1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
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.

7.4.1.2. Supplier quality management system development

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by MCW8888, Jan 25, 2016.

  1. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    42
    I have a question regarding the interpretation of 7.4.1.2. We have a procedure for supplier performance evaluation. This procedure appears to be robust because the evaluation is done quarterly and there is a score card. Do we still need to conduct an on-site visit to the supplier site? I have a copy of CQI-19. Can I send the risk questionnaire to the supplier and ask them to answer the questions as best they could? They are all ISO9001 certified but not TS16949. Some suppliers may not be doing the core tools. DO I write them a nonconformance if I find out that they are not doing PFMEA, Control Plans, MSA and SPC? These are suppliers that have been identified as critical to the product we supply to FCA. Thank you for your comments.
     

    Attached File(s): 1. Scan for viruses before using. 2. Report any 'bad' files by reporting this post. 3. Use at your own Risk.:

  2. MarkMeer

    MarkMeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2015
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Ultimately the level of scrutiny you want to place on your suppliers is your decision. ...so a definitive answer is impossible, as it all depends on your needs.

    Think of your suppliers like an employee. If I were to ask: "Are my workers qualified enough? Some have degrees, some don't. Some have been working for 10-years, but don't have such-and-such a certificate". ...your response would likely be: "I don't know.
    Are they doing a good job? What's the nature of the work they do? Have you identified any issues? Do you foresee any future problems?".

    The bottom-line is you have to assess and decide, and this should be based on risk. Because some suppliers will be more critical then others, I suggest a system where each supplier is assessed individually, and prescribed requirements accordingly.

    (I know this is not a satisfying answer. ...but trust me that having the freedom to exercise your own level of scrutiny over your suppliers - much like with employees - is infinitely preferable to prescriptive regulations, IMHO)
     
  3. Emmyd

    Emmyd Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Tennessee
    I don't have the CQI-19, but if they have the ISO9001 certification, they should be compliant to TS16949 - which includes the PFMEA, control plans & MSA at a minimum (per the copy you posted). You don't say what tier they or you are, but they should at least be providing you with some type of PPAP for approval (unless they are customer directed and exempted from PPAP requirement by your customer).
    According to your TS16949 (assuming you have this certification), you should be evaluating by some means your suppliers yearly - how in depth depends on your company and how critical they are to your process. I would think an on-site would be good every few years in addition to what you are currently doing, unless they are having issues that require a more substantial visit.
    It really boils down to how effective of a supplier they are, how critical to your company and downstream the OEMs this supplier is and how they react/have reacted to any issues. Based on their performance, you may have minimal risk because they are excellent and very reactive - or - you may find they are a problem that can't seem to do much right. Only you and your company can definitively answer this.
     
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Why? If they haven't been contractually required, they won't be doing FMEAs etc. So, the OP will have to "require" this somehow - usually as part of a purchasing arrangement.
     
    Crusader and MCW8888 like this.
  5. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Thank you all for your feedback.
    Our sub-suppliers may not know what PPAP is all about but I am sure that they can do the Process Capability Study, PFMEA, and Control Plan.
     
  6. Sidney Vianna

    Sidney Vianna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    42
    That's exactly how RISK BASED THINKING is supposed to work. The level of supplier scrutiny and oversight must be commensurate with the risks associated with the supplier(s) and/or the product/service you purchase from them and the impact onto your product. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
    Another aspect to consider is the fact that risks are dynamic, thus, a supplier which might not be a high risk one today might become one tomorrow, if, for example, you are going to ramp-up production volumes and is unsure if a supplier will be able to support your material demands during this ramp-up.
     
    Brian Vandolah and Andy Nichols like this.
  7. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Since TS 16949 is a bit prescriptive than ISO 9001, organizations certified to this automotive standard will need to demonstrate that their suppliers are being guided to satisfy the "relevant" requirements of TS. The statement which says "The organization shall perform supplier quality management system development with the goal of supplier
    conformity with this Technical Specification",
    leaves an organization less room to wiggle.
     

Share This Page