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-9000 Dead? NEVER!

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-9000 Dead? NEVER!
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 12 July 2000 09:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Originally Posted By: Robert Burke

From:Adelaide, South Aust, Australia
Registered: Jul 2000
Posted 10 July 2000 at 11:45 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Update from Australia -- GM-Holdens rep on QS9000 task force [Mike Filazzola] acknowledges 16949 is on their agenda, and will replace QS9000 but timing indefinite. Past QS9000 timing would suggest Aussie suppliers will have one year after US deadline.

Adelaide workshop went well, attended by some 15 suppliers, now likely to be presented in Melbourne & Sydney -- dates to be advised.
RSB

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 21 October 2000 07:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Has anyone heard any more on this??

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

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

posted 06 November 2000 09:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I just received this today from BVQI "in writing":
"TS16949 will replace QS9000 as the quality standard for the international automotive industry. It is expected that QS9000 will remain active until the current ISO 9000/1994 standard expires within 3 years. TS 16949 and QS9000 will co-exist during this period allowing currently QS9000 Registered companies to adapt to the TS16949 standard. QS9000 will not be revised to meet ISO 9001: 2000 so the QS9000 standard will become obsolete in favor of TS 16949." Ta-Da (Sorry you had to hear it from me and not the Big 3 and/or your registrar.)

[This message has been edited by Dawn (edited 06 November 2000).]

IP: Logged

Drew H
Forum Contributor

Posts: 11
From:Kelowna, B.C., Canada
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 07 November 2000 10:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Drew H   Click Here to Email Drew H     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is "BVQI"?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 08 November 2000 09:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I got my first copy of 16949 in 1998. I said then what is proving to be true - QS 9000 is a dead document.

BVQI is a registrar.

Dawn: Could you please FAX me a copy of your letter? 513 777-3394 (my computer will recognize your FAX machine and receive it)

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 08 November 2000 02:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BVQI - Bureau Veritas Quality International (NA),Inc

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

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

posted 16 November 2000 09:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc,
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. I will try to fax it tomorrow. It wasn't a letter though. Anyone can receive it simply by calling BVQI or any registrar and asking for information on TS 16949 certification. However, if I fax it to you maybe you could put it on here somewhere for all to see. I don't think BVQI would mind - it would sorta be like advertising for them.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 16 November 2000 10:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'll have the FAX turned on!

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 28 November 2000 09:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I finally got hold of one of people from my registrar (ITS Intertek - here in the US) that has the direct line on standard status and I will quote them as stating: "The Big 3 DO NOT want to let go of QS9000. They like it and will fight, scratch, bite, and claw if necessary in order to keep it. While the international picture is clearly headed for TS16949, we here in the US seem to want to keep what we have. Not only does the Big 3 intend to keep QS9000 in place, but the 3rd edition is inteded to remain. No revisions are on the board at this time. If the QS9000 standard ever becomes targeted for obsolescance, we will most likely read about it first at the AIAG website."

So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation.

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 28 November 2000 11:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
"Not only does the Big 3 intend to keep QS9000 in place, but the 3rd edition is inteded to remain. No revisions are on the board at this time."
"So, from my point of observation, unless my company starts doing work for an automotive company outside the US, according to my registrar, the only adjustment I need to make is to meet the ISO 9K:2K requirements over the next three years, unless anyone out there has any "official" announcement to make that extends beyond speculation."

I like your Theory, But, "Food for thought"
If QS9000 is not scheduled for revisions, then why would I have to comply with ISO9k2k?
It would not be part of the QSR.
***************
EDITORS NOTE: Added 'quote' to make easier to read. No other changes were made.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 30 November 2000).]

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 28 November 2000 12:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sam, Good question!

I read on our Certificate that our company has been assessed and approved against the following quality assurance standards: ISO 9002, BS EN 9002, and ANSI/ASQC Q9002-1994, and the quality system requirements of QS-9000, 3rd edition, blah blah blah.

What that tells me is that we are certified to both ISO and QS. With compliance to the new revision to ISO being mandatory in 3 years, regardless of what edition of QS we are at, I still have to comply with the current revision of ISO.
Now this is per my understanding of what the registrar stated.

Am I incorrect in my understanding? Does a QS-9000 certificate automatically cover my compliance to the current ISO by default?
If one standard, through revision, becomes more stringent, or at least much more defined than the other, why would I not have to comply with the totality of the two?
If the Big 3 are really content with QS as is, then they will end up with suppliers that will exceed their requirements per the statndard. Not a bad deal I say.

Your question raises doubt from a logical point of view, and I agree, but then I stopped using "logic" and "huge corporation" in the same sentence with any reality attached long ago.

