|
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
 16949 Certification Audit
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: 16949 Certification Audit |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 27 March 2000 07:31 PM
   
Started ISO TS 16949 certification audit today, so far it has been brutal, if your thinking of taking this route, BEWARE - DANGER-DANGER IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 27 March 2000 07:35 PM
Who's the registrar? Danger? Brutal? Details, Please! [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 27 March 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 28 March 2000 08:31 AM
This just doesn't make sense to me. TS is not that far away from QS. Why should a TS audit be more brutal than a QS audit? Sounds like the registrar to me... IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 28 March 2000 08:34 AM
I hope we hear some details. But if the audit is this week, all week, it'll be next week before we'll hear. IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 28 March 2000 09:45 AM
I havent taken the IATF sanctioned auditor training, but from what I hear it very difficult. Auditors are under the watchful eye of the automotive industry now more than ever, and will be trying to prove themselves more than ever. When PPM's are high the OEM's are asking "Who was the lead assessor?" Although the TS standard isnt much different that the QS standard I knoe the accreditation scheme is more "conservative", for example:
I could go on and on. the days of "easy" audits are coming to an end, I just hope the pendulum dosen't shift too far to the ..... right! IP: Logged |
|
Spaceman Spiff Forum Contributor Posts: 64 |
posted 28 March 2000 09:49 AM
Yeah, right! I would love to see the B3 follow this set of requirements on their OWN plants! Sounds like more of do as we say not as we do! IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 28 March 2000 01:36 PM
From what Christian says, I think I'll stay in the ISO9000 world. At least there you can have some flexibility in building your quality system. It seems that the automotive world (ie, the B3 and their European counterparts) are having a "heyday" with their suppliers. It's also making auditors look like they work for the B3 SQA function!! IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 28 March 2000 03:06 PM
quote:This will be a real money saver. Stop now. Come back another time. More travel fees and such. Where did you get these specifics from? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 28 March 2000 07:17 PM
Biggest issues for me so far. 1. Joint venture US/Japan A} Contract is agreed upon in Japan between our Japaneese parent company and my customers Japaneese parent company. B} Process feasibility is done more on a "we have the business coming how will we tackle this project?" We cant do a feasibility review and turn down the business based on it. C} Product testing is done in Japan by our parent company then the data is provided to our customers parent company and to us. The lab that they use is not ISO 17025 accrediteted but we do not have the option to choose another test facility. {Just a side note.. this due to lack of accrediteted companies (maybe 29) world wide, QS has postponed this requirement until 2001...NO such postponement for 16949 D} Over 1/2 way through the audit, have received 6 minors and am allowed 15. E} I do not wish to share my registrars name at this time IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 28 March 2000 07:26 PM
quote:Based upon what? Number of employees? I would think a company of 100 employees would be allowed fewer 'minors' than a company of 1000 or 5000. quote:I guess I'm surprised at this - I can't think of a good reason for a company to want to hide who their registrar is. In fact, it being 16949 I would think the advertising would be welcome since not many registrars are 'qualified' to audit to 16949. Oh well. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 29 March 2000 06:28 AM
quote:This is nothing new. And, in fact, they are nothing less than... IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 29 March 2000 06:32 AM
quote:Huh? I'd really like to hear more about this... Do they cite a 16949 paragraph which says or implies this? IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 29 March 2000 08:12 AM
quote: Page 18 of Rules for Certification bodies to ISO/TS 16949 it reads: IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 29 March 2000 08:18 AM
quote:Where did you purchase this? quote:I wonder if the word may allows the registrar the option of continuing...?? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 29 March 2000 06:12 PM
Marc: My number of mandays to upgrade from 9002 to 16949 is 8. My number of minors allowed is 15. This is based on a factory that has 279 people. Day 3 of the audit, have only picked up 1 more minor, the hemmorraging is slowing. I expect to get 1 more for the my calibration and testing subcontractors that are not accredited to ISO 17025 or national equivilant IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 29 March 2000 06:16 PM
