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 Forums
  TS 16949
  16949 Certification Audit

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

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   16949 Certification Audit
pdboilermaker
Forum Contributor

Posts: 59
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 27 March 2000 07:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 27 March 2000 07:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 28 March 2000 08:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 28 March 2000 08:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 28 March 2000 09:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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:


  1. companies that wish to be certified must submit a list of internal auditors, performance trends for the past 12 months, and records from Internal audits (among other items)
  2. these items will be reviewed by the lead assessor who will determine if the company is ready for an on-site assessment
  3. 2 step certifications are not allowed. If the lead assessor finds a major, the audit is stopped. the next time the audits is on-site they have to begin the audit all over again
  4. there must be a quality rep on all shifts
  5. there must be a plan for employee motivation at all levels in the organization

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
From:FL
Registered: Mar 99

posted 28 March 2000 09:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spaceman Spiff   Click Here to Email Spaceman Spiff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 28 March 2000 01:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 28 March 2000 03:06 PM     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 Christian Lupo:

...2 step certifications are not allowed. If the lead assessor finds a major, the audit is stopped. the next time the audits is on-site they have to begin the audit all over again...


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
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 28 March 2000 07:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 28 March 2000 07:26 PM     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 pdboilermaker:

D} Over 1/2 way through the audit, have received 6 minors and am allowed 15.


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:
E} I do not wish to share my registrars name at this time...
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 March 2000 06:28 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 Roger Eastin:

It's also making auditors look like they work for the B3 SQA function!!


This is nothing new. And, in fact, they are nothing less than...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 March 2000 06:32 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 pdboilermaker:

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.


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
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 29 March 2000 08:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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?

Page 18 of Rules for Certification bodies to ISO/TS 16949 it reads:
...major nonconformities may provide a basis for termination of the audit by the supplier with the audit team leader. In this case audit team leader will stop the certification process immediatly....any re-audit shall commence from the beginning of the process....

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 March 2000 08:18 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 Christian Lupo:

Page 18 of Rules for Certification bodies to ISO/TS 16949


Where did you purchase this?
quote:
it reads:
...major nonconformities may provide a basis for termination...
I wonder if the word may allows the registrar the option of continuing...??

IP: Logged

pdboilermaker
Forum Contributor

Posts: 59
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 29 March 2000 06:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 March 2000 06:16 PM     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 pdboilermaker:

....the hemmorraging is slowing.



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
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 30 March 2000 08:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 30 March 2000 09:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Congrats!!!

IP: Logged

headnuke
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 03 April 2000 09:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for headnuke     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Can you give some specifics of the 4.10.6 issues you had?

IP: Logged

pdboilermaker
Forum Contributor

Posts: 59
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 03 April 2000 07:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Specifics can be found in the thread titled 4.10.6

IP: Logged

Christian Lupo
Forum Contributor

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 06 April 2000 11:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Llanfyllin Powys Wales
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10 April 2000 08:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Wayne Stubbs   Click Here to Email Wayne Stubbs     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 10 April 2000 03:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Christian Lupo   Click Here to Email Christian Lupo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:Russiaville, Indiana, USA
Registered: Apr 99

posted 12 April 2000 10:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pdboilermaker   Click Here to Email pdboilermaker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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           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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 59
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
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: 4119
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 68
From:North Walsham, Norfolk, 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: 4119
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 13
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 13
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: 4119
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

Steven Truchon
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:Fort Lauderdale, FL USA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 12 July 2000 03:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Truchon   Click Here to Email Steven Truchon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
[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.


Im sorry, but I cannot resist this as it is my favorite VH disk. It's "5150"

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
From:Waterford, Ireland
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08 August 2000 12:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Brian Dowsett   Click Here to Email Brian Dowsett     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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".
Wouldn't that be nicer?

Mind you, your average Hurricane doesn't seem to cause as much chaos.....


BD

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 08 August 2000 01:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not ISO Horace?

IP: Logged

J.R. Strickland
Forum Contributor

Posts: 24
From:Northbrook, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 18 August 2000 09:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for J.R. Strickland     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
From:
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 23 November 2000 11:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Vash Stampede   Click Here to Email Vash Stampede     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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
vashstampede@hotmail.com

IP: Logged

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 | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!