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

[Marc]

QS-9000 Dead? NEVER!

Originally Posted By: Robert Burke

From:Adelaide, South Aust, Australia
Registered: Jul 2000
Posted 10 July 2000 at 11:45 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Update from Australia -- GM-Holdens rep on QS9000 task force [Mike Filazzola] acknowledges 16949 is on their agenda, and will replace QS9000 but timing indefinite. Past QS9000 timing would suggest Aussie suppliers will have one year after US deadline.

Adelaide workshop went well, attended by some 15 suppliers, now likely to be presented in Melbourne & Sydney -- dates to be advised.
RSB

 

[Dawn]

I just received this today from BVQI "in writing":
"TS16949 will replace QS9000 as the quality standard for the international automotive industry. It is expected that QS9000 will remain active until the current ISO 9000/1994 standard expires within 3 years. TS 16949 and QS9000 will co-exist during this period allowing currently QS9000 Registered companies to adapt to the TS16949 standard. QS9000 will not be revised to meet ISO 9001: 2000 so the QS9000 standard will become obsolete in favor of TS 16949." Ta-Da (Sorry you had to hear it from me and not the Big 3 and/or your registrar.)

[This message has been edited by Dawn (edited 06 November 2000).]

 

[Drew H]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is "BVQI"?

 

[Marc]

I got my first copy of 16949 in 1998. I said then what is proving to be true - QS 9000 is a dead document.

BVQI is a registrar.

Dawn: Could you please FAX me a copy of your letter? 513 777-3394 (my computer will recognize your FAX machine and receive it)

 

[Sam]

BVQI - Bureau Veritas Quality International (NA),Inc

 

[Dawn]

Marc,
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. I will try to fax it tomorrow. It wasn't a letter though. Anyone can receive it simply by calling BVQI or any registrar and asking for information on TS 16949 certification. However, if I fax it to you maybe you could put it on here somewhere for all to see. I don't think BVQI would mind - it would sorta be like advertising for them.

 

[Steven Truchon]

I finally got hold of one of people from my registrar (ITS Intertek - here in the US) that has the direct line on standard status and I will quote them as stating: "The Big 3 DO NOT want to let go of QS9000. They like it and will fight, scratch, bite, and claw if necessary in order to keep it. While the international picture is clearly headed for TS16949, we here in the US seem to want to keep what we have. Not only does the Big 3 intend to keep QS9000 in place, but the 3rd edition is inteded to remain. No revisions are on the board at this time. If the QS9000 standard ever becomes targeted for obsolescance, we will most likely read about it first at the AIAG website."

So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation.

 

[Sam]

"Not only does the Big 3 intend to keep QS9000 in place, but the 3rd edition is inteded to remain. No revisions are on the board at this time."
"So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation."

I like your Theory, But, "Food for thought"
If QS9000 is not scheduled for revisions, then why would I have to comply with ISO9k2k?
It would not be part of the QSR.
***************
EDITORS NOTE: Added 'quote' to make easier to read. No other changes were made.


[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 30 November 2000).]

 

[Jim Biz]

Just a thought provoking 2 cents:

As I understand the situation:
Qs & Ts incorporate references to specific wording in ISO9001:1994

When it gets "regrouped/renumbered" and becomes ISO9000:2000 - will this mean that companies will need to maintain and use where/as needed - invalid obsolete ISO 1994 reference versions in order to maintain compliance with QS??

We are investigating upgrade form 9002 here & I have somewhat promoted the move to do so - but if the compliance issues become complicated to this extent maybe I should re-think my position.

Regards
Jim

 

[Dawn]

Marc,
I tried to fax the BVQI memo to you today, but kept getting someone picking up on the phone. It specifically states that QS will not be revised and TS will take its place.