1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Supplier Surveys - Waste or warranted

Discussion in 'Other Quality and Business Related Topics' started by Claes Gefvenberg, Aug 21, 2015.

Tags:
Page 2 of 3
  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I used to complete them. A typical question: "Do you have a system for the calibration of gauges which would be used on our products? Y/N" - to which the answer was "Y"... But the system was crap and we didn't catch some gauges which were worn beyond use within months...
     
    Andy Nichols, Sep 24, 2015
    #21
  2. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    Curiosity: Wouldn't it be better to ask those same questions either by phone or by Skype?

    You would get the same answers (probably) and also establish one more pinion for an ongoing relationship.
    Perhaps that still counts as a "Supplier Survey"...but it personalizes it rather than being one more annoying piece of email.

    Just thinking out loud...
     
    Eric Twiname, Sep 25, 2015
    #22
  3. Tom Waite

    Tom Waite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Grand Rapids Michigan Area
    It was explained to me two years ago that supplier self audits are not "allowed' anymore in lieu of ISO registration. If you have an organization that is not ISO or TS and you purchase something from them that goes into a auto, you must visit their location and complete an audit, or have waivers from every customer that says you can use them.

    As an organization we made the decision that if the auditor wants to write a nonconformance for us not traveling 1000 miles to audit someone we spend $400.00 a year to purchase a foam sheet that we cut into the part used in the car - GO FOR IT! Waste is waste and no registration body has the authority to tell an organization they must waste money to meet the intent of the standard to keep your registration. That is a self preserving clause in the standard that is absurd.

    The challenge here is the difference of opinions on the requirements. I had a well respected auditor say I met this clause by putting into our terms and conditions of our quotes, "we may from time to time have to use suppliers that are not ISO or TS registered, by acceptance of his quotation you, the customer, acknowledge and waive the requirement that we must use ISO / TS registered suppliers."

    Another auditor told me no way that meets the intent of the standard.
     
    Tom Waite, Oct 1, 2015
    #23
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It won't be a CB that tells you to do that, Tom. It'll be an auditor who should be shown the door. Sadly, however a CB might try to monitor what their auditors do (and some clearly don't give a fig, based on the way they hire etc) it's almost impossible to "catch" auditors who might suggest you need to do such a thing.
     
    Andy Nichols, Oct 1, 2015
    #24
  5. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    42
    I agree with all that has been said. Our suppliers are audited t the service level agreement in their contract. Also we reevaluate them according to their response to the Supplier Corrective Actions. They are being visited anually.
     
    MCW8888, Oct 2, 2015
    #25
  6. Tom Waite

    Tom Waite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Grand Rapids Michigan Area
    Andy, Do you know if this interpretation of the "requirement" is accurate? I resisted and she pulled out some sanctioned interpretation and tried to prove it to me. She was convinced we needed to actually travel to go do the audit in person - a self-audit checklist was not acceptable.
     
    Tom Waite, Oct 5, 2015
    #26
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Tom: I can find no "sanctioned interpretation" at the IATF website which says such a thing. I'm guessing the auditor is confused over what the CB has to do with what a client (implementer) must do. We know this is quite a common confusion.
     
    Andy Nichols, Oct 5, 2015
    #27
  8. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    "Sanctioned" could mean it is the agreed-upon interpretation within your CB's organization in an effort to standardize the results of their auditors. I compare this to debating with my father who is notorious (within the family) for uttering the phrase "They say...". The day I called him out on who THEY are, is the day I started to 'win' discussions with him. I would question who has sanctioned this interpretation, keeping in mind that sanctioned or not, until the standard states "The organization SHALL conduct all supplier audits in-person, recognizing that supplier self-auditors are not admissible as evidence of conformance to requirements....blahblahblah...", you are still only seeing an interpretation, not a requirement.
     
    RoxaneB, Oct 5, 2015
    #28
    Claes Gefvenberg and PaulJSmith like this.
  9. PaulJSmith

    PaulJSmith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Midwestern USA (STL area)
    ^^^ Exactly, Roxane. ISO 9001 is very clear in it's lack of a "shall" for on-site audits of suppliers.

    7.4.1
    Paragraph 2
    "The organization shall evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply product in accordance with the organization's requirements. Criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation shall be established. Records of the results of evaluations and any necessary actions arising from the evaluation shall be maintained."

    As with pretty much everything in that standard, they tell you you must do it, but not how you must do it.
     
    PaulJSmith, Oct 5, 2015
    #29
    GStough likes this.
  10. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I checked with my industry technical dude and he says that, unless it's a customer specific requirement (and they are YOUR customer) he knows of no requirement to visit suppliers... I'm thinking you should advise your CB their auditor(s) have whacked out interpretations...
     
