|
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 Forums
 TS 16949
 ISO/TS 16949 REGISTRATION
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: ISO/TS 16949 REGISTRATION |
|
kph Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 2 |
posted 28 August 2000 10:53 AM
   
We are ISO9001 certified with re-registration due in May 2001. New customers are pressuring us to be QS9000 certified. I would like opinions on whether we should seek ISO/TS16949 certification next May constructing my manuals to the ISO9001:2000 format. I am seeking a way to change my manuals once and I do like the format of the 2000 standard. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 28 August 2000 01:53 PM
Don't get caught up in organizing your documents according to one standard or the other. Have a compliance matrix. See Elsmar.com/pdf_files/Doc_map_B.pdf The document mapping file is intended for new implementations to match existing systems to requirements but any company can do it. The revisions to ISO 9001 are not a problem with clients of mine who kept their preferred document structure and used a compliance matrix. All they have to do is revise a simple matrix. If you're already organized with naming conventions around the 1994 version of ISO 9000 it still can work. The point is to keep things as simple as possible. IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 28 August 2000 10:32 PM
Be a leader, go for the ISO/TS 16949. The next thing your customer will require is that you be registered to it. QS-9000 has one foot on the grave and the other on a banana peel. Save yourself the pain of upgrading twice. WORK SMARTER, NOT HARDER IP: Logged |
|
dewie Forum Contributor Posts: 44 |
posted 31 August 2000 02:09 AM
I like the way you call QS9000. This make a lot of sense.\ IP: Logged |
|
Rick Goodson Forum Wizard Posts: 102 |
posted 31 August 2000 09:32 AM
Marc's comments are interesting and timely. If possible start moving your documentation towards a system that reflects how you run your business, not how a standard is structured. You can cross reference any standard to your system through a matrix. IP: Logged |
|
Eugne Forum Contributor Posts: 15 |
posted 06 September 2000 09:49 AM
At this moment I'm restyling our documented system. The old setup is just like ISO 9000:1994. The VDA 6.1 - certification showed already that the old system doesn't work 'natural'. The new setup will be, as tier 1, a flowchart which shows the whole proces from contract review to remittance. Every proces step gets its documentation (tier 2, 3) required by our own, standards, law and customer requirements. Another advantage is that new employees can see easily how our proces is designed. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 26 September 2000 08:43 AM
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:57:05 EDT From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: QS 9000 vs TS 16949 In the September issue of Quality Magazine there is an article regarding the changes to QS 9000. The article is detailed and covers a lot of history. The article also explains that TS 16949 will eventually replace QS 9000. The above mentioned article states "unlike QS 9000, it (TS 16949) does not require use of certified external services for calibration." I have not seen TS 16949 yet. I assume (I know, I know, don't assume) the author has a copy and has quoted accurately. Another assumption is "certified external services for calibration" also means "accredited external services for calibration." If the above is correct, does anyone have information on when QS 9000 will be obsolete? Also what does this mean to the OEM's (big three) regarding traceability of calibrations. On a recent thread. on this list serve, someone stated that the big three and QS 9000 have done much to improve the metrology community by encouraging accreditation. It concerns me that this effort will stop without continued economic incentive. Keith Kokal IP: Logged |
|
auditor16949 Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 7 |
posted 26 September 2000 01:48 PM
As far as I can see, the requirement has simply been moved from QS-9000 clause 4.11.2.b.1 to TS-16949 clause 4.10.6. "Commercial/independent laboratory facilities used for inspection, test or calibration services by the supplier shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 or national equivalent". IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 26 September 2000 06:40 PM
quote:You are correct! IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
