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
  Tooling and Equipment Suppliers
  TE Supplement and QS9000 - The Link

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:   TE Supplement and QS9000 - The Link
TheOtherMe
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:West Chester, OH USA
Registered: Jul 1999

posted 28 July 1999 05:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheOtherMe   Click Here to Email TheOtherMe     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Subject: Re: R: ISO 9000 & QS 9000 / James/Goetzinge/Baxter
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:34:22 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: Boltman850@aol.com
Subject: Re: R: ISO 9000 & QS 9000 / James/Goetzinger/Baxter

Christy James asked a question recently about the relationships between ISO9000, QS9000 and the Tooling & Equipment Supplement to QS9000 and I just read the response from Tom Goetzinger.

Christy asked, in part, two questions:
1. Can you be TE 9000 (sic) compliant w/out being QS9000 Certified?
2. Is ISO9001 certification w/TE Supplement enough?

Tom has just replied that the answer is "yes" to both questions. Respectfully, Tom, this is not correct. T&E is not a standalone document, it can only function as a supplement to QS9000, whether the organization is in compliance or certified. Further, ISO9001 and the T&E Supplement is not a valid combination, the only validity here being that it possible to upgrade from ISO9001 to QS9000 with T&E Supplement.

A further statement needs clarification too: "Most companies will not need registration to both QS9000 and the TE". These are not separate possibilities, both are in fact essential, in combination. The T & E Supplement simply "converts" QS9000 into a more suitable Quality System for automotive industry suppliers of (guess what?) Tooling and Equipment. It is nothing more, nothing less.

Warner Baxter

IP: Logged

Sean D Bannister
Forum Contributor

Posts: 15
From:Essex, England
Registered: Feb 99

posted 29 July 1999 02:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sean D Bannister   Click Here to Email Sean D Bannister     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Warner,
Your summary is correct. Question 2 seems to have derived from Ford's Q1 which requires ISO9000 registration but with third party confirmation that selected elements of the TE supplement have been integrated into the QMS.
Sean.

IP: Logged

Tom Goetzinger
Forum Contributor

Posts: 123
From:Milwaukee, WI USA
Registered: Mar 99

posted 29 July 1999 06:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom Goetzinger   Click Here to Email Tom Goetzinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I see this has migrated from another forum. The point I have been trying to make (apparently not very clearly) is that a company is not registered to QS9000 when they are registered to TE. They do in fact have ISO registration.
Because of that, I see the answers to both of the original questions as "yes".

IP: Logged

TheOtherMe
Forum Contributor

Posts: 64
From:West Chester, OH USA
Registered: Jul 1999

posted 30 July 1999 01:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TheOtherMe   Click Here to Email TheOtherMe     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Another view:

Subject: Re: ISO 9000 & QS 9000 /../Baxter/Goetzinger
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:48:39 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: "Goetzinger, Tom"
Subject: RE: ISO 9000 & QS 9000 /../Baxter/Goetzinger

Warren, I'm not sure of the source of your information, but I stand by my original reply. According to our registrar (who has probably issued more accredited Tooling and Equipment Supplement certificates than anyone in the world), certificates will read "ISO9001:1994, with Tooling and Equipment Supplement:1998". According to them, their desire is to avoid any confusion that a company is QS9000 certified, when in fact it is certified to the supplement. The RAB supports that wording.

Tooling and Equipment Supplement is, in fact, a stand alone standard that includes all of ISO9001-2, and most of QS9000 with additions, deletions, and modifications. A company certified to the Tooling and Equipment Supplement is NOT automatically certified to QS9000. If you have any questions, I would suggest checking with your Registrar (or any registrar certified to do TE audits. RAB has a listing at www.rabnet.com That's what I have been doing.

I would love to have our certificate include the words "QS9000", just for the marketing impact, but I want the certification because of what it will do for our business. Please understand that I do not mean to be argumentative, but it is important that these forums contain as accurate information as possible, and we must rely on each other to correct misinformation as rapidly as possible.

Tom Goetzinger
goetzit@pillar.com

[This message has been edited by TheOtherMe (edited 30 July 1999).]

IP: Logged

Bryon C Simmons
Forum Contributor

Posts: 65
From:Zeeland, MI USA
Registered: Dec 98

posted 31 July 1999 07:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bryon C Simmons   Click Here to Email Bryon C Simmons     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yep, there is a link. Sean is correct in his assessment of the Ford Q1 requirements. however, Ford does not require REGISTRATION to TE, only to ISO 9001/2 with certain elements of TE included.....TE contains all of ISO 9001/2, and is a support document for QS9000..intended to be used in conjunction with QS. If you do TE, you are NOT automatically QS....


Clear as mud?