quote: It's just taking a short time for you to feel out what they consider evidence of compliance. No majors, right? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 30 March 2000 08:54 PM
Just finished. Only 11 minors, we were allowed 15 YEAH. 10 of the minors are easily fixed, but the 1 regarding element 4.10.6 and subcontracted labs cannot be fixed. Thi one must be appealed up through the ranks until the AITF makes a judgement. I dont think any company could ligitimatly become registered to ISO 16949 at this point unless there is a waiver granted for 4.10.6 IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
posted 30 March 2000 09:56 PM
Congrats!!! IP: Logged |
|
headnuke Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 1 |
posted 03 April 2000 09:20 AM
Can you give some specifics of the 4.10.6 issues you had? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 03 April 2000 07:01 PM
Specifics can be found in the thread titled 4.10.6 IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 06 April 2000 11:02 AM
It can be purchased at the IAOB website www.iaob.org [This message has been edited by Christian Lupo (edited 06 April 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Wayne Stubbs Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 3 |
posted 10 April 2000 08:38 AM
I would really be interested in the registrars names over in the U.S. In the U.K. BSI inform me that there are only 2 qualified lead assessors in the country! I feel that the growing pains of QS have come back in a different guise. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Christian Lupo Forum Contributor Posts: 117 |
posted 10 April 2000 03:03 PM
A list of registrars (US and UK) can be found on www.iaob.org There are more than 2 TS leads, because I personnaly know more than that. Those pains you feel are not growing pains, they are more like chronic illnesses. Editor's note: Corrected URL [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 10 April 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
J.R. Strickland unregistered |
posted 10 April 2000 03:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by pdboilermaker: '...My number of mandays to upgrade from 9002 to 16949 is 8. My number of minors allowed is 15....' I thought ISO/TS 16949 did not allow any minors or majors in order to achieve certification. Do you have to close your minors before you get your certificate? IP: Logged |
|
pdboilermaker Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 12 April 2000 10:34 PM
Yes, the 8 minors have to be closed before it is official but the date on my certificate will be the date that the audit occured, no the date the minors were closed IP: Logged |
|
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 Forum Contributor Posts: 59 |
posted 16 April 2000 12:26 PM
We use option #1 IP: Logged |
|
ALM Forum Contributor Posts: 80 |
posted 02 May 2000 10:18 AM
quote: I like "Sixteen thousand nine hundred forty-nine." IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 02 May 2000 03:48 PM
I say sixteen nine fourty nine. Toma-to, tomah-to? IP: Logged |
|
Don Reid Forum Contributor Posts: 68 |
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: 4119 |
posted 10 May 2000 04:10 PM
You're not missing anything. It's not a big deal. IP: Logged |
|
pmaizitis Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
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 Forum Contributor Posts: 13 |
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: 4119 |
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 |
|
Steven Truchon Forum Contributor Posts: 89 |
posted 12 July 2000 03:58 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pmaizitis: [B]sixteen nine four nine is the most common I've heard I at seminars. Kind of like Van Halens 8150.
As for the TSxxxxx thing, we still call it "the new QS thing" because it has yet to reach realistic proportions for us yet. IP: Logged |
|
Brian Dowsett Forum Contributor Posts: 35 |
posted 08 August 2000 12:43 PM
Isn't it about time the powers-that-be stopped tormenting us with long numbers for these standards? I'd suggest that they follow the system used for hurricanes and use alternate Male and Female names. Under this system 16949 would become "Standard Horace". Mind you, your average Hurricane doesn't seem to cause as much chaos.....
IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 08 August 2000 01:32 PM
Not ISO Horace? IP: Logged |
|
J.R. Strickland Forum Contributor Posts: 24 |
posted 18 August 2000 09:35 AM
What customer specific requirements were used by your registrar during the assessment? The Ford and DC TS specific requirements are not released yet and I am wondering what your registrar used in lieu of that. IP: Logged |
|
Vash Stampede Forum Contributor Posts: 20 |
posted 23 November 2000 11:40 PM
Hi, What This MORE Brutal than QS9000? What are the limitations? Probably auditors of this kind would look for quality records ten years ago....and that was a big problem! Really! We are planning for QS9000 next year...OH NO ! Vash Stampede 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 
