posted 12 April 2001 09:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwinbb:
Marc

In one or two statements please explain why you called QS-9000 a scam? My apologies here, I have not followed the arguments on this matter? Thanks

---

While Marc and I disagree on certain subjects, I agree that all of these standards/specifications/requirements etc... are dubious at the least.

While the companies dictate that we must do this, and this, and this.... they are creating self fullfilling prophecies that will lead to failure.

What is QS?

The automotive bastardization of a simple set of busines practices (ISO)

They can't even agree between themselves on how to interpret what they have mandated!

Ford accepts QS and TS but says we must be QOS.

Chrysler says we have to use their PSO, not APQP.

G.M. doesn't know what they require, at least when you talk with their SQA's.

Let's look at the basics:

If supplier #1 can give a customer a QS certificate and quote a price of $0.35 per part ... then supplier #2 (not QS registered/certified) gives the customer a price of $0.22 per part, who gets the business?

I think they would go with supplier #2.

Fair? NO
Expected? Yes

Me jaded? Yes

posted 13 April 2001 12:58 PM               

If we want to talk abrasive I'll introduce you to my wife, who was none to happy when I forgot our 19th anniversary last year!

(I still can't spell the word correctly and yes 20 is coming up soon. Circled on my calander)

posted 09 May 2001 02:43 PM               

Fortuanately my kids have all picked up on importance of voting. While attending college (about 120 miles from home) my daughter forgot to pick up her absentee ballot. She obtained permission from her professors to miss class then drove home, voted and drove back to school in time to attend an afternoon class.

Back to your point, the alphabet soup of ISO/QS/TE/Q1/QOS drives us all a little nuts. I guess we would all be less cynical if we thought we were actually adding value by doing some of these things.

posted 09 May 2001 07:01 PM               

I agree and disagree with some of your statements.

1: Although the various systems, standards, and specifications can be cumbersome I believe that if we follow the structure it is a benefit to the company. (comply, not certify $$$)

2: I've been through the wars starting before TFE and I ask you to think about it this way:

Maybe the B3 figured that their SQA's and other "quality" personnel were lacking in the required skills to objectively monitor a quality system and decided to outsource the process through the initiation of QS-9000. (pass the buck)

3: I have never heard of, or participated in the B3 actually reviewing (i.e. audit) the systems of a registered company.

4: What I do see is the B3 contracting the work of SQA's and reducing their workforce because of the acceptance of QS-9000 and TS-16949 as the next step.

MHO