    Andy Nichols, Oct 5, 2015
    #30
    Tom Waite, PaulJSmith and Nikki like this.
  11. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    42
    The ISO certificate alone does not mitigate the supplier from shipping nonconforming products. I would require evidence of process capability.
     
    MCW8888, Dec 11, 2015
    #31
  12. JCIC49

    JCIC49 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The comments raised are all very interesting and sound similar to what I have seen and what I have done

    When I joined my current company they were using a survey that was a spread sheet with multiple tabs. We had suppliers who wouldn't fill it in couldn't fill it in.

    What I did was change it to a 2 page document, with the main information being are you certified if so who with and are they appropriately accredited as I have seen the problem with certificates being issued by non-accredited organisations. The other main question is who is your contact for QA so if I have a problem I know who to talk to.

    The questionnaire is only part of the supplier control, with the main part looking at other areas, number of rejects against volume of parts supplied, on-time delivery, response to issues raised and talking to supply chain as to who they have the most issues with. We also consider what is the supplier providing to us, and are they considered a critical supplier. I know people will say all suppliers are critical but working in Medical Devices, some are considered more critical than others, as you need to define who these are to your Notified Body and in if you are supplying devices in the EU the supplier is open to an unannounced audit from your notified body.

    From all of this information we then decided who we get to audit, especially as I don't have the resource to look at every supplier.

    Jon
     
    JCIC49, Dec 11, 2015
    #32
    Claes Gefvenberg likes this.
  13. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Of course having a certificate does not mean that the supplier won't ship nonconforming products...just as having no certificate does not mean that only nonconforming products will be shipped. Just because you have a driver's license, that doesn't mean you're free from traffic tickets. What the certificate is supposed to mean is that the supplier has established processes in place that will help resolve the issue regarding any nonconforming product.

    A supplier survey, in my experience, typically requests the organization to describe their corrective action process or customer complaint process or refund process or any other process that exists regarding dealing with me, the customer, should I have an issue with what was sent. If a supplier has ISO 9001 or some other recognized Quality Management System, it is expected that they have these processes and they do not need to tell me what they are. As the customer, I am to trust that they will have something in place if it becomes required.

    To be honest, I also don't really care about their process capability...as the customer, all I care about is that I receive the stuff I wanted, when I wanted it. My own incoming/receiving process will be the objective evidence to support (or not support) the supplier's current status on my vendor list.

    Now, if my incoming/receiving process shows that they continually send stuff I don't want AND yet they are certified to a recognized QMS, this may require some additional actions outside of the scope of this thread.
     
    RoxaneB, Dec 14, 2015
    #33
    Claes Gefvenberg and Andy Nichols like this.
  14. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Thank you for your feedback Roxane
     
    MCW8888, Dec 14, 2015
    #34
  15. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Many people don't really "get" the reason for certification and would do well to revisit their knowledge compared to mythology and the REAL reason for certificates.

    It's simply an independent verification that an organization possesses the basic "blocking and tackling" QMS in accordance with ISO 9001 (or other recognized) requirements. This ONLY means that in selecting or engaging a supplier with a certificate, you should NOT have to do supplier development on such basics. Of course, as with any supplier, if they don't deliver to your (stated) requirements, then everyone has to ask themselves why that could have happened. There's usually fault on BOTH sides. Accepting a "certificate" is going to be anything but a basic verification (lift the hood and kick the tires) is to misunderstand the purpose of certification. As a supply chain professional, I would rather spend my time working out the niceties of why the supplier system failed than helping to build the blocks of a QMS from scratch - because it's a heck of a lot more expensive and the supplier gets more out of your sweat equity than you do.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
    Andy Nichols, Dec 15, 2015
    #35
    RoxaneB likes this.
  16. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    There's an interesting concept to noodle on...:rolleyes:
     
    Eric Twiname, Dec 15, 2015
    #36
  17. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It's a lot easier to work on a (small) corrective action, than build an entire supplier QMS, Eric...
     
    Andy Nichols, Dec 15, 2015
    #37
  18. James

    James Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I'd suggest talking to the third party registrar about the auditor, you don't have to be bullied by one. If they share the same viewpoint then you might want to find a different CB, there are plenty of options out there. Shoot me a PM if you'd like to know who we use. This also may be too obvious to say but definitely give the auditor a "show me the shall" from the actual standard when they try to make you do stuff or bring in some "sanctioned" thing.
     
    James, Dec 15, 2015
    #38
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  19. Eric Twiname

    Eric Twiname Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    I was just noting the words, Andy...and enjoying the irony, not disagreeing.
    I've simply never found a system failure to have any grains of "nice"...and got a kick out of the wording.
     
    Eric Twiname, Dec 15, 2015
    #39
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  20. zac2944

    zac2944 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    New York
    Agreed. Never thought about qualifying based on cpk.
     
    zac2944, Jan 6, 2016
    #40
Page 2 of 3