Do 'certified' supplier provide better performance than non-certified suppliers. Does anyone know of factual data that compares the performance of certified vs non-certified suppliers?

Interesting question

When many years ago working as a Purchase manager being interviewed by an ISO consultant about how my dept satsifies (or didnt) the ISO 9001 element on Purchasing, i asked him if he would like to see my evidence that certified suppliers were actually delivering worst quality than none- certified suppliers.

Althoug i was bluffing out of badness, his nervous shifting in his seat told me that he may believe this to be true. Now before the ISO freeks jump out of their seat i should tell you a story.

When recently working as a ....ISO Consultant, a company that i had implemented a system into showed me their 6 month old Supplier List, and of 6 'Blocked/Dropped' supplier guess how many did not have ISO.
5?

I am sceptical about companies saying that they are better becuase they have ISO, but if i had no other way of verifing a suppliers ability, and i was faced with a choice between a supplier that had ISO and supplier that didnt, i would opt for the supplier with it.

------------------
Andy B

David,

I read an article a couple of months back, the article based on whether or not ISO benefits were noticable. Dr. Juran's response was right on the money, IMHO. He mentioned that ISO in itself falls short for an organization. An organization must do more to be successful. In addition, he warned the reader about the troubles of enumerative studies such as this, such that no single group has approached this as an analytical problem, and the results of previous studies should be viewed as informational only.

So are organizations that are registered better than those that aren't? Probably not. I couldn't lean toward a company that was ISO registered over a company that was not to manufacture a part. What might sway organizations to select the registered company might not have anything to do at all with Quality. Instead, selection may be based on Customer perception and the ease of their own Approved Supplier List maintenance.

The ISO frenzy is clouding judgement. ISO is not a cure all solution. When the dust settles, I think many folks will realize that Dr. Juran is right.

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group...

The other thing to watch for here is that suppliers will use words like, "ISO compliant" or something along those lines. It does not mean ISO registered (3rd party), it simply means that they want to take advantage of the "market aspects" of ISO, but not to necessarily change/document their quality system. Yes, I agree, that ISO is just a beginning for any quality system. We have spent many threads discussing that one! (I'm sure anyone can review the old forum for some interesting discussion there.)

Roger,

You bring up a good point, as you normally do, regarding "ISO Compliant". I think that it might be a good idea for any organization to consider whether or not an ISO registration means anything to themselves, or their customers. This is especially true of an organization that is not interested in the added cost of ISO, but still would like to apply the guidelines to the construction of their own QS. Formalized or not, the organization may adopt in part, or in whole, the essence of the standard.

The problem as I see it is two fold. Many organizations that could be compliant with ISO, but do not value the "marketing edge" it may bring, could be overlooked prematurely by an organization smitten with ISO registration as a requirement. Also, those organizations whom require ISO may be acting on false preconceptions that ISO means Quality. Either way, good partnerships can be overlooked for the wrong reasons, or bad ones created for all the "right" reasons. My feeling; more often the bad relationships will be created because an organization places to much value on an ISO registration. A good company, whether ISO registered or not, stands a better chance at establishing partnerships because their reputation precedes them.

My opinion, I would rather be compliant, but not necessarily registered. ISO in my estimation accounts for very little in creating a Quality Culture. But it is a customer requirement, so we are.

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group...

As far as suppliers being compliant instead of registered, I think is merely because management wants all the benefits of certification without the cost, resource, obligation, time and energy put into deserving the certificate. But they want customers to think they are gunho so they imply they are compliant.
I evaluate suppliers, and if it is done to get benefit instead of simply abiding by the standard, I must say there can be quite a difference in registered suppliers and so-called compliant suppliers. And I would pick a supplier who is registered over one who isn't. Because there is a difference in a company who is registered to a standard requiring calibration and a company who is interested in just-in-time get it out the door and make a buck manufacturing.

All very valid stuff. In my searches so far the closest I have come to any real performance survey of suppliers is a UK study which concentrated on defining a world's best practice model for suppliers, which stated that ISO is nice, but a supplier with an engrained TQM culture will provide you with the best service/cost/delivery/product (quality).
Being hard-nosed, I'd still like to see an actual report/survey that compares the performance of suppliers at various levels of recognised achievement. E.g. non-certified; ISO 9001/2/3 certified; TQM recognised; Award winners (Baldrige and the like). Has anyone seen such a beast?

What's your opinion at this point in time (2004)?

