Posts: 22
From:Cranford, NJ
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 12 January 2001 03:27 PM               

---

I was wondering if anyone with a QS registration has been asked by a customer to also become TL-9000 registered? Or do you think that having QS could help "protect" us from being asked by our customers to go for TL?

I'm having nightmares visions of multiple registration audits... no one has asked us yet, but some of our potential customers are in the telecommunications industry. We're trying to decide if we should include our newly developing products into our current QS registration as a way to avoid having to do TL. We hear that TL is even more ãintenseä than QS...

Alternatively Iâd love to hear any what the differences are between QS & TL (donât know anything about TL, and donât know if I should spend the time/resources in learning more about it).
Thanks!

IP: Logged

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

posted 13 January 2001 02:29 AM               

---

I really haven't looked closely at the TL document but I would bet potential telecom customers would want it. I also bet TL is hardly any different than QS.

IP: Logged

Posts: 24
From:La Mesa, CA, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 13 January 2001 06:44 PM               

---

I completed a Quest-sanctioned TL 9000 course for registrar auditors in December. I was already a certified QS-9000 Lead Auditor, and have conducted more than 600 audits after working in various industries for 25 years as Corp. QA Mgr., Mfg. Mgr. & Plant Mgr. IMHO, there are enough differences in the TL requirements from QS for a Telecom Service Provider or 1st tier supplier to require (or strongly recommend) subcontractor registration to TL 9000. Also, the ISO 9001: 2000 requirements actually try to catch up with TL requirements. TL 9000 Release 3.0, coming this March, will only covert to the ISO 2000 format, with inconsequential changes to current TL requirements. It would be prudent for all organizations to at least peruse the TL requirements and consider implementing them, because global harmonization of the Telecom industry requirements are far more suitable for reducing cycle time, maintaining velocity while adapting to changing conditions and therefore far more value-added than QS 9000 or 16949.

IP: Logged

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

posted 13 January 2001 07:41 PM               

---

What are the 'main' differences between the two? I expect QS asks a lot more than the TL spec while the TL spec has a few industry specific requirements beyond what ISO 9K requires.

IP: Logged

Posts: 24
From:La Mesa, CA, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 13 January 2001 08:56 PM               

---

Some of the primary differences between QS & TL (not necessarily in order of importance) are:
1. Standardization & harmonization of requirements worldwide. (Will the big three ever subordinate QS to 16949?)
2. Eliminate need for compliance to other management system requirements (not customer-specific, e.g., Ford, GM, etc.).
3. Continuing communication and joint problem solving between service providers, suppliers and subcontractors is required (and monitored and reported) to quickly resolve problems and cooperate in finding solutions.
4. Common industry measurements (metrics) for hardware, software & service performance reported to measure resuts relative to requirements. Organizations can compare their performance against best & worst in industry, confidentially.

These are some of the general differences between TL & QS that I perceive. I'm currently working on a detailed (to include requirement paragraph number) cross-reference matrix that will list specific differences, and submit it to this excellent forum.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)