The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  QS-9000
  Retro fitting QS9k requirements

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Retro fitting QS9k requirements
Martin Rudkin
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 5
From:England
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 06 September 1999 06:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Martin Rudkin   Click Here to Email Martin Rudkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Can anyone offer any advice with regards the retrofitting of QS9k requirements on current approved parts?

We have many parts which are currently approved by our customers (including automotive) where the full QS9k requirements have not been met (some parts in excess of 7 years old). Do we have to revisit these parts ensuring that all sections of the QS9k requirements are completed or not?

Would it be sufficient to ensure that 'live' documents are in-keeping with the QS9k requirements? (e.g. Control Plans, FMEA, etc)
Also would all parts have to be brought in line initially our would it be possible to update parts as and when they are required by production.

------------------

IP: Logged

ALM
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 07 September 1999 10:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, I cannot say with 100% assurance, but I'd like to believe that you could "grandfather-in" the existing parts (those that existed prior to "official" implementation of your new quality system).

Going forward, you would update those parts as now required by your system.

Others' thoughts?

ALM

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 07 September 1999 03:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You may want to get a waiver from your Customer. This way you could demonstrate to your registrar that you aren't obligated to provide all the expected QS9000 and support manual items.

Regards,

Kevin

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 08 September 1999 05:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From having to deal with this in implemenmtations, this is the scoop as I have experienced it.

For current parts, you must have everything except the design FMEA. And you have to explain that the part came online before your QS9000 registration. What must you have?

Process FMEA
Process Flow Diagram
Process Control Plan
'Appropriate' manufacturing (work) instructions

If you did your FMEAs and Control Plans by equipment instead of by product, you should have no work to do except the flow diagram for the product.

Yes - you can have 'active parts' which are scheduled for future production where you do not have they FMEA, etc. done - with the stipulation that before you produce them again you will have the appropriate documents in place.

I have not had a client ask for a waiver so I don't know about that aspect.

IP: Logged

Martin Rudkin
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 5
From:England
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 08 September 1999 09:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Martin Rudkin   Click Here to Email Martin Rudkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for your reply.

With regards your comments on implementing Control Plans and FMEAs by equipment, would it be possible to list them by product groups instead? Then make reference to the document which would have the m/c type, tool number etc listed.

e.g. If we have a product type - metal pressing, degreased and pack - could we have a generic Control Plan, making reference to the Works Route Card as the source of information re: tool number, machine type, etc?


------------------

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 08 September 1999 10:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You could do them by product group as well. I push clients to use the equipment approach as they save time in the long run. Since several products (or more) can run through each machine, an FMEA and control plan by machine makes bringing new products on board simple and easy. Of course, there is always cut and paste but remember if you update the control plan / FMEA for a machine in product oriented system, you will most likely have to change each of all the others.

The point is that for each step in the flow of the product there has to be a control plan or piece of a larger control plan (same with a process FMEA) to address it.

Yes - referencing one document in another is quiter acceptable.

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 10 September 1999 11:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Existing parts,like training for example can be "grandfathered in".

------------------
Sam Goody

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 10 September 1999 02:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
While I know you can 'grandfather' training, you still have to have a training record for the grandfathered individual.

Please - more detail on the grandfathering of parts. My experience with QS implementations was that Process FMEA, Process Flow Diagram, Process Control Plan and 'Appropriate' manufacturing (work) instructions are required for Current parts. Exactly what can you 'get out of' by grandfathering a part? All I know of is the Design FMEA.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 10 September 1999 05:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm with Marc..absolutely

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 13 September 1999 02:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I may be looking at the quesstion from the wrong perspective ......

Let me try to explain with an example.

Company X makes widgets for twenty years, then decides to become QS registered. At the registration audit he should have some evidence of compliance to the standard. The question is "how much and covering what time frame";six months, maybe a year,certainly not 5,10 or 20 years.
IMO ISO/QS is a regulator of the process , with the parts being a by-product of the process, therefore, it's not possible to consider existing parts when they were not produced in a QS9000 process.
I think ALM put it a little more straight- forward than I did.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 14 September 1999 01:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
1890 - Widget is designed.

1999 - You manufacture a widget. You have made it for 100 years. Way before the folks who thought up QS9000 were born. You now do QS9000. You 'grandfather' the design aspect of the product (no design FMEA necessary). You still have to do a Process FMEA, Control Plan, Process Flow Diagram and 'Appropriate' manufacturing (work) instructions.

The only question I know of that comes into play is if you do design changes POST-QS9000 registration, does that necessarily trigger a Design FMEA to be originated and as I understand it, it does.....

Now - that said - if you are referring to widget STOCK that was produced prior to your QS9000 registration the question becomes an issue between you and your customer. I would expect that if you HAVE BEEN supplying the part for a year or more before your QS9000 registration, there would be no problem. But I am *ASSUMING* you have a continuing dialogue with your customer and that they knew you were going for the QS9000 registration. They were accepting the parts on some basis before which was obviously less than QS9000.

If you made the widgets, then did QS9000 registration dance, and AFTER your QS registration you get an order for widgets and you are wanting to use up the stock made BEFORE your registration, I would *ASSUME* you would discuss this with your potential customer and you would together come to an agreement on whether they will accept the parts made before registration.

Did I miss anything?

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!