QMS for Life Sciences
Elsmar Cove Forum Sponsor

The Future of QS-9000

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#1
The Future of QS-9000

From a site now gone (This is edited on 19 December 2005)

**********************
I read a recent report by you that uses a lot of supposition about the retraining of QS 9000 Auditors is really all about. This is not a death knell, as you imply to the whole establishment of QS 9000 but a refinement.

In the August 1998 IAAR Conference held with the Big 3, being a Lead Auditor working FULL TIME for a major registrar, I was allowed to go, they discussed several reasons behind these seemingly punitive retraining efforts for the registrars serving the big 3: Level of service Level of competence and sophistication Suitability to assess the automotive suppliers

Bottom line, the message sent is this; We are tired of auditors that are not familiar with the auto industry working with our supplier base. They are also sending the message that, "If you only have ten or twenty QS registrations, we think you should find something better to do." You see, along with the reduction in supplier base for the auto industry with QS. The big three are looking at reducing the number of registrars to about ten or so, in order to reduce variation. I'm an auditor with big three tier one experience. I've used the reference manuals in actual situations it makes a big difference versus an auditor who comes from the nuclear industry. You also suppose that most auditors are sub contractors, that is diminishing also. The majority of new auditors, since the grandfathering of Lead Auditors by the RAB was back in 1994 are now coming in at a provisional level and need to be trained. Subsequently, they need to be full time with a registrar to do so. Most large registrars are weaning themselves away from sub contractors at this time. This was also the foreseen justification by the big three planning committee.

Need to have auditors that understand what the heck APQP, FMEA and MSA are. The ones that decide not to attend the courses and just fade out of QS are just what the big three want. I think the big three are tired of paying for auditors mistakes that's why they monitor our performance by our clients performance. They put our name next to the supplier on a performance list. If we have a number of suppliers on probation, then its brought to our attention.

The first round of Auditors that attended the TE supplement course were given the exam questions for the exam. Many had difficult passing the ISO portion according to the big three (In case you're curious, I attended the course, I passed all portions with flying colors). Before you make suppositions next time; ask around, you might find out another side of the story.

*******************end**************

Comments, folks???
 
#2
I guess I got lost in the maze. What does re-training have to do with reducing the number of registrars? Or are you simply referring to the re-engineering process which eliminates people in the name of continuous improvement.
 
R

Roger Eastin

#3
I'm with Sam! I hope this guy doesn't write many of his own audit reports, because I don't think anyone would understand them. Marc, can you interpret this "audit-speak"? I think he's upset with the general question of auditor qualifications and the fact that he gets lumped together with untrained auditors?
 

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#4
Have you ever had that 'sinking' feeling? I do right now. I was doing a search for info on preventive action. I came across this in a news letter somewhere. I have search 'heaven and ****' trying to find the original but can't. When i saw it yesterday I posted but was in a hurry and screwed up by not taking all the info. If I do find it (I'll look a bit harder later - I MUST have the original somewhere in this mess...)

Anywho - as I remember this is from a post last spring. I reposted it here because it, to me, represents the insanity of QS-9000 from the beginning. Double speak and vagueness. Stuff like:

> We are tired of auditors that are not familiar with the auto industry
> working with our supplier base.

Let me get this straight. You make up QS-9000 and cite it as a customer requirement so that you can reduce your supplier SQA activities. All you have done is shifted the costs. Did you really think this wouldn't happen? A lot like the lab requyirements in the 3rd edition. Everything is out and then comes the Duh - not enough qualified labs.

Anyway, it's just something to think about when thinking about QS. The above was from 'one of their auditors'. What does that tell us?
 
Top Bottom