With regard to overall performance, I don't see a difference (on the surface) between our suppliers who are registered and those who are not.

However....

...When something does go wrong, we do traditionally receive better a better response/resolution from those organization with registration.

This is a fascinating question. The discussion could go in any number of directions according to how one defines and measures "performance".

Response time for customer concerns? OT delivery? ppm of delivered stuff?

I think one could generalize. But, as I stated in another thread, recently, I have not seen any meaningful data based on a statistically significant sample of "certified" firms that registration has been beneficial. That being so, I am tempted to believe there is no definitive evidence that certified suppliers will outperform non-certified ones. And, considering the discussion about "fines" imposed onto auto suppliers who have been cudgeled into QS 9K TS etc., one might suspect the mighty auto industry (which is rampant with so-called CS2 costs - which should be unnecessary if "certification" was effective) has not seen much difference.

In the final analysis, perhaps each customer must decide for itself on the basis of whatever evidence it has. But, does the lack of data also suggest few customers actually collect, collate and analyse the associated data concerning supplier performance?

If you ask the relatives of the hundreds of people killed or injured by tire blow-outs on Ford Explorers, they will probably less than convinced the performance of the BF plant that was "certified" amounted to anything in terms of "better performance".

I voted "worse"; based on experience with our existing suppliers.

I voted "no difference", simply because there are too many of us (certified companies) that have the cert in place as a marketing tool. There can be a great QMS without the certificate, or a barely functioning QMS with one.

You can bring a company to an audit, but you can't make them think....correctly about how to run the company, anyway.

JMO

IMO it depends on the size of the company. A small company is likely to have managers involved in the product and has more at stake when dealing with the product. The registration seems to be a hinderence to their interaction with the parts and processes rather than a help. I speak only of what I have observed. Small companies without a registration seem to be able to react quicker to issues. Small companies that are registered often are focused on keeping their registration so they take on a cumbersome system (the small companies I know of any Registration System becomes a burden) and it slows their response time.
Large companies however I believe need a system that is more robust and more like what is prescribed by registration requirements because functions become island and the system fosters comunication to some degree. I do not know if I am communicating this well but hese are my thoughts. I did not vote because of this opinion.
Mark

NO!!!! .

I tried to post this answer but unfortunatley it has to be at least 8 characters. So now I will submit it....

NO!!!! .

I tried to post this answer but unfortunatley it has to be at least 8 characters. So now I will submit it....

How about No! Nuh uh! No way! Forget it! :)

But with such a "vocal" post, Greg, I'm wondering if you think the reverse is true. Do you find registered suppliers worse than non-registered ones? Just me being nosy....ummmm...curious...

How about No! Nuh uh! No way! Forget it! :)

But with such a "vocal" post, Greg, I'm wondering if you think the reverse is true. Do you find registered suppliers worse than non-registered ones? Just me being nosy....ummmm...curious...
In my experience with a major vehicle manufacturer that will remain nameless but is not one of the Big 3, I found that QS-9000 registered suppliers consistently had much lower first-pass PPAP approval rates than non-registered suppliers. Their registration was a non-factor when it came to product quality, as it was for ISO 9000-registered companies in general.

In my experience with a major vehicle manufacturer that will remain nameless but is not one of the Big 3, I found that QS-9000 registered suppliers consistently had much lower first-pass PPAP approval rates than non-registered suppliers. Their registration was a non-factor when it came to product quality, as it was for ISO 9000-registered companies in general.

Why do you think this was the case?

Why do you think this was the case?
Because the Big 3 stopped scrutinizing PPAP submissions a long time ago, and the company I work for has the gall to expect submissions to make sense. I wish I had a nickel for every time a QS-9000 registered supplier has tried to defend a nonsensical PPAP submission by saying, "Well, it's good enough for Ford." My stock reply is, "Great. You get Ford to pay for our parts and we'll use their PPAP acceptance criteria."

When I first read the initial post I asked myself "Certified to what?" As I read the other posters comments they seemed to assume that the original poster meant certifed to ISO?
My experiences with ISO certified suppliers leaves me wandering just why anyone would make the effort to get certified. Even to the point when the ISO certifed Customer is supplying documentation such as drawings or specifications. I can recall when a ISO certified customer visited and performed their own audit. When done the customer rep could not believe it was possible that his certified company could send such a disarray of documents to their supplier.
On the other hand we had our own supplier rating system that certified high performance suppliers for our "dock to stock" program. We did the evaluations and rated the suppliers based on our own factual data. We even issued certificates to our supplier to inform them that they earned this award and as such were a valued and trusted supplier. There products were not inspected but went straight to stock. Any one else have a supplier rating program?