Bryon

IP: Logged

Sean D Bannister
Forum Contributor

Posts: 15
From:Essex, England
Registered: Feb 99

posted 04 August 1999 03:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sean D Bannister   Click Here to Email Sean D Bannister     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Our company was assessed to QS9000 with Tooling and Equipment Supplement, and as such our certificate will state this. We had to specifically request QS9000 to our registrar at the outset, because they automatically assumed that we wanted ISO9000 certification with TE COMPLIANCE, where different assessement rules apply. For example ISO9000 with TE compliance does not specifically require a processes for customer satisfaction, contingency plans, subcontractor development. There are parts of the TE supplement that may be applied independently, but the intension of the standard is to supplement/interpret the QS9000 Quality System Requirements for use by TE companies. I'm sure that QS9000 for TE supplier will become the next benchmark to be used by one or more of the major players.
Hope I haven't confused the discussion?
Sean.

IP: Logged

Tom Goetzinger
Forum Contributor

Posts: 123
From:Milwaukee, WI USA
Registered: Mar 99

posted 04 August 1999 07:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom Goetzinger   Click Here to Email Tom Goetzinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As I read the TE standard, processes for customer satisfaction, contingency planning, and subcontractor development are required. Customer Satisfaction is covered in 4.1.6 of the QS9000 standard and TE makes no changes to that portion of the standard. There are also no changes to 4.9.b.2, contingency plans. The only difference in the requirements for sub-contractor development (4.6.2.1) is that TE states that it should be used as the "fundamental quality system requirement" instead of QS9000.
There are portions of QS9000 which do not apply to TE, such as the Production Part Approval Process, which is replaced by the Machinery Qualifications Runoff Requirement.
It is because of this that many companies do not need or want both QS and TE registration.
Hope I'm not adding to the confusion.
Tom

IP: Logged

Sean D Bannister
Forum Contributor

Posts: 15
From:Essex, England
Registered: Feb 99

posted 04 August 1999 09:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sean D Bannister   Click Here to Email Sean D Bannister     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Tom,
I feel you have confirmed the statement made in the original post, that "T&E is not a standalone document, it can only function as a supplement to QS9000, whether the organization is in compliance or certified. Further, ISO9001 and the T&E Supplement is not a valid combination, the only validity here being that it possible to upgrade from ISO9001 to QS9000 with T&E Supplement.".
It concludes that you are correct and obviously reading the documents in conjunction with each other but refering to them collectively as the TE Supplement, whereas there is an opinion that the collective title should include the reference to QS9000.
Ford's Q1 requirements are the exception to this rule and do refer to the TE supplement in isolation.

Sean.

IP: Logged

Tom Goetzinger
Forum Contributor

Posts: 123
From:Milwaukee, WI USA
Registered: Mar 99

posted 05 August 1999 07:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom Goetzinger   Click Here to Email Tom Goetzinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sean,
If I correctly understand what you are saying, if AIAG had decided to print the TE standard and include all applicable portions of the QS9000 standard, like QS9000 did with the ISO standards, it would be a stand alone standard. I guess I don't think that they way the chose to print the standard is the governing idea. Maybe this is a just a semantics issue and we'll never agree.
Statement still stands that being registered to the TE Supplement does not give you registration to QS9000. That was really the original question raised.
Tom Goetzinger

IP: Logged

Cindy Heimberger
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 3
From:Fenton, Michigan, 48430
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 27 August 1999 02:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cindy Heimberger   Click Here to Email Cindy Heimberger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The following is a direct copy from the TE Supplement, Second Edition:

Foreward to Second Edition

...QS-9000 shall be implemented in its entirety, with exceptions as defined in the TE Supplement, (all ISO 9000 requirements apply, changes and deletions will be made only to the QS-9000 sections). The TE Supplement specified requirements are in addition to QS-9000.

It sounds like you could have two conditions, ISO 9000 registration with TE compliance or QS-9000/TE Supplement registration. What are the registrars giving out?

PS Sean, how do you know the Q1 requirements? Is there proof? I've been trying for weeks to get a straight answer from my contacts with conflicting answers from all, including several contacts at Ford.

IP: Logged

Sean D Bannister
Forum Contributor

Posts: 15
From:Essex, England
Registered: Feb 99

posted 28 August 1999 02:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sean D Bannister   Click Here to Email Sean D Bannister     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Cindy,
My interpretation is that there are two conditions, ISO 9000 registration with TE compliance and QS-9000/TE Supplement registration. As you may well be aware, the assessment methods for the two are different. ISO with TE COMPLIANCE is what Ford require for Q1. Our registrar had a meeting with the European Q1 co-ordinator who confirmed this. He did however add a twist to the requirements by stating that the supplementry QOS, R&M and Qualification compliance should not be recommended where minor non-conformities where evident (QS method). It seems that no corporate statement/request was issued by Ford to the main registration bodies which has led to a lot of confusion.
I have a set of Q1 guidelines issued in Europe which clarify the content of the petition package, if you are interested.
Good luck in your ventures,
Sean.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 01 September 1999 06:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sheesh...not to (re)open a can of worms, but I am confused about the lack of resolution here. What is the issue between Tom and Sean? It seems that there should be agreement here if the standard is clear. Is the issue that the "normal" path of registration for TE is ISO9000 registration with the TE supplement and that Sean just added to this by asking for QS9000 registration along with TE or is there genuine misunderstanding of the standard (even between registrars)?

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!