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
  QS Sanctioned Intrepretations of May 29, 2001

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:   QS Sanctioned Intrepretations of May 29, 2001
Jaycee
unregistered
posted 07 June 2001 02:30 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hello Folks,

Are you aware that there is a new QS sanctioned interpretation - released on 29th May 2001! You can download it from www.qs-9000.org.

And everybody says that QS is dead!!!!

IP: Logged

Spaceman Spiff
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:FL
Registered: Mar 99

posted 08 June 2001 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jaycee, living in central Florida, even the old junkers in someone's front yard gets washed once in a while.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 08 June 2001 01:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks!

Ya know - I just checked earlier last week, so I wasn't likely to find this out for a while. Score another one for "the cove."

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 08 June 2001 02:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Now that we have had a chance to read the change, it will be interesting to hear the input.

Does this mean that every Mfg in the country that supplies to the automotive industry must become ISO certified within the next 18 months? Or am I over reacting?

" „Goal of subcontractor complianceš requires subcontractors to achieve compliance within a defined period of time not to exceed 18 months from the effective date of this sanctioned interpretation. Minimum subcontractor compliance shall be certification by an accredited certification body to a current version of the ISO 9000 Quality Management Series of Standards, excluding ISO 9003; plus any requirements specified by the customer.

Note: The second note under 4.6.2.1 referencing „prioritizationš does not negate this requirement."

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 08 June 2001 02:44 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 Laura M:

Score another one for "the cove."


Score one for Jaycee! Credit where credit is due!

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 11 June 2001 03:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I read the sanctioned interpretations and it sure looks like the B3 are asking for 3rd party certification to ISO9001 for subcontractors. I suppose "certification by an accredited certification body" = 3rd party registration? If this is so, then 18 months is not much time!! This sounds like the same sort of requirement as labs being accredited to Guide 25! Look how the B3 had to back-track on that one!

IP: Logged

BigEasy Chemist
unregistered
posted 12 June 2001 11:59 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many tiers down this 'should' (in the eyes of a registrar) go?

IP: Logged

Brad
unregistered
posted 14 June 2001 01:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wonder what a company will do if their "customer approved" subcontractor says no. On one hand, they must use that subcontractor, on the other their subcontractor won't participate!

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 14 June 2001 08:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Brad:
I wonder what a company will do if their "customer approved" subcontractor says no. On one hand, they must use that subcontractor, on the other their subcontractor won't participate!

Brad:

Would not a "customer approved" supplier already be registered?

Communication and Documention of the situation.

ASD...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 19 June 2001 06:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Also see: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000488.html

IP: Logged

David McGan
Forum Contributor

Posts: 19
From:Henderson, KY, USA
Registered:

posted 20 June 2001 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David McGan   Click Here to Email David McGan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If a company takes the "alternate route" and registers to the optional TS16949, will this requirement no longer apply?

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!