QS9000 Tier 2 for 12 Years - Transitioning to ISO9001 - Where do I start?

[Jim Wynne]

Well, let's see...The standard states (7.4.1.2) that the goal is "supplier conformity with this Technical Specification...and an "instructor at a local college" says it is not required....ummm, let's see...I think my money is on the Standard!

You are exactly correct. The standard says subtier registration to 16949 is a goal. Not a requirement. It says that ISO 9001:2000 registration is a requirement, unless waived by the customer. Of course, the standard also says that TS registration is a goal of the supplier development process, so there should be some discernable motion in that direction, but there's wiggle room in the standard there as well. None of this makes any sense, or says anything definite. I envision that the committee (photo attached) conversations went something like this:

"We need to decide what to do about subtier suppliers"
"Let's get rid of 'em!"
"No, we can't get rid of them, there are far too many, and they're as mean as crocodiles."
"OK then, what do we need to do?"
"We need to decide whether they need to be registered or not."
"Registered? You mean like sex offenders?"
"No, you idiot, registered to the standard we're working on."
"OK, they should be registered, because registration means...I forgot what registration means."
"Never mind--go back to sleep. Anyone else?"
"I have an idea. Let's make them get registered."
"I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Remember what happened with AIAG, QS-9000, and accredited labs?"
"OK then, let's just say that registration for subtiers isn't required."
"We don't want to say that either, because then it'll look like we're no better than ISO 9000, and we're way better than those guys."
"Oh yeah, we are. Why don't we make it a goal, then?"
"Because sometimes goals aren't reachable."
"Alright, we can make it a required goal."
"A required goal? that makes no sense. Brilliant!"

 

[qcman]

7.4.1.2 and subnote is what he referred to and after reading it I had no reason to think he was incorrect.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

You are exactly correct. The standard says subtier registration to 16949 is a goal. Not a requirement. It says that ISO 9001:2000 registration is a requirement, unless waived by the customer.

Actually, for accuracy to avoid people getting confused, the standard says the subtier goal is conformity to TS, not necessarily registration.

I assume that is what you meant to say. Didn't want anyone to go off track on this.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Actually, for accuracy to avoid people getting confused, the standard says the subtier goal is conformity to TS, not necessarily registration.

I assume that is what you meant to say. Didn't want anyone to go off track on this.

Yes, thanks for the correction. But saying "conformity" rather than "registration" muddies the already murky waters even further. What is the accepted form of evidence?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Yes, thanks for the correction. But saying "conformity" rather than "registration" muddies the already murky waters even further. What is the accepted form of evidence?

Well, I think the standard left the "conformity to TS goal" fuzzy on purpose. There is a clear requirement to become registered to ISO 9001, which gives a company a base quality system.

To work in automotive, at least in the USA, the customers are going to require a number of additional requirements. Thinks like APQP, FMEAs, Control Plans, PPAPs, etc. have long been part of the contract. Beyond that, I think the standard is vague on purpose.

As an auditor, I primarily look at the trend and direction the company is going. If they are doing additional things, what their plans are, etc. I can't say any of my ISO clients are FULLY compliant. But they are doing a lot of the additional things.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Well, I think the standard left the "conformity to TS goal" fuzzy on purpose.

Which was exactly my point