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 Monitoring

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Golfman25, Dec 12, 2015.

  1. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Sec 7.4.3.2 requires monitoring supplier performance thru four indicators (product conformity, disruptions, delivery, and special status notifications). We have about 75-100 suppliers. However, like most small businesses, the top 5-10 supply 80-90% of our requirements. For 15+ years, we have done this monitoring by creating exception lists (i.e.; Naughty lists). So, for example, we would review all incoming shipments and would highlight those which were not on time and create a list which we reviewed every quarter. So for Q1 we would see a total on-time delivery of 98%, with supplier A with 1 late, and supplier B with 2. We would take action where necessary. It has worked very well for us.

    Now we are being told in a 3rd party audit, that doesn't cut it. Apparently, we must create "data" for each and every supplier. So we would need to have "summary" data for everyone, even suppliers who might have 1-2 or even 0 shipments per year. It's basically creating a report with a lot of "0"s. We see no value in such an exercise.

    What say you?
     
  2. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    42
    We have the same problem right now. Having the ISO certificate is not sufficient evidence that we monitor our suppliers. They want us to monitor our suppliers per CQI-19.
     
  3. Bev D

    Bev D Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Maine
    You are correct that there is no value in re-recording zeros. I say re-recording as I assume that you have some transactional record indicating the timing of deliveries vs. the requirement, the number of disruptions (how many stock-outs or failed material you had). Your assessment of suppliers is looking at this information (which is data by the way) and then recording the number of events on a unique record. *I* would handle this in 1 of 2 ways: have a longer discussion with your auditor OR if this isn't big enough for you to escalate then I would add a line in your procedure for monitoring supplier performance that only nonconforming events will be recorded and put into the numerator of the rate formula. This is mathematically complete form a 'data' perspective as the number of 'good' events = total events - 'bad' events. This is what you are doing but perhaps your auditor will 'feel' better if you write it down in yoru procedure. there is NO requirement that the 'good' events be double recorded...
     
    Roberticus, RoxaneB and Nikki like this.
  4. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Thank you Bev.
     
  5. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    42
    My auditor and CB are worthless. They cannot articulate a complete thought. Will be leaving them right after I this mess cleaned up.

    We do have access to the data after the fact, but it is cumbersome and unnecessary to retrieve. That is why we keep a real time ongoing record of "unique events." Each week, we receive materials and note any events on our logs. Easy. No reason to complicate the simple.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I'm left wondering what the selection criteria were for engaging CBs in these cases. Coming from the supply chain myself, I learned very early on that when you point a finger in blame at a supplier - any supplier - you'd best be prepared to understand YOUR role in their performance... Three fingers are pointing right back at YOU!
     
  7. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    671
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    In Nursing, we seem to have two schools of thought when it comes to documentation.

    1. If it wasn't documented, it wasn't done - This approach usually applies to the completion of forms. So we look for "N/A" or scratch-through marks or some other means by which the Nurse indicates the item was looked at, considered and deemed irrelevant to the care plan for the Client.
    2. Document by exception - This approach is usually applied in the provision of details outside of a form or checklist. So, for example, progress details (an ongoing, written narrative regarding extraordinary things such as swelling, loss/gain of appetite, breathing issues, mood, etc.) may contain a lot of information from a visit with the Client, or none at all. If nothing is detailed, then in this case, we can professionally presume nothing needed to be documented, but the Nurse is not required to put in an entry saying "Nothing new happened." This holds up in court, as well, as the Nurses are licensed and have professional requirements regarding documentation and charting (at least here in Ontario).
    To add on to Bev's two recommended approaches, if the current system/form has a lot of blanks in it, then they probably should be filled with '0' which does add little value other than providing objective data for those who may want it - OR - adjust your system so that only extraordinary events are documented. If you go with the latter, then you'll probably still need a list of all approved suppliers, but unless they've delivered something over the evaluation period, they won't make the "supplier performance" scorecard. You could add in a discussion point that if a supplier has not shipped anything to your organization with a certain timeframe, they are re-evaluated regarding their position as a supplier.
     
  8. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    42

    This is exactly what we do, and have done for 15 years.
     
  9. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    42
    You're right. It's my fault. Any comment on my specific issue?
     

Share This Page