Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by Rajkumar, Jul 17, 2018.
In Clause 8.4.1 what does re-evaluation of external providers mean?
The standard states 'the organisation shall determine and apply criteria to evaluate the supplier....' We evaluate suppliers within a scoring metric against performance, audit results, external sources (reviews, external audit results) etc..
The re-evaluation is to ensure the originally applied criteria is consistently met.
8.4.2 defines the requirements for the type and extent of controls so by re evaluation you are measuring the effectiveness of their process controls to provide the product/service..
Hope this helps
Thanks for the explanation.
What should be the the frequency of re-evaluation?
Depends on your organization, I be seen this is done quarterly in several companies.
Quarterly reevaluation is too early. If there are no issues, annual should be ok.
I think that re-evaluation may mean evaluating those external providers who have been removed from Approved list due to Quality or delivery issues.
Re-evaluation does not mean those who have been removed. It is in fact a tool to establish that your approved vendors are evaluated consistently for their services & that they meet the set criteria. Further externally service providers will consist of your material suppliers, amc service suppliers, testing laboratories, internet service providers, etc (in short you will have to consider those service providers whose inputs affect your end product). Trust it is now clear.
As regards to frequency of re-evaluation, it is left to the discretion of the organization. This might be spread out as in for regular supplier it might be conducted on a quarterly basis & for an adhoc supplier it might be conducted annually & so on & so forth. However, pl keep in mind that this will have to be defined in your process manual.
Lastly & but obvious the criteria for acceptance / continuation must be defined.
To build upon this, the frequency and method of evaluation may vary depending upon how "critical" the supplier is to organization's ability to meet requirements. For example, for most of us, the company that delivers the boxes of paper for the printer or photo copier has little or no impact on our ability to manufacture or provide the service required by our customer - their frequency may be low (if at all) with minimal expectations. On the other hand, the company that delivers the raw materials which are the starting point of our process to make the product or the company that provides the I.T. security protecting client information for the service we provide, those organizations are more vital to our organization and their re-evaluation may be more frequent with higher expectations set.
When organizations do things on time based criteria - only - they open themselves up to risk. Just as with calibration, maintenance and training, reviewing supplier annually isn't likely to be effective.
Excellent point. In a previous life, our "re-evaluation" was real time - although we really only paid attention to the critical suppliers. Live date regarding supplier performance was accessible to the appropriate individuals when it was wanted. We did have "time-based" evaluations, if you will, to formalize the process, but the concern was that looking at just two points in time (e.g., last quarter and this quarter) means little...a lot of variation could have occurred within that time period and by only looking at the two time points, an organization can miss out on a lot of the story.
If there is any need to perform re-evaluation quarterly, then I feel, we need to review our procedure and criteria for selection and approval of External Providers.
As I said, time based evaluations invoke risk.
How do you know if you need to review your criteria for selection and approval, if you don't re-evaluate your suppliers on a regular basis?
Rajkumar, it sounds as if you believe re-evaluation is ONLY applicable to suppliers/vendors who have been removed from the list. That is not the intent of the standard. The intent is more about the continual evaluation of suppliers/vendors on the list to ensure that they should remain there. The intent is about the continual evaluation of suppliers'/vendors' performance that allows your organization to say, with confidence, that you are consistently receiving the products/services which enable your organization to meet your customers' requirements...or to identify those suppliers/vendors where action may be required due to sub-standard or negatively trending performance. The intent is to be PROACTIVE in the management of suppliers and vendors...not reactive as your approach does feel to be.
^^^^ What my learned Canadian friend said. ^^^^
RoxaneB, Quarterly reevaluation is not solution of system problems. We would know the need to review criteria for selection and approval when there are Quality and Delivery issues from External Providers. I would prefer to take this path for finding system problems considering them as opportunities for improvement.
Imagine what will happen if Certification Bodies also think on similar lines and ask for Quarterly surveillance audit and annual Renewal Audit.
The solution for SYSTEMS problems is to evaluate how your suppliers are performing over time. You may see a negative trend in the data, although the product may still meet specification. This would alarm you because if they keep that negative trend, there is a good chance they will eventually send you nonconforming product.
It is easier to be proactive and address a negative trend than to control nonconforming product within your facility or at your customer.
Sadly, in the place where I am working, the re-evaluation of the critical supplier is being annually conducted. ( Usually we do the quality process audit, in some cases, also do the quality system audit during the re-evaluation). In the ordinary days, IQC department just does the monitoring on the incoming inspection result and checks whether any quality issue related with the raw material happens in the production line. If some big quality issues related to raw material happen, after the corrective action is implemented at the supplier`s site, we will do the re-evaluation.
A negative or deteriorating trend obviously needs immediate action and points to some inefficiency which probably would not be detected by short time based Re-evaluation.
Quarterly Re-evaluation uses huge resources which adds to Company's fixed costs.
Is it a Non-Conformity (NC) when there is no feedback to the vendor/supplier on the performance evaluation?
Do you mean, if the organization doesn't provide performance information to the supplier(s)? No it's not required. Did an auditor write such a finding?
An auditor intended to do so but could not back it up with the requirement of the standard. So he made it an observation
Separate names with a comma.