|
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
 QS Sanctioned Intrepretations of May 29, 2001
|
 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
 
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 |
posted 08 June 2001 11:40 AM
 
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 |
posted 08 June 2001 01:12 PM
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 |
posted 08 June 2001 02:07 PM
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? " ãGoal of subcontractor complianceä 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 ãprioritizationä does not negate this requirement."
IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 08 June 2001 02:44 PM
quote:Score one for Jaycee! Credit where credit is due! IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 11 June 2001 03:36 PM
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
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
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 |
posted 14 June 2001 08:55 PM
quote: 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 |
posted 19 June 2001 06:59 PM
Also see: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000488.html IP: Logged |
|
David McGan Forum Contributor Posts: 19 |
posted 20 June 2001 12:00 PM
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 |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
