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
  TS 16949
  QS v TS 16949

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:   QS v TS 16949
KHAN786
Forum Contributor

Posts: 22
From:London, England
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 22 April 2000 08:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for KHAN786   Click Here to Email KHAN786     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Briefly,
How does ISO/TS 16949 differ from QS-9000?

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 24 April 2000 09:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This has been asked several times. There are, I think, several threads in the forum. Do a search and see what you come up with. I don't think Marc has come up with a .pdf matrix, though.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 24 April 2000 09:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No - I haven't done a comparison matrix. I can't recall a specific thread with the specific differences.

I can say from my read it's not really significantly different. There is, in my opion, some latitude in places that QS didn't have and some clarifications if only by clearer verbiage.

For a company which is QS registered, there isn't going to be much different. The main point will be that your company 'expert' be ready to explain your systems in terms of the verbiage in 16949.

IP: Logged

Natalia Botelho
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 3
From:Portugal
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 28 April 2000 06:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Natalia Botelho   Click Here to Email Natalia Botelho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Make atention to 4.10.6 - "...the laboratory shall comply with ISO/IEC 17025 ..."


IP: Logged

Tom_2000
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:US
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 29 April 2000 05:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom_2000     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You may want to take a look at Aug. 1999 issue of Quality Digest. It outlines some of the differences. Marc, please give me your thoughts on this question. The company I work for is in final stages of preparing for QS9000 registration. Any advantages to revising that to try and be one of the first companies registered to ISO/TS16949 instead of one of the last to QS9000?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 29 April 2000 05:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've voiced my opinion that QS9000 is for all intents and purposes a dead document. I would not even consider QS9000 registration. I would press the 16949 route.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 01 May 2000 09:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For what it's worth, I agree with Marc - go with 16949. I too think that the Big 3 will "distance" themselves from QS fairly soon.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

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

posted 01 May 2000 11:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My clients haven't had much info on it - and when I suggest it they give me that "look" - what the heck are you talking about. Many are small and driven to do ISO/QS by there customers. We can suggest, but it'll take awhile for the companies anxious to hang a "9000" on their building to get used to the idea.

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 01 May 2000 07:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
They'll get over it. They always do. They have no choice. Take it slowly-there's at least three years before QS will die. I have the TS standard, and if it helps and you are sold on ISO-like I am; then you will be happy with the new changes-they are good things that help companies.

IP: Logged

George Baker
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 5
From:Danville, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03 May 2000 06:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for George Baker   Click Here to Email George Baker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
With regard to registering only to ISO 16949 and ignoring QS-9000 because it will certainly die in the future: some of us cannot afford to do that because we supply to the heavy truck industry. Companies like Cummins and Caterpillar have been slow to accept QS-9000, but they are now REQUIRING their supplier to register. It may take them several years to recognize and accept the new standard.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 04 May 2000 09:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
George - you make a good point. QS steers like a large ship anyway and one of its characteristics is its "inertia" as a standard. There are a lot of businesses that have bought into QS and, even though there isn't a huge difference between it and 16949, a lot of companies will see 16949 as a new standard and balk at it. Having said that, though, I think the Big 3 are ready to dump QS as soon as they can. This may take 3-5 years, given the QS inertial factor.

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!