D
Sorry for this long post, but I've been grappling with the following topic, have reviewed the current QS interpretation of 4.6.2.1, asked my registrar for their intrepretation, and have studied closely the wording of ISO9001:2000 7.4.1, plus the additions of the "IATF Final Draft July 26."
With that background, here is my specific question:
What is the scope of the definition of "Purchased Product?" Specifically, is a die casting tool a "purchased product" under 7.4.1, and is the tool vendor who makes the die a "supplier" under that section?
Bear with me; it will look like I'm going into "LaLa Land," but hear me out.
7.4.1 states: "The type and extent of control applied to the supplier and the purchased product shall be dependent upon the effect of the purchased product on subsequent product realization or the final product."
This statement MIGHT be interpreted to suggest that the "product" referred to is ONLY raw material or components which are used to "realize" the final product, or suppliers of "services" such as inspection, sorting, rework that are "applied" to the product. (Note 1 in the Final Draft states: "Purchased products above includes all products and services that affect customer requirements such as sub-assembly, sequencing, sorting, rework and calibration services." It doesn't mention tooling at this point.
An interpretation that might be made is that a die cast tool is actually no different that the press in which the tool is installed; they both are involved in creating the initial "product" but neither are a PART of the "product." Therefore, suppliers of die cast dies or presses, etc. are not included in the rquirements of 7.4.1 related to "suppliers."
If that is the case, then my tool suppliers are not required to be "third party registered to ISO 9001:2002..." (7.4.1.2). But yes, they must be working toward the "goal of supplier compliance to this Technical Specification."
The above "innovative" interpretation is somewhat supported by my registrar's contention that the current IASG Interpretation (C9) for QS9000 does not apply to our subcontractors who build die casting dies. In other words, such subcontractors do not have to be registered by the end of this year. And I really don't see that much difference between the ISO 9000:2000 wording and the wording of the current interpretation.
Anybody had any good sense of direction here?
With that background, here is my specific question:
What is the scope of the definition of "Purchased Product?" Specifically, is a die casting tool a "purchased product" under 7.4.1, and is the tool vendor who makes the die a "supplier" under that section?
Bear with me; it will look like I'm going into "LaLa Land," but hear me out.
7.4.1 states: "The type and extent of control applied to the supplier and the purchased product shall be dependent upon the effect of the purchased product on subsequent product realization or the final product."
This statement MIGHT be interpreted to suggest that the "product" referred to is ONLY raw material or components which are used to "realize" the final product, or suppliers of "services" such as inspection, sorting, rework that are "applied" to the product. (Note 1 in the Final Draft states: "Purchased products above includes all products and services that affect customer requirements such as sub-assembly, sequencing, sorting, rework and calibration services." It doesn't mention tooling at this point.
An interpretation that might be made is that a die cast tool is actually no different that the press in which the tool is installed; they both are involved in creating the initial "product" but neither are a PART of the "product." Therefore, suppliers of die cast dies or presses, etc. are not included in the rquirements of 7.4.1 related to "suppliers."
If that is the case, then my tool suppliers are not required to be "third party registered to ISO 9001:2002..." (7.4.1.2). But yes, they must be working toward the "goal of supplier compliance to this Technical Specification."
The above "innovative" interpretation is somewhat supported by my registrar's contention that the current IASG Interpretation (C9) for QS9000 does not apply to our subcontractors who build die casting dies. In other words, such subcontractors do not have to be registered by the end of this year. And I really don't see that much difference between the ISO 9000:2000 wording and the wording of the current interpretation.
Anybody had any good sense of direction here?