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forum Wizard

Posts: 275
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 28 November 2000 02:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just a thought provoking 2 cents:

As I understand the situation:
Qs & Ts incorporate references to specific wording in ISO9001:1994

When it gets "regrouped/renumbered" and becomes ISO9000:2000 - will this mean that companies will need to maintain and use where/as needed - invalid obsolete ISO 1994 reference versions in order to maintain compliance with QS?

We are investigating upgrade form 9002 here & I have somewhat promoted the move to do so - but if the compliance issues become complicated to this extent maybe I should re-think my position.

Regards
Jim

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

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

posted 28 November 2000 07:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc,
I tried to fax the BVQI memo to you today, but kept getting someone picking up on the phone. It specifically states that QS will not be revised and TS will take its place.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 29 November 2000 06:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah - I had to be in Tampa - where I am now - I turn my computer off when I'm out of town. I expected the FAX last week so I turned it off when I left Monday.

I will be in Thursday afternoon and all day Friday if you can end it then.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 29 November 2000 08:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So, even the registrars aren't sure what's going on, eh? This has been typical for QS9K since the "git-go"!! So what's next for the registrars - a recount? I don't see how QS9K can survive if it isn't updated to the ISO9000:2000 in some fashion. Also, all that I have heard and read has QS9K going the way of all the earth! Steve's message is the first I've seen of QS9K surviving the ISO9000 update.

IP: Logged

Christian Lupo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 29 November 2000 04:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There are no plans (currently) to replace Qs-9000 with ISO/TS. ISO/TS is an option for companies supplying parts to international OEM's. Any rumors to the contrary is just that....rumors. ISO/TS-16949 is not even a standard, it is a Technical Specification. The entire ISO/TS 16949 registration program is a pilot program, which implies that ISO/TS 16949 may not even be elevated to standard status!....That being said, you can bet it will be a standard someday. ISO/TS 16949 is being revised (as we speak) to follow the format of ISO9k2k, its scheduled release date is fourth quarter of 2002.

Yes, it is true QS-9000 is not going to be revised again. The B3 purchase the rights to use the text of ISO 1994 indefinately. The release of 9000:2000 has no bearing on a QS-9000 registered company. The only exceptions are those companies that have 2 certifications or a split scope of registration. Example: it is possible for a company to have one of their product lines certified to 9000:94 and another line certified to QS-9000. The line certified only to 9000:94 will need to upgrade their system to 9000:2000.

Will ISO/TS replace QS? I think so, but there is no official word. Will it happen within the next 3 years? probably not, even if ISO/TS does meet the 2002 revision deadline, there will still be a transition period a la 9000:2000.

If I were not certified yet I would probably get certified to TS if I had a choice.

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 29 November 2000 04:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, I guess there's the "official" word and what's really likely to happen. I can't imagine why the B3 would want to continue to manage QS9K when TS is so similar and wouldn't cost the B3 very much. As to the possibility of TS not becoming a standard, we'll be throwing snowballs in Puerto Rico before we see that happen. Also, our UL contact said that TS would be updated to ISO9000:2000 by the end of the 1st quarter 2001. He said TS has already been reformatted to the ISO format - now, it's just a matter of plug-and-chug. I still say we demand a recount of the ISO9000:2000 vote! HMMMMMMMM, I wonder how many pregnant chads were involved in this vote?!! Where are the Democrats and Republicans when you need them?

IP: Logged

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 30 November 2000 08:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Christian Lupo wrote: "The release of 9000:2000 has no bearing on a QS-9000 registered company."

On page 3 of my copy of QS9K 3rd Edition, under Implementation, it reads, "Verification of conformance to ISO-9001(2)is a necessary condition for registration to QS-9000" There is no revision level mentioned in the requirement, which would imply whatever is current by default.
If 9K:2K provides clear definition in any area that has been left open and general by QS, (management review for instance), why then would we not be required to conform to the updated requirements?

Steve

IP: Logged

Christian Lupo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 08 December 2000 06:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steve-

Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler (B3)purchased the rights to use ISO 9001:1994 indefinatly. This means they can use the text of the 1994 standard as long as they want to. Why would they purchase the rights to use this standard, if they were going to use 9000:2000? They (B3)wouldn't.

Now, keep that in mind and remember that QS 9000 (the requirements) is a trademark of the B3. It only applies to parts suppliers to the B3, it is (in fact) a customer specification (as opposed to being a standard, like ISO). Since it is a specification they can change (or keep it the same)it as they please.

Finally the B3 have announced several times that there is no planned revision for QS 9000.

