posted 16 July 2001 03:29 AM               

After going through the latest sanctioned interpretations (July1, 2001), we feel that the purpose of the Sanctioned Interpretations is not for clarifying things, but for confusing the whole matter.

In the title, it is mentioned as ‘Supplier development’. But, in the paragraph under this title it is talking about subcontractors. It looks like the IASG has forgotten the definitions of supplier and subcontractors given in QS-9000 quality system requirements.

Question 1: We being a QS-9000 supplier, Is it necessary for our subcontractors (2nd tier suppliers onwards) to be ISO 9000 certified within 18 months from 07/01/01? or Does IASG mean to say that the supplier (1st tier suppliers) need to be ISO 9000 certified within 18 months from 07/01/01

Question 2: Has IASG changed the title of 4.6.2.1 “Subcontractor development” to “Supplier development”?
It is said by IASG that “Sanctioned Interpretations” are for clarification and interpretation, not for revision on QS-9000:1998. Hence we can presume that you have not amended the title 4.6.2.1. Then kindly clarify that what were in IASGs mind when they referred “Supplier development” instead of “Subcontractor development” in the Sanctioned interpretations (July1, 2001)?

Question 3: “ Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1” If we feel that this sentence is contradicting the first and second sentences of C9, the IASG has to accept the responsibility in not providing clear-cut instructions. Kindly give your valued comments on this

posted 16 July 2001 07:03 AM              

I am agree completely with roney's /Jayen's statements regarding the clarity of interpretations.

I personnaly feel that this is the time IASG has to release the interpretations for the "Sanctioned interpretations."
Entertaining valuable comments.

posted 17 July 2001 08:02 AM               

<>

Yes, all subcontractors who supply production materials or production or service parts (and heat treat etc.) have 18 months to comply.

<>

No they haven't. 4.6.2.1 which is titled "Subcontractor Development" starts out with the requirement "the supplier shall perform subcontractor ... development". The title in the IASG interpretations is titled "Supplier Development" because it addresses the supplier's (you) activity in developing the subcontractors.

<>

This sentence simply restates the implementation options which have always been part of QS-9000 (see Appendix A page 80 - Alternative method for verifying supplier conformance) and should clear up any question of this being acceptable in meeting this requirement.

The whole purpose of the interpretation was to set a reasonable date for the word "goal" in the original requirement. Just as the old "timely" had to be interpreted as "days, not weeks", there had to be some sort of closure or it would be stretched and misused forever.

This is of course only my opinion and you are certainly welcome to joust with any windmill you like.