|
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
 New QS Interpretations 1 July 2001 (Pt 2)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: New QS Interpretations 1 July 2001 (Pt 2) |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 21 June 2001 05:02 PM
   
Continued from: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000488.html IP: Logged |
|
Al Dyer Forum Wizard Posts: 622 |
posted 21 June 2001 05:32 PM
Marc, you posted: 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. ----------------------------------------- I beg to differ, but the original post did not include the revised statement. Am I reading your post wrongly? ASD... IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 21 June 2001 06:03 PM
I was referring to the note in the interpretation which reads: "...Note: The second note under 4.6.2.1 referencing ãprioritizationä does not negate this requirement...." I didn't check the note in the QSR which ml retcher says states: -> The "prioritization" of Is this what you're talking about? IP: Logged |
|
Al Dyer Forum Wizard Posts: 622 |
posted 22 June 2001 08:03 AM
Marc, Yes, just a small detail, let's get on with this great topic ASD... IP: Logged |
|
Steelwoman unregistered |
posted 22 June 2001 10:47 AM
An associate of mine is already calling this requirement the "Hallmark Holiday" pheonom... in the absence of enough holidays to make enough money, let's CREATE one... in the absence of ENOUGH ways to make more $$$ off QS, lets create a new requirement. We are a Tier 2 supplier and I JUST had my auditor in here last week... this issue came up in the audit (though no mention of this new interpretation, both the auditor and myself unaware of it), and our auditor was adamant that the standard only required DEVELOPMENT toward certification, not actual certification in a time frame. We have many small companies we buy products from that have good systems in place but have no intention/need/desire to pursue any kind of certification. This is ridiculous, IMHO. IP: Logged |
|
Steelwoman unregistered |
posted 22 June 2001 11:23 AM
Hey, another question: By definition (page 133 of the Standard, definition of SubContractor) a subcontractor is "defined as providers of production materials, or production or service parts, directly to a supplier to Chrysler, Ford, General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document." If we ONLY supply to supplier (Tier 2,not Tier 1) that would make US the sub, right? So technically OUR subcontractors might be exempt from this new requirement? Just asking.... might be grasping at straws here, but unless I'm just being dense thats an argument I think I could make. IP: Logged |
|
JRKH Forum Contributor Posts: 11 |
posted 23 June 2001 08:19 AM
.....Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1. **************************************** This stikes me as negating the entire interpretaion. As Al pointed out, who and how will the OEM's approve 2nd parties. My take on this would be that if you are registered to QS by an OEM approved 3rd party registrar, then you should be approved as a 2nd party auditor for your own suppliers. After all, haven't we always been expected to audit our suppliers in the past? I have been rereading the posts this morning trying to make sense of this. On the one hand, if we require our suppliers to become QS certified, then they must require their suppliers to become certified, who then in turn must require their suppliers to become certified...................AAAAGGGGGHHHHHH On the other hand, if we stick strictly to the minimum requirement that our suppliers become ISO certified, and conduct audits ourselves(2nd party)we may avoid most of the garbage this new interpretation implies. I hope this makes sense. It's pretty early on a Saturday. James ------------------ 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 
