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
Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  The New Elsmar Cove ForumsThe Cove Forums
  QS-9000
  TR16949 - Thread 2 - 1 More Spec - More Costs? (Page 2)

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   TR16949 - Thread 2 - 1 More Spec - More Costs?
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2790
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 March 1999 04:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's in the pdf files directory as 16949.pdf

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03-29-99).]

IP: Logged

Jada
Forums Contributor

Posts: 26
From:Melbourne, Australia
Registered: Mar 99

posted 30 March 1999 01:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jada   Click Here to Email Jada     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc,

Thanks for the info! I've just read through the standard and what I am finding great difficulty in understanding is why O why did they not include the incidental changes into QS rev 3??

Of great interest to me is the deletion of Final product audit and the "minimisation" of supplier lab. requirements.

Do you know of any registrar who is auditing to this standard?

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2790
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 30 March 1999 03:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I dunno, but I can guess for the same reason there is no requirement for Guide 25 or equivalent 'registered' labs - The ISO folks have more sense.

Best I can suggest.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03-30-99).]

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forums Contributor

Posts: 206
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 09 April 1999 10:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What does the TR stand for?
I have been looking this standard over and I don't see much of a diference so far.
I'm wondering why on earth the AIAG would have 2 standards if they have QS-9000. What would be the point?
And would it be any easier or meaningful if suppliers were certified to TR16949 AND ISO instead of QS?
Why do they want to be bogged down with 2 standards?
Is that enough questions for one post?
Thanks, Dawn

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2790
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 09 April 1999 11:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
TR stands for Technical Report. It is an ISO (International Organization for Standardization) document. It has nothing to do with the AIAG. QS9000 is a customer requirement.
quote:
And would it be any easier or meaningful if suppliers were certified to TR16949 AND ISO instead of QS?
That's the idea on an international level.

International Standard vs Customer Requirement

Won't really change anything if you want to sell to GM or Chrysler - or Ford, for that matter...

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic   Hop to:

Contact Us | Cayman Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc

Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c

The Old Cove Message Board The Cove Privacy Policy
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?