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
  Officially finished?

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:   Officially finished?
Dan De Yarman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 67
From:Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 01 August 2000 12:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan De Yarman   Click Here to Email Dan De Yarman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I had heard that the QS Task Force has been disbanned. So for all intensive purposes QS is dead, right? Has anyone else heard or read anything about this?

I have had my head buried in the sand because I was preparing for our registration audit; so if this has been discussed elsewhere please point me in that direction.

Thank you,

Dan

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 01 August 2000 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have not heard this, but I am not surprised. I guess you haven't had your head in the sand too long, have you? One more nail in the coffin...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 01 August 2000 05:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dan: Where did you hear this?

IP: Logged

Dan De Yarman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 67
From:Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 02 August 2000 02:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan De Yarman   Click Here to Email Dan De Yarman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I heard it from my Lead Auditor during our Registration Audit, of all times. I am not sure if Perry Johnson has privledged information or just my auditor, but he said it with perfect certainty. I would imagine the AIAG won't say anything until it is absolutely necessary, so verifying this may be difficult.

I have a call in to my auditor about a finding from the Rgisration Audit, I'll ask him where he heard it from.

IP: Logged

isodude
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 6
From:Los Angeles, California
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04 August 2000 06:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for isodude   Click Here to Email isodude     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dude,

The disbanding of the QS task force does not suprise me. It lines up with all of the facts regarding the demise of QS 9000 and the onset of ISO/TS 16949. Dont forget to ask your auditor if the big three are still actively driving the IAOB effort. I'm sure the answer will be yes.

I did some snooping and got the direct line phone number of Steve Walsh who is Fords AIAG dude.I left a voice message regarding this topic and of course, he didn't return the call. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

(313) 594-0417 Allen Park ,Mich.

[This message has been edited by isodude (edited 04 August 2000).]

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 24 August 2000 03:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Surveillance audit #5 today.
I asked our Registrar about this.
He just finished his re-certification and the subject came up. His input to me was:

TS16949 is acceptable in place of QS9000 currently. "IF" TS is to replace QS it would become public information around the time that 9000:2000 takes effect. The only thing that is official at this time is that the "officials" are tight-lipped on this.
He went on to say that there has been no dismantling or disbanding in the QS governing community or AIAG.

This is, of course, for whats it worth...

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 15 September 2000 07:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I visited the Excel Partnership and AIAG websites and both clearly state that TS16949 is NOT a replacement for QS9000. It is also clearly stated that TS16949 is the statndard that will permit a company to satisfy all nations current individual automotive quality standards. I read accounts that B3 acknowledges and accepts 16949 but not one word about abandoning QS9000.

So, my question is: What evidence has been presented that gives the demise of QS9000 any substance? I am getting the impression that there is a lot of hearsay from many who are speculating, but from the sources that seem closest to the issue are saying otherwise.

---Confused (but thats nothing new LOL)

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 15 September 2000 08:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Truchon:

I visited the Excel Partnership and AIAG websites and both clearly state that TS16949 is NOT a replacement for QS9000.
----------------snip--------
So, my question is: What evidence has been presented that gives the demise of QS9000 any substance? I am getting the impression that there is a lot of hearsay from many who are speculating, but from the sources that seem closest to the issue are saying otherwise.


I don't think they're saying otherwise. They're simply saying as of this date QS-9000 is still acceptable.

OK - I'm guessing. I bet QS-9000 will not be revised in the future. After thousands of companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 6 years, it's not going away tomorrow. But in 3 or 4 years no one will be registering to it. No reason for it. If the AIAG announced QS-9000's demise today quite a few suppliers would ne somewhat unhappy.

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 15 September 2000 09:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks Marc.

I just got this email reply from a person at AIAG, for what its worth.

Dear Steve:

There has been no change in the status of QS-9000 or ISO/TS 16949. QS-9000 is still mandatory and ISO/TS 16949 is optional. As far the the Task Force, it has not been disbanded.
Thank you,
Stacy

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 15 September 2000 01:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
They probably MEANT to say "...either QS-9000 or ISO/TS 16949 is mandatory (one or the other)..." For example, GM requires *either* QS or 16949.

IP: Logged

Ken K
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 02 October 2000 11:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken K     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I asked our auditor during our September 26th audit and he told us GM issued a mandate that compliance to TS 16949 is required by December 2001. Personally, I have not received any mention of this from GM, but...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 02 October 2000 12:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Ken K:
I asked our auditor during our September 26th audit and he told us GM issued a mandate that compliance to TS 16949 is required by December 2001. Personally, I have not received any mention of this from GM, but...

Wow! Let us know if you hear any more!

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!