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 ForumsThe Cove Forums
  TS 16949
  16949 certification audit (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
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:   16949 certification audit
karimi
unregistered
posted 16 April 2000 01:58 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 16 April 2000 12:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We use option #1

IP: Logged

ALM
Forums Contributor

Posts: 79
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 02 May 2000 10:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by karimi:
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?

I like "Sixteen thousand nine hundred forty-nine."

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2810
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 02 May 2000 03:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I say sixteen nine fourty nine.

Toma-to, tomah-to?

IP: Logged

Don Reid
Forums Contributor

Posts: 38
From:Leicester, Leicestershire, England
Registered: May 2000

posted 10 May 2000 07:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Reid   Click Here to Email Don Reid     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 10 May 2000 04:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're not missing anything. It's not a big deal.

IP: Logged

pmaizitis
Forums Contributor

Posts: 12
From:North Royalton, Ohio USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 25 May 2000 03:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pmaizitis   Click Here to Email pmaizitis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:North Royalton, Ohio USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 25 May 2000 03:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pmaizitis   Click Here to Email pmaizitis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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:
Thought the Dock audits were bad enough ... now the requirements adds audits throughout appropriate stages of production and delivery.
Process audits are new as a requirement.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2810
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 26 May 2000 06:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by pmaizitis:

... now the requirements adds audits throughout appropriate stages of production and delivery.
Process audits are new as a requirement.


More unneccessary overhead.

IP: Logged

gjkweb
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:Ettelbruck, Luxembourg
Registered: May 2000

posted 21 June 2000 10:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gjkweb   Click Here to Email gjkweb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by pmaizitis:

... now the requirements adds audits throughout appropriate stages of production and delivery.
Process audits are new as a requirement.

More unneccessary overhead.


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).

------------------
Dr Graham J Kettle
Quality & Environmental Systems

[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

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply 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?