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
  Is QS-9000 T/E Supplement appropriate terminology?

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:   Is QS-9000 T/E Supplement appropriate terminology?
Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 28 October 1999 10:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This may seem trivial, but...
The T/E supplement document never really says QS-9000 T/E supplement, it uses Quality System Requirements T/E Supplement. Is it wrong to refer to it in procedure/quality manuals as QS-9000 T/E supplement? Maybe its just symantics....then again maybe not if the registration is to ISO/T/E Supplement.
(I've been using the Quality System Requirements Tooling & Equipment Supplement in my documentation just in case!)

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 28 October 1999 12:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My vote is for semantics, but why do you want to put that as a reference in your systems manual? Be careful.

IP: Logged

Tom Goetzinger
Forum Contributor

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

posted 28 October 1999 05:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom Goetzinger   Click Here to Email Tom Goetzinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Laura,
I think you are taking the safe approach. We did much the same and actually referenced Tooling and Equipment Supplement, QS9000 and ISO 9001.
Your registrar would be the best source to answer your question. Seems there is quite a bit of leeway and it all depends on what your registrar got approved by the RAB.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 29 October 1999 04:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
TE isn't a supplement to QS9000, its a supplement to ISO-9000 for suppliers of tooling/equipment to the suppliers of the automotive industry.....cause tooling and equipment manufacture will not fit under QS requirements......... they say quality system cause if you aren't ISO 9000 (as in TL, AS or other European stuff etc. ). you can still use it as a supplement document...

T&E sold to the suppliers of the big 3 never get incorporated into the auto itself....

The T&E itself eventually falls under the QS umbrella when the user has to meet QS requirements for its output..but thats not part of the TE supplement.....

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 29 October 1999).]

IP: Logged

waberens
Forum Contributor

Posts: 17
From:Akron,Ohio,USA
Registered: Feb 99

posted 02 November 1999 10:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for waberens   Click Here to Email waberens     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Forward to the Second Edition of the TE Supllement says: "QS-9000 shall be implemented in its entirety, with exceptions as defined in the TE Suplement...." "The TE Supplement specified requirements are in addition to QS-9000."

Further on page 2 under the implementation section: "QS-9000 in conjunction with the TE Supplement is the quality system standard for all Tooling and Equipment suppliers."

I guess maybe I am missing something in this thread because I can not find any reference to implementing the TE Supplement without QS-9000. It issued and controlled by AIAG. It has the same copyright logo as QS-9000. How can we separate the two?

Wondering,
Bill

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 02 November 1999 11:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree Bill, they cannot be separated. You cannot implement ISO 9000 and the T/E supplement without the QS-9000 manual. Unfortunately, at this time, you cannot be registered to QS as a T/E supplier - only ISO and T/E compliant. But in order to be T/E compliant, there are alot of things in QS that are not in ISO....and not altered by the T/E supplement. To that end, the companies need to refer back to the T/E intro that "not all of these requirements are applicable to every organization." Unfortunately, I worry that companies will spend alot of time during registration audits justifying the applicability or non-applicability or requirements - depending on how the auditor is interpreting the requirements - eg. PRocess control plans, PFMEA's, notification of engineering change, etc. Some are specifically deleted by the supplement, others are subject to applicabiliity.

Out of curiousity - for those of you that did a Quality Manual for T/E... Did you state the "not applicables" as such or just not reference them at all. I just finished one and chose the later. I thought that made the manual more meaningful for the client, and spoke to the client, not the standard.

IP: Logged

Tom Goetzinger
Forum Contributor

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

posted 03 November 1999 08:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom Goetzinger   Click Here to Email Tom Goetzinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In developing our documentation, we indicated that if we identified the need to perform tasks such as you mentioned, we would do so.
It all depends on the auditor, but I suspect that some may find the lack of mention of them a problem. I also suspect that some auditors will find the "not applicable" objectionable, as I'm not sure the standard allows for that option.
Some registrars will perform a split final audit that provides for a complete review of the documentation to the standard before the final registration audit. Others provide a full documentation review (as opposed to quality manual only) earlier in the process. In either situation, you will discover how your auditor feels about this subject in time to correct it before the registration audit.

IP: Logged

Mike525
Forum Contributor

Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Apr 99

posted 03 November 1999 11:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike525   Click Here to Email Mike525     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
By experience, in more cases than not, non-performance of a task needs to be addressed, and it helps to say how this would be done should the need arise.

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!