|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove ForumsThe Cove Forums
 TS 16949
 TR16949 replaces QS9K? (Page 2)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: TR16949 replaces QS9K? |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2790 |
posted 06 December 1999 12:59 PM
   
The Plexus 'thing' is at Elsmar.com/plexus.html I'm not sure which post your 2nd question is asking about (registrars. Stay away from UL as registrar unless you're a masochist. IP: Logged |
|
Jackie Jolly Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 8 |
posted 07 December 1999 03:19 PM
"The b3 also talked about "blessing" a couple of the more reputable registrars and giving them exclusive rights to registrar companies. Unfortuatly, the registrars they mentioned are the ones I hear the most complaints about, and they have been mentioned several times on this forum! These "reputable" registrars are very big and have a lot of money to buy those rights from the b3." This was what I was refering to. Which registrars were you speaking of? Thanks for the "Plexus Deal" it was very enlightening to say the least. I still will refrain from voicing my opinion on this. But from what I understand we are looking into other options. Thanks for the help! IP: Logged |
|
B. Maynard Forums Contributor Posts: 18 |
posted 08 December 1999 08:54 AM
I have the First edition (1999-03-01)2nd. printing. The new Manual converted to ISO/TS 16949 will be available at www.wdm-qs9000-y2k.com and ISO 14000 in Jan. 2000. Also includes. File #1. QS-9000 3rd. Edition System Manual (85 pages) File #2. QS-9000 3rd. Edition Procedures Manual (210 Pages) File #3. APQP Procedure. File #4. Control Plan Format. File #5. Q.C. & Operator Work Instructions and Procedures. File #6. Traceability Forms and Procedures. File #7. FEMA Forms File #8. Q-Fact Parteo. Used to track weekly and daily rejects & counts. File #9. Customer Supplier Survey Format. Plus many more user friendly forms. [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 08 December 1999).] IP: Logged |
|
barb butrym Forums Contributor Posts: 551 |
posted 14 December 1999 10:05 AM
there have been 30 registrars 'blessed' if you will.......to date. Criteria seems to be in numbers, not qualifications....1st requirement is to have 100 registered QS clients. So what does that tell you? IP: Logged |
|
Jackie Jolly Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 8 |
posted 14 December 1999 01:02 PM
I beleive it's all about politics and the all mighty buck. Maybe I should be putting as much time in to researching how to play the game as I have the rules of the game.I don't mean to sound like a B**CH, but today I'm feeling the part. The politics has really gotten to me. Anyone have suggestions, because I'm open at this point. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2790 |
posted 14 December 1999 01:45 PM
Has been from the beginning and hasn't changed except Dan Reid took the brass ring KPMG was holding out. Another winner was (is) Alex Chong and the Plexus franchise. And let us not forget the AIAG and other related 'organizations'. IP: Logged |
|
Elberth Ardila Tabera Forums Contributor Posts: 20 |
posted 17 December 1999 08:17 AM
I'd like to congratulate to Marc for the faster answer about a personal question of TS16949 IP: Logged |
|
Sam Forums Contributor Posts: 97 |
posted 17 December 1999 08:47 AM
I agree with you,Jackie -- to a point. It shouldn't be that way but it is. Maybe it's time that we "the customer" have more input on what is required of these standards; ISO/QS/TR among others. I would suggest a BETA test , something like you would do for a new software program. Maybe a random sampling from each state. Those selected could then solicit ideas from other businesses within the state. Maybe then we could add some value to an otherwise value-less the process.
