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.

Supplier Audit Schedule - Include Audit Type?

Discussion in 'Supplier Quality, Audits & Other Supplier Issues' started by GStough, Oct 26, 2015.

  1. GStough

    GStough Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Metro-DC/Northern Virginia
    I'm struggling with something here and I'm hoping that someone can offer guidance. I don't believe there is any kind of requirement that says you have to identify which kind of audit is being scheduled on your supplier audit schedule (site, desk, virtual, for-cause, etc.). Sharing from your experience/knowledge, can anyone please tell me if there is any value in including this piece of information on the audit schedule? We have already locked ourselves into time frames (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) for the audits, but I'm thinking that to specify which KIND of audit is a bit overboard.

    Anyone care to share how you do it at your company?

    Thanks in advance!
    :)
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Time based audits are pretty useless, really. Do them around whatever you consider a risk. New work, changes, poor performance that kind of thing. Otherwise you're wasting YOUR time as well as theirs.
     
    GStough, Bev D and RoxaneB like this.
  3. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    575
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    As Andy said, risk is a good starting point...along with historical performance. I do love trying to put things in compartments when I'm stuck trying to figure how to proceed. What if you created a matrix such as the attached? Pick your two top criteria for what prompts or triggers an audit (beyond "the boss says so") and then figure out where the audit types would fit. Based on where the suppliers fall within your matrix, that could determine the type of audit.

    Another option is one that my organization uses to help with initiatives. When a new initiative comes along, it is run through some criteria to help provide guidance on the level of "management" required. The column with the most amount of X's "wins".
     

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

    GStough, Claes Gefvenberg and Bev D like this.
  4. GStough

    GStough Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Metro-DC/Northern Virginia
    The situation here is that we have over 120 "critical" suppliers, some of which have never been audited by my company. I know that there is no ISO requirement (nor any other requirement) that we do supplier audits, per se. However, it appears that there is an expectation that we perform these audits. Using the risk and performance/delivery metrics approach, then we would be auditing the same suppliers every cycle, while others whose performance is stellar go without being audited.

    We measure supplier performance with different methods (scorecard ratings on quality and delivery, quality only, customer complaints, etc.), so I feel that we have the data to support a decision not to audit certain suppliers. Every time we have an external audit, however, the question is raised "Why weren't all of your critical suppliers audited in the last cycle?". Everyone seems to get their feathers ruffled at this, thinking that I haven't done my job because not all 120+ suppliers have been audited. It is simply quite frustrating!
     
  5. James

    James Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2015
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I'm newer in quality management so don't take this too far :). But if you have solid metrics from provable histories it sounds like a "show me the shall" moment. You can also define what an audit is, and you can define what criteria suppliers need to meet. So maybe your metrics are your audit and the data is the criteria? But like you said, there is no ISO requirement for an audit. Again I'm new so let others chime in.

    We have several suppliers I have never even toured much less audited. But we do keep an approved supplier list (also not technically required in 2008) and define the criteria for suppliers to stay on or drop off. We added a new supplier a few months ago and since we didn't have a history or any metrics I went ahead and did a short tour.
     
    GStough and Claes Gefvenberg like this.
  6. Somashekar

    Somashekar Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Coming the other way around.... do not your supplier ask you what you coming to audit ? aka the audit type.
    In case they ask you have to answer.
    In case they do not, you have to keep focus on how supplier functional structure handle your stuff from order receiving to deliver and everything in between.
     
  7. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    575
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    This is why I suggested audit type...an audit does not have to be an AUDIT. I think finding creative ways to demonstrate a review and remind your suppliers that you're keeping an eye on them is important.

    If you're auditing the same suppliers every cycle, well, two things jump out at me here:

    1. Why? Surely this says something about the supplier.
    2. Your criteria for an on-site audit may be too tight...to make it more manageable (for your team and your supplier), I suggest looking at the data and reconsidering the triggers for an on-site audit.

    They were audited...through data analysis. That, to me, is a sufficient response. If your organization has the data to support the stance that the supplier's performance is not adversely impacting your organization's ability to meet customer requirements, I do not see a problem. Like I said....creative ways and where does it say an audit must conform to an antiquated definition of an audit? However, I would ensure that the various "types" of audit are defined to ensure you've covered the organization's proverbial behind with this stance.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
    GStough likes this.
  8. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    You can also stave this off a bit if some of them are self assessments. You prioritize based on performance using your established metrics. And then, the "good" suppliers can do a self assessment. Also - it always bugs me when people say "MY" audit. Example: In the CQI audits that float around, heat treat is CQI-9. It is perfectly acceptable that a supplier has done one annually. Doesn't have to be on YOUR part, just SOME part that uses the same process as YOUR part. To me, this is a huge breakdown of AIAG. But the point is, if you word your work instructions creatively, you can get around it. How different REALLY is the GM BIQS from the GM QSB from the Ford Q1 from the VW system? (Yes, I know that won't be a popular statement). But given the real situation of not having resources to go audit EVERY supplier, I submit that if I review my suppliers, go after my problem children and for the rest have them submit me their last quality audit (be it mine, or someone else's) that is a whole lot better than the option of just don't get it all done. :)
     
    GStough likes this.

Share This Page