|
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 ForumsThe Cove Forums
 TS 16949
 16949 certification audit (Page 2)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: 16949 certification audit |
|
karimi unregistered |
posted 16 April 2000 01:58 AM
 
What is the best/right way to say TS 16949? TS 16-9-49, TS 1-69-49, TS 169-49 or TS 16-94-9 .......!!!!!!!!!!! Couldn't they find a better number? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forums Contributor Posts: 56 |
posted 16 April 2000 12:26 PM
 
We use option #1 IP: Logged |
|
ALM Forums Contributor Posts: 79 |
posted 02 May 2000 10:18 AM
quote: I like "Sixteen thousand nine hundred forty-nine." IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2810 |
posted 02 May 2000 03:48 PM
I say sixteen nine fourty nine. Toma-to, tomah-to? IP: Logged |
|
Don Reid Forums Contributor Posts: 38 |
posted 10 May 2000 07:23 AM
Good Morning.... I have recently purchased TS16949 from British Standards. I cannot see that there is too much to worry about. Have I misinterpreted it? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2810 |
posted 10 May 2000 04:10 PM
You're not missing anything. It's not a big deal. IP: Logged |
|
pmaizitis Forums Contributor Posts: 12 |
posted 25 May 2000 03:04 PM
So I am one of two qualified ... interesting. Haven't had any audits yet though for 16949. Most clients are waiting for the BIG three to say thou shalt. Has anyone seen any Big Three mandates yet for 16949? By the way ... the pass rate is only 20% Glad I passed the 1st time ... will be celebrating all year. IP: Logged |
|
pmaizitis Forums Contributor Posts: 12 |
posted 25 May 2000 03:10 PM
sixteen nine four nine is the most common I've heard I at seminars. Kind of like Van Halens 8150. Regarding changes ... some are subtle but significant. Many shoulds have become shalls. Also ... Internal audits: IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 2810 |
posted 26 May 2000 06:05 AM
quote:More unneccessary overhead. IP: Logged |
|
gjkweb Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 1 |
posted 21 June 2000 10:22 AM
quote: For a first-timer from Luxembourg: 'Unnecessary' is in the eye of the beholder. We started Process Audits 2 years ago -- not be ordered to by the 'TS', and have found them great for mainly identifying interface 'opportunities for improvement' (as we never have non-compliances). The 'TS' requirement here, especially for large companies like Goodyear, actually makes sense ... I never thought I'd say that about 'TS' or 'QS9k' ... maybe I need a vacation? (no replies to that last questions please). ------------------ [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 24 June 2000).] IP: Logged |
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc
Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c
The Cove Privacy Policy 