IP: Logged

Robert Burke
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 3
From:Adelaide, South Aust, Australia
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 11 December 2000 06:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Burke   Click Here to Email Robert Burke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It seems I may have been misled, & in turn misled readers -- if so, humblest apologies! I was in Detroit last week & spoke to Steve Walsh of Ford, who assured me that none of the US big 3 are planning to supercede QS9000 with ISO/TS16949, but all will accept it as an option. Some European OEM's however will accept only TS & not QS. Steve also referred me to the IAOB website [www.iaob.org], which contains letters from each of the US 3. Suggest you read it, especially GM's, which says although they do not require you to upgrade, they "strongly recommend" QS suppliers use their next surveillance visit to upgrade to TS! Make of that what you will.
Happy Christmas to all, and I can only feel sorry for those of you condemned to a Michigan winter while we enjoy 30 deg C!

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 11 December 2000 08:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Christian - you know these ISO things better than I do, but I didn't know someone could buy the rights to an ISO standard. That sounds a little bizarre to me because that allows a company(ies) to "freeze" a standard in time. But, hey, it's great to learn new things. This situation does have some politics to it, though. If Steve Walsh can say that QS9000 will stay for the foreseeable future, yet conversion to TS is strongly recommended, then it seems QS will have a finite lifetime. The beat goes on...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 11 December 2000 03:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You pay for rights to use the text, not to change or control the document.

IP: Logged

elaine
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:Nottingham, England
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 13 December 2000 06:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for elaine     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am currently awaiting a decision on QS 9K vs TS 16949 also.
Our accreditation body BSI have said their opinion is that a new updated TS 16949 will become a standard & will replace QS 9000 in practise over the long term.
Having only this year acheived QS 9000 after request from Ford (we are in packaging industry), this seems a little disheartening.

Would it be that hard for IOS to just make a definitive announcement?

IP: Logged

ian.taylor@jci.com
unregistered
posted 19 December 2000 06:32 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Following on -

ISO/TS is the additional standard for automotive for ISO 9000:1994, when this becomes ISO 9000:2000 will it need changing, if so when???

Interested because as a business we have committed to achieve TS by end of financial year in September.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 13 January 2001 02:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It is my understanding that QS will not be revised, much less to align with ISO 9001:1994.

IP: Logged

Vabe
unregistered
posted 20 January 2001 02:35 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
According to our registrar, it is foreseen that a revised ISO/TS 16949 standard will be published in March 2002 to align with ISO 9000:2000. No revision of QS, VDA, etc. are foreseen.
Certifications with the current ISO/TS will be valid the same period than the ISO 9000:1994 ones (I think it is until the end of 2003, but I am not sure.

IP: Logged

Mary-K. Hardy
unregistered
posted 22 January 2001 03:42 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Our registrar, KPMG, informed us last week that if we were going to have to start again with QS9000, we might as well go to TS16949. That, although the B3 haven't made official statements, the gist is we will need to be at that level in less than 3 years. So we might as well do it now!!

IP: Logged

Elberth Ardila Tabera
unregistered
posted 08 February 2001 03:40 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Mary-k, if you need more informationa aboutimplementation of certification of TS16949, please see http://www.iaob.org/iatfpr/iatf_communique_1000_files/frame.htm.
It is about communique of IATF, of October 4th/2000. This information Shows that QS-9K died sooner.

------------------

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 08 February 2001 07:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The 'big three' (now the big 2?) have, in fact, made statements. If you go to www.iaob.org/ (up a couple directories from the above link) you will find (at the bottom of the page) links to statements from:

* General Motors - November 9, 1999
* Ford - October 7, 1999
* DaimlerChrysler
* PSA Peugeot Citroen - 15 October 1999
* Renault - 15 October 1999
* Volkswagen AG - December 1999

KPMG gave you good advice. 16949 is it.

For all intents and purposes, the QS-9000 'period' lasted about 7 years and cost companies untold hundreds of millions of dollars.

A last comment... Nothing will really change. Where 16949 is not as specific and 'demanding' as QS-9000, customer specific requirements (Ford, GM, et al) more than make up for any 'holes'. Also Honda and Toyota (to name 2) are nowhere to be seen. As with ISO 9001, many companies don't buy any of this stuff.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 08 February 2001).]

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 08 February 2001 08:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don't you just love the B3,

Does the statement "Not Invented Here" apply!

Many of the B3 can't even get their own internal "supplier" facilities registered.

Saginaw is a lovely city.

A Not Happy ASD...

