|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 QS-9000
 Officially finished?
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Officially finished? |
|
Dan De Yarman Forum Contributor Posts: 67 |
posted 01 August 2000 12:15 PM
   
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 |
posted 01 August 2000 03:27 PM
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 |
posted 01 August 2000 05:59 PM
Dan: Where did you hear this? IP: Logged |
|
Dan De Yarman Forum Contributor Posts: 67 |
posted 02 August 2000 02:00 PM
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 |
posted 04 August 2000 06:45 PM
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 |
posted 24 August 2000 03:48 PM
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. This is, of course, for whats it worth... IP: Logged |
|
Steven Truchon Forum Contributor Posts: 89 |
posted 15 September 2000 07:32 AM
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 |
posted 15 September 2000 08:30 AM
quote: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 |
posted 15 September 2000 09:33 AM
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. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 15 September 2000 01:34 PM
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 |
posted 02 October 2000 11:13 AM
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 |
posted 02 October 2000 12:24 PM
quote: Wow! Let us know if you hear any more! IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