IP: Logged |
|
quality_man_9000 unregistered |
posted 20 December 1999 12:22 PM
Was anyone out there in attendance at the AIAG roll-out of ISO16949 on December 13? I was scheduled to attend but was ill that day. I would like to get some notes from someone who was there, since AIAG won't ever release their presentation slides to the public. Possibly someone knows where there is a web page with this info? IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 244 |
posted 20 December 1999 12:46 PM
See the topic in this forum on the Rollout meeting. A couple of folks were able to attend it. IP: Logged |
|
admin Cheech Wizard Posts: 36 |
posted 20 December 1999 01:06 PM
Hey Sam: Many big companies do get in on the process. For example, Motorola was heavily involved in the last QS9000 update as well the more recent Semi-Conductor Sector update - they had a lot of input. Just like in government decisions, big business is there orchestrating (at least to some degree). IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forums Contributor Posts: 109 |
posted 27 December 1999 09:26 AM
I was at the TS rollout 12/13/99 and I have been "chosen" TS champion for my company, so I have been very close to this topic recently. A few of things I have "heard" -- the rumors came from reliable sources: - The chosen registrars was purely political. It is a fact that the registrars with the 6th most QS registrations was not on the list. They have ~700 QS registrations. - (Fact) Of the registrars I spoke to, NONE of them know or will say how they made the list. The registrars that did not make the list do not have a clue why they did not make the list. - (FACT) The B3 never published the criteria for choosing registrars or auditors. - (Rumor) Registrars not chosen are considering bringing a class action against the B3 for restraint of trade. Because they never made clear the criteria for selection of the registrars. - (FACT) More registrars will be added to the TS party. Remember in 1993 when QS first came out and the B3 only belessed 5 registrars to perform QS audits? Well we know how that turned out! - (FACT) There is a TS meeting in late January 2000 exclusive to registrars (all registrars are invited). I believe this is where they will find out how to get on the list. - (FACT) The TS rules for registrars has not been finalized. Accredited Registrars have a higher power to answer to and the rules for ISO and QS have been in place for years. The rules for TS registrars are still in draft format, therefore the "approved" TS registrars are approved under a draft document!!!!! What is worse is that the EA (European Co-operation for Accreditation) disagreed with the latest Draft!! Some of the above can be verified at the webpage chosen for the governing body for TS: www.IAOB.org -- Some links are conveniently "unavailable" IP: Logged |
|
Bill M Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 8 |
posted 30 December 1999 02:37 AM
The reason for the "approved supplier list" of registrars is a matter of control. IMHO the B3 thought that the proliferation of registrars, including ones that did not meet their standards was getting to the point something had to be done. Politics plays a part in this decision, I'm sure, but this is in reference to a major shift of power from the RAB/RvA accreditation bodies to the b3. If there is some litigation, that will be the jist of it...just who's supposed to be in charge of the the ASL for Registrars? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2790 |
posted 30 December 1999 05:39 PM
Good points, Bill. IP: Logged |
|
dewie Forums Contributor Posts: 36 |
posted 27 January 2000 10:38 AM
As I know IATF is on the way of updating ISO/TS16949 to ISO900:2000. Have they finished their decision of registrars selection? Who are the winners? Can anyone guess who might be the selected regitrars? IP: Logged |
|
Spaceman Spiff Forums Contributor Posts: 45 |
posted 27 January 2000 11:39 AM
The winner will be the ones who is willing to pay the big buck$$$$$$... and the losers? Us all. IP: Logged |
|
Elberth Ardila Tabera Forums Contributor Posts: 20 |
posted 28 January 2000 08:36 AM
A colombian registar said us, that TS16949 is a requirement to european supplier«s, it is in change of QS9K, is it that true? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2790 |
posted 28 January 2000 09:21 AM
What european suppliers? IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forums Contributor Posts: 109 |
posted 31 January 2000 01:34 PM
The only European company mandating ISO/TS-16949 is Fiat, by 7/2000 IP: Logged |
|
tom dolphin Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 1 |
posted 01 February 2000 01:05 PM
I attended a "Top 100 Suppliers" mtg. for Ford last week and they disclosed hat TR16949 is definetly an either/or to QS9000. They were also kind of discouraged that copies were not as yet available to us and A.I.A.G. was none the wiser. IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 244 |
posted 02 February 2000 09:06 AM
I'm not sure why the Big 3 is discouraged about the lack of availability of TR16949. I thought that it had been available for some time now. Do they mean that the auditor qualifications are not available? Also, are the customer requirements for Ford and Chrsyler been published yet? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forums Contributor Posts: 56 |
posted 08 February 2000 06:48 PM
Just sent a request for quote to my registrar today, they are able to begin doing audits as of Monday. They tell me that there is already 1 company registered, its in spain IP: Logged |
|
Elberth Ardila Tabera Forums Contributor Posts: 20 |
posted 09 February 2000 02:31 PM
Marc sorry for my lately answer about european suppliers. The suppliers are B3, (GM, and Ford) and its company associates. (like Opel). IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 137 |
posted 10 February 2000 01:38 AM
I have leters from Peugot, Citroen and Renault that they want suppliers to work according to TS 16949. IP: Logged |
|
George Baker Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 4 |
posted 15 February 2000 04:48 PM
I work for a multi-national producer of automotive and truck parts, and would be very interested in obtaining copies of any non-US customer letters stating a requirement for registration to ISO-16949. Our fax number is (217) 431-8934. ------------------ IP: Logged |
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc
Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c
The Cove Privacy Policy 