posted 19 June 2001 01:25 PM               

4.6 - Purchasing
C9 - Supplier Development (4.6.2.1)Ê (07/01/01)

"goal of subcontractor compliance" requires subcontractors to achieve compliance within a defined period 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 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 "priortization" does not negate this requirement.
-------------------------------------
The note in the QSR states:
The "prioritization" of subcontractors for development is dependent upon the needs of the subcontractor relative to the requirements of QS-9000 and the importance of the product or service they supply.
-------------

HELP! I have several mom and pop shops that supply me with great product, no quality issues but are not big enough to spend the money on being certified. Any suggestions or comments would help me with them?

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Editor's note: I added BOLD and colour for emphasis.

posted 19 June 2001 06:00 PM               

1: Under the realm of supplier development, the customer will assist in setting up the system. The supplier already has a system in place that could be used as a model for the sub-contractor.

2: Sub-contractor bites the bullit and makes a business decision as to what level of supplier they want to be.

3: Supplier pays for or subsidizes the cost of registration of the sub-contractor.

4: The sub-contractor meets with all of their customers and gets some type of subsidy from their customer base.

5: Supplier buys the sub-contractor.

6: Big three realize they are full of crap and let their suppliers control their own company and sub-contractor base. (hahahahahah)

Good luck to all of us!

ASD...

posted 19 June 2001 07:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Biz:
Does it say "achieve certification" or achieve "compliance"?

---

-> Minimum subcontractor compliance shall be certification by
-> an accredited certification body

posted 19 June 2001 08:08 PM            

In the standard it gives the acceptable methods of registration. I believe one of them is ceritfication by the customer. Perhaps this is one way around this.

Also I note that the requirement is to ISO, not QS.

posted 20 June 2001 08:45 AM               

There may be some relief with the additional registration requirements in Appendix I (Paragraph 4, Page 112) of QS-9000. This paragraph states that some elements of QS-9000 may be waived by the supplier for a small company that does not have adequate resources. This seems to conflict with the new interpretation. Also, how small is too small?

We have called several registrars we deal with to determine what their interpretations are. So far, nobody was aware of the changes yet.

Tom

posted 20 June 2001 09:02 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:
I know that the interpretations do not say anything about where this requirement stops on the food chain, but do you see this targeting mainly tier 2 suppliers?

---

I think this is the issue. I have a Tier 3 client that is being instructed to become QS9000 by the Tier 2. By the way, the automotive is about 5% or their total business, and they are not sure if they want more. Based on this interpretation, can they say - we're "good enough." Or does the last statement in the interpretation of "other requirements specified by the customer" still makes the request for QS9000 ligit?

posted 20 June 2001 09:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roger Eastin:

I know that the interpretations do not say anything about where this requirement stops on the food chain, but do you see this targeting mainly tier 2 suppliers?

---

posted 20 June 2001 09:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomvehoski:

There may be some relief with the additional registration requirements in Appendix I (Paragraph 4, Page 112) of QS-9000. This paragraph states that some elements of QS-9000 may be waived by the supplier for a small company that does not have adequate resources. This seems to conflict with the new interpretation. Also, how small is too small?

---

posted 20 June 2001 09:33 AM               

[This message has been edited by Jim Biz (edited 20 June 2001).]

NOTE: Folks, and FYI. You can remove a 'double post' by 'EDITing' one of them. While in the 'edit' screen you will see (in the mid- to upper- left) a check box to Delete the post.

posted 20 June 2001 09:46 AM               

Anyway mentioned this situation to one of our sub's last night - he's wondering about "creative merger" or "multi site certifications"

Currently we are 9002 but would like to upgrade to Qs in the future & would have the same problem with one or two of our subcontractors... example- we have a retired couple that does small part bending for us - part time working in their garage but very cost effective. Have never had a problem with their work & would be difficult to ask them to pay even 5K to be certified.

posted 20 June 2001 10:15 AM               

This sounds interesting! It may be an excellent topic for a new thread. To be honest, it really sounds like an exciting project. Including a separate company on one cert.

posted 20 June 2001 10:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JRKH:

In the standard it gives the acceptable methods of registration. I believe one of them is ceritfication by the customer. Perhaps this is one way around this.

---

posted 20 June 2001 12:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Smith:
Yup - that sounds like it. Technically they're a separate company, right? Or are they really a division of the parent?

---

Separate company - cheap because of low overhead, cheap labor. Just do as they are told by "big company." The big company PCP/FMEA even shows "ship to ..." with the controls that the big company provides to them. Data get faxed back as approval and release before parts are used. Like I said, it was instead of the 'big company' setting up an inside department. So the little company has everything a mfg dept would typically have. Big company even provides training, I think. As far as the QS audtis of the big company - the auditor has stated that he may need to visit there, but so far the data and acceptable quality has kept him out.

posted 20 June 2001 05:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Smith:
I thought all of QS applies to TS unless specifically stated otherwise. Not true?

Laura should know - or maybe Howard.

---

Not all of QS applies to TS. TS encompasses ISO 1994, soon to be updated.

I think that the big three will revise their TS-16949 customer specific requirements to cover this new QS requirement.

If they don't do it that way they will probable have it in the 2001 version of TS when it released.

MHO

posted 21 June 2001 11:33 AM               

I don't know of any "sanctioned interpretations" for TS but I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the works. As to the rest of your post, I agree and think thats how it will shake out. Let's wait and see.

ASD...

posted 21 June 2001 02:32 PM               

C9 Supplier Development (4.6.2.1) (07/01/01)
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. Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1.
Note: The second note under 4.6.2.1 referencing ãprioritizationä does not negate this requirement.

I intrepret this to now mean that OEM approved sources are acceptable, even if they are not ISO certified.
************
Editor's note: This is the same interpretation posted in the post that started this thread so I think we're all still on the same track.

posted 21 June 2001 04:10 PM               

From the "current" interpretations:

"...Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1."

*How will OEM's approve second parties. (I volunteer)

*Assessment of whom, the supplier or sub-contactor?

Maybe the interpretation team needs some help in technical writing so their views can be understood. If I put that incomplete statement in a procedure, the powers that be would kick me in the A**.

I would also like to note that this is a change, not an interpretation. That is surprizing, the big three had a chance to revise the QS9000 manual, thereby requiring everybody to by a new manual and keep the economy afloat. They are such a benevolent group.

ASD on his soap box...