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

posted 22 April 2000 08:46 AM               

---

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

IP: Logged

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 24 April 2000 09:06 AM               

---

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

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

posted 24 April 2000 09:36 AM               

---

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

Posts: 3
From:Portugal
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 28 April 2000 06:52 AM               

---

Make atention to 4.10.6 - "...the laboratory shall comply with ISO/IEC 17025 ..."

IP: Logged

Posts: 1
From:US
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 29 April 2000 05:19 PM            

---

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

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

posted 29 April 2000 05:22 PM               

---

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

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 01 May 2000 09:43 AM               

---

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

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

posted 01 May 2000 11:04 AM               

---

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

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

posted 01 May 2000 07:56 PM               

---

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

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

posted 03 May 2000 06:48 PM               

---

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

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 04 May 2000 09:15 AM               

---

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)