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 ForumsThe Elsmar Cove Forums
  QS-9000
  Supplier development

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Supplier development
innovative consultants
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:Rajkot, Gujarat, India
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 16 July 2001 03:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for innovative consultants   Click Here to Email innovative consultants     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
C9 Supplier Development (4.6.2.1)

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

Roney/Jayen

IP: Logged

joseph
unregistered
posted 16 July 2001 07:03 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dear Roney /Jayen

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.

IP: Logged

D.Scott
Forum Contributor

Posts: 53
From:Wellington, OH USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 17 July 2001 08:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D.Scott   Click Here to Email D.Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lets see if I can help you see it this way.

<>

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.

Dave

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 Marc Smith | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Please Visit the new Elsmar Cove Forums! All these threads are there and much more!

Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!