Let us consider something quite 'interesting'. Read 4.2.11 "Other QS-9000 Requirements"

Other requirements addressed in QS-9000 and not addressed in ISO/TS 16949, the Automotive certification scheme for ISO/TS 16949, Rules for Achieving IATF Recognition, or this document shall be applicable to suppliers. Where similar requirements are contained in both QS-9000 and ISO/TS 16949, the requirements in ISO/TS 16949 take precedence for suppliers choosing to use ISO/TS 16949 rather than QS-9000.

I guess this means that you have to do the 16949 dance but you must also determine (like I guess I'd use a matrix to compare) what is in QS9000 but is not in TS16949 and comply with the extra stuff from QS9000 as well as the TS16949 requirements. Excuse me?

Say it ain't so, Joe! Dis ain't complicated enough!!!

Way to go GM! Please do confuse the issue(s)!

Also see GM's TS 16949 Requirements