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

[Steven Truchon]

Sam, Good question!

I read on our Certificate that our company has been assessed and approved against the following quality assurance standards: ISO 9002, BS EN 9002, and ANSI/ASQC Q9002-1994, and the quality system requirements of QS-9000, 3rd edition, blah blah blah.

What that tells me is that we are certified to both ISO and QS. With compliance to the new revision to ISO being mandatory in 3 years, regardless of what edition of QS we are at, I still have to comply with the current revision of ISO.
Now this is per my understanding of what the registrar stated.

Am I incorrect in my understanding? Does a QS-9000 certificate automatically cover my compliance to the current ISO by default?
If one standard, through revision, becomes more stringent, or at least much more defined than the other, why would I not have to comply with the totality of the two?
If the Big 3 are really content with QS as is, then they will end up with suppliers that will exceed their requirements per the statndard. Not a bad deal I say.

Your question raises doubt from a logical point of view, and I agree, but then I stopped using "logic" and "huge corporation" in the same sentence with any reality attached long ago.

 

[Marc]

Yeah - I had to be in Tampa - where I am now - I turn my computer off when I'm out of town. I expected the FAX last week so I turned it off when I left Monday.

I will be in Thursday afternoon and all day Friday if you can end it then.

 

[Roger Eastin]

So, even the registrars aren't sure what's going on, eh? This has been typical for QS9K since the "git-go"!! So what's next for the registrars - a recount? I don't see how QS9K can survive if it isn't updated to the ISO9000:2000 in some fashion. Also, all that I have heard and read has QS9K going the way of all the earth! Steve's message is the first I've seen of QS9K surviving the ISO9000 update.

 

[Christian Lupo]

There are no plans (currently) to replace Qs-9000 with ISO/TS. ISO/TS is an option for companies supplying parts to international OEM's. Any rumors to the contrary is just that....rumors. ISO/TS-16949 is not even a standard, it is a Technical Specification. The entire ISO/TS 16949 registration program is a pilot program, which implies that ISO/TS 16949 may not even be elevated to standard status!....That being said, you can bet it will be a standard someday. ISO/TS 16949 is being revised (as we speak) to follow the format of ISO9k2k, its scheduled release date is fourth quarter of 2002.

Yes, it is true QS-9000 is not going to be revised again. The B3 purchase the rights to use the text of ISO 1994 indefinately. The release of 9000:2000 has no bearing on a QS-9000 registered company. The only exceptions are those companies that have 2 certifications or a split scope of registration. Example: it is possible for a company to have one of their product lines certified to 9000:94 and another line certified to QS-9000. The line certified only to 9000:94 will need to upgrade their system to 9000:2000.

Will ISO/TS replace QS? I think so, but there is no official word. Will it happen within the next 3 years? probably not, even if ISO/TS does meet the 2002 revision deadline, there will still be a transition period a la 9000:2000.

If I were not certified yet I would probably get certified to TS if I had a choice.

 

[Roger Eastin]

Yeah, I guess there's the "official" word and what's really likely to happen. I can't imagine why the B3 would want to continue to manage QS9K when TS is so similar and wouldn't cost the B3 very much. As to the possibility of TS not becoming a standard, we'll be throwing snowballs in Puerto Rico before we see that happen. Also, our UL contact said that TS would be updated to ISO9000:2000 by the end of the 1st quarter 2001. He said TS has already been reformatted to the ISO format - now, it's just a matter of plug-and-chug. I still say we demand a recount of the ISO9000:2000 vote! HMMMMMMMM, I wonder how many pregnant chads were involved in this vote?!! Where are the Democrats and Republicans when you need them?

 

[Steven Truchon]

Christian Lupo wrote: "The release of 9000:2000 has no bearing on a QS-9000 registered company."

On page 3 of my copy of QS9K 3rd Edition, under Implementation, it reads, "Verification of conformance to ISO-9001(2)is a necessary condition for registration to QS-9000" There is no revision level mentioned in the requirement, which would imply whatever is current by default.
If 9K:2K provides clear definition in any area that has been left open and general by QS, (management review for instance), why then would we not be required to conform to the updated requirements?

Steve

 

[Christian Lupo]

Steve-

Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler (B3)purchased the rights to use ISO 9001:1994 indefinatly. This means they can use the text of the 1994 standard as long as they want to. Why would they purchase the rights to use this standard, if they were going to use 9000:2000? They (B3)wouldn't.

Now, keep that in mind and remember that QS 9000 (the requirements) is a trademark of the B3. It only applies to parts suppliers to the B3, it is (in fact) a customer specification (as opposed to being a standard, like ISO). Since it is a specification they can change (or keep it the same)it as they please.

Finally the B3 have announced several times that there is no planned revision for QS 9000.

 

[Robert Burke]

It seems I may have been misled, & in turn misled readers -- if so, humblest apologies! I was in Detroit last week & spoke to Steve Walsh of Ford, who assured me that none of the US big 3 are planning to supercede QS9000 with ISO/TS16949, but all will accept it as an option. Some European OEM's however will accept only TS & not QS. Steve also referred me to the IAOB website www.iaob.org , which contains letters from each of the US 3. Suggest you read it, especially GM's, which says although they do not require you to upgrade, they "strongly recommend" QS suppliers use their next surveillance visit to upgrade to TS! Make of that what you will.
Happy Christmas to all, and I can only feel sorry for those of you condemned to a Michigan winter while we enjoy 30 deg C!

 

[Roger Eastin]

Christian - you know these ISO things better than I do, but I didn't know someone could buy the rights to an ISO standard. That sounds a little bizarre to me because that allows a company(ies) to "freeze" a standard in time. But, hey, it's great to learn new things. This situation does have some politics to it, though. If Steve Walsh can say that QS9000 will stay for the foreseeable future, yet conversion to TS is strongly recommended, then it seems QS will have a finite lifetime. The beat goes on...

 

[Marc]

You pay for rights to use the text, not to change or control the document.