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
  New QS Interpretations 1 July 2001 (Pt 2)

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:   New QS Interpretations 1 July 2001 (Pt 2)
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 21 June 2001 05:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Continued from:
https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000488.html

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

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

posted 21 June 2001 05:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 21 June 2001 06:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was referring to the note in the interpretation which reads: "...Note: The second note under 4.6.2.1 referencing „prioritizationš does not negate this requirement...."

I didn't check the note in the QSR which ml retcher says 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.

Is this what you're talking about?

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

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

posted 22 June 2001 08:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Cincinnati, Ohio
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 23 June 2001 08:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JRKH     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.....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

------------------
Low tech is better than no tech.

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!