IP: Logged

Andrew Cole
unregistered
posted 28 February 2001 04:24 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If anyone requires additional information pertaining to the TS 16949 standard, feel free to contact me at acole@tuvam.com. Currently Ford, GM, DiamlerChrysler, BMW, Fiat, PSA Peugeot-Citroen, Renault SA and Volkswagon AG, all accept ISO/TS 16949. While it is not a mandatory requirement, becoming TS certified has certain competitive advantages. Additional benefits include:
* Improved process quality
* Reassignment of supplier resources to quality improvement
* Common quality system approach in the supplier development for consistency
* Additional confidence in global sourcing
* Reduction in 2nd party audits
* Common language to improve understanding of quality requirements
* Reduction of variation and increased efficiency
* Reduction in mutiple 3rd party registrations
TUV is the leading global Registrar within the passenger car industry, having certified and working closely with BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagon, Porsche, Audi, GM/Opel, Hyundai, etc. On August 18, 2000 TUV certified DaimlerChrysler AG to ISO/TS16949. Sorry to sound like an advertisement, but there's a lot of speculation out there!

IP: Logged

gamarshall
unregistered
posted 03 March 2001 09:35 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Where can I find the customer specific requirements for Ford, GM & DaimlerChrysler?

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 04 March 2001 12:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have downloaded the GM requirements (free) from their web site (I also believe there is a copy in the FTP site) and the AIAG is now offering the DC/Ford requirements ($).

I have a copy of the GM specs if anybody needs it.

[This message has been edited by Al Dyer (edited 05 March 2001).]

IP: Logged

WALLACE
Forum Contributor

Posts: 46
From:Ontario, Canada.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04 March 2001 01:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for WALLACE   Click Here to Email WALLACE     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yup,
Talk about confusion regarding the coming of TS, I am employed by one of the B2 and, I have been informed by management that QS is dead but compliance to this standard will remain for the duration of current lifespan of present certification by VCA, ofcourse this makes sense yet, supplier compliance to Q1 status (yes it's Ford) will be replaced and, I have been informed that internal quality system compliance will be more important to business processes as the current production system (FPS) is being integrated with a customer focused six sigma initiative.
Wallace.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 13 March 2001 02:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Also see:
https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000258.html

IP: Logged

outoftown
Forum Contributor

Posts: 15
From:Cary, NC, USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 18 March 2001 09:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for outoftown   Click Here to Email outoftown     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is a lot of confusion because the resources to do TS are affected by:

1. Costs of TS certification are thousands of dollars per auditor. Many independent or contract auditors are saying no.
2. Pass rate for TS exams is low, as low or lower than QS recertification.
3. Control of auditors and registrars with the approved TS registrar list is still in debate. This approved list was published in Quality Digest last year and rules governing control of registrars was expanded in the last QS IASG Sanctioned Interpretation of 2/29/00. This has passed control of the process from the accreditation bodies to the OEMs. Certain registrars are threatening legal means to stay in the business.
4. ISO 9001:2000 was a monkey wrench in OEM plans. Why register to TS when you have a new TS coming out in March 2002? Meanwhile you have to do ISO 14001. Everyone is stretched pretty thin for standards implementation, registrars and suppliers.

IP: Logged

PhaseTwo
unregistered
posted 26 March 2001 12:32 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Question for anyone: The Big 3 have been pushing many tooling and equipment suppliers to register to QS/TE9000. Does TS16949 have plans for an equivalent TE Supplement? How will compliance with TE9000-type requirements be addressed and/or registered under TS16949? Will TE go away once TS16949 takes over?

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 26 March 2001 04:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know for sure. But, if QS remains as it is, using ISO9000:1994 as its base, then TE will remain too as it is. I suppose since the B3 bought the rights to ISO9000:1994 for the QS document, then they bought them for TE as well.

IP: Logged

Dan De Yarman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 67
From:Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 27 March 2001 01:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan De Yarman   Click Here to Email Dan De Yarman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Roger, I'll tell you what I was told a couple of years ago.

When the AIAG got together and wrote the QS-9000 requirements they illegally copied the ISO standard (the italics, as we all know) and published QS in that manner. Apparently ISO sued the AIAG and won claiming copyright infringement. The AIAG did wind up paying for the use of the ISO standard. So the AIAG, in all their wisdom, decided to stiff us TE companies any print only the TE changes to QS. That is why TE states, "The TE Supplement shall be used with QS-9000 as on document for the Tooling and Equipment Industry." From my understanding AIAG would have to pay ISO again to reprint their standard in the TE version of QS. I know it sure would make my life a lot easier if they printed it in one book instead of two, but I'll work with what I have.

Dan

IP: Logged

Lety Broome
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:Lexington, MA USA
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 30 April 2001 11:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lety Broome   Click Here to Email Lety Broome     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A customer of ours recently told us that their Tier One customer is requiring compliance to TS16949 by July, with registration by December. Is this just a vicious rumor or has anyone else heard this? I have looked everywhere on the internet and not been able to confirm this.

------------------

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!