On the other hand we had our own supplier rating system that certified high performance suppliers for our "dock to stock" program. We did the evaluations and rated the suppliers based on our own factual data. We even issued certificates to our supplier to inform them that they earned this award and as such were a valued and trusted supplier. There products were not inspected but went straight to stock. Any one else have a supplier rating program?

I've found this route (certify your own suppliers) to be much more helpful in finding a good supplier than ISO certification. In a previous company I did a crude dock-to-stock plan of my own because I could find very little information "out there" from others who did it. I guess I did okay, as at least one of the suppliers I worked with (to certify them) has offered me a job several times. :tg: But I'd be interested in seeing any other examples of folks who have dock-to-stock/customer-designed supplier certification programs.

I've found this route (certify your own suppliers) to be much more helpful in finding a good supplier than ISO certification. In a previous company I did a crude dock-to-stock plan of my own because I could find very little information "out there" from others who did it. I guess I did okay, as at least one of the suppliers I worked with (to certify them) has offered me a job several times. :tg: But I'd be interested in seeing any other examples of folks who have dock-to-stock/customer-designed supplier certification programs.
The only worthwhile supplier "certification" scheme is one that's based on empirical observation. The "dock-to-stock" idea, wherein material bypasses receiving inspection after a given number of trouble-free received lots (or evidence of conscientious process control), makes good sense, whereas depending on a supplier's having passed a registration audit is asking for trouble. There is risk involved in either case, but evaluation of risk must be based on data, not speculation.

For whatever my 2 cents is worth.

I also agree that supplier certification should not be based on whether the supplier has a credited certified supplier based ISO, but on the customers accreditation of how well they screen for zero non-compliance.

If in my ISO program, as a supplier, I state that I will send zero defects to the customer, and show the auditor that my outgoing inspection chart shows we are sending zero defects, (assuming I remember not to record the ones I do find), then I am in compliance. Therefore, I am a good supplier. yea, right.

Is there any money to be made in certifying ISO certification certifiers?

In my experience with a major vehicle manufacturer that will remain nameless but is not one of the Big 3, I found that QS-9000 registered suppliers consistently had much lower first-pass PPAP approval rates than non-registered suppliers. Their registration was a non-factor when it came to product quality, as it was for ISO 9000-registered companies in general.


Well, JSW, your dislike for QS may have hit a new benchmark. Would you argue that suppliers who were not certified to QS, actually did QS based PPAP's better than suppliers who were certified to QS? PPAPs are a QS based system. How can not-certified be an actual benefit? That would seem to distort logic.

Or, are you referring to a small handful of vendors that perhaps may be not a statistically valid sample. I could understand it being a draw, but a negative defies logic. I'm curious, what did you feel the cause would have been? Thanks.

Well, JSW, your dislike for QS may have hit a new benchmark.
I challenge you to find any post where I ever expressed "dislike" for QS or ISO or 16949 or whatever standard you might care to mention. It's registration that I have a problem with, not the standards themselves.

Would you argue that suppliers who were not certified to QS, actually did QS based PPAP's better than suppliers who were certified to QS?
That's exactly what I'm saying. The company in question adopted the AIAG PPAP process about 7 years ago. Most of their suppliers were not familiar with the automotive requirements, although many were ISO-registered. I personally reviewed thousands of those PPAP submissions, and I say again: QS-9000 registered suppliers were uniformly terrible at doing PPAP.
I could understand it being a draw, but a negative defies logic. I'm curious, what did you feel the cause would have been? Thanks. It's certainly ironic to the uninitiated, but it doesn't defy logic. The big three just don't pay much attention to PPAP submissions, and I know that as fact from my experience on the other side of the fence. I can't tell you how many times a quality manager for a QS-registered supplier, when faced with a page and a half of problems with his PPAP, said "But it's always been OK that way with (insert name of B3 company here)." My standard response is always, "Great. Get Ford to pay for our parts, and we'll review PPAPs their way."

Thanks for the clarification, maybe I misunderstood. I certainly agree the Big 3 have problems coming out of both ears...

Hi, can anyone tell me, for a company purchasing electronic parts or mechanical parts from various suppliers, do they still need to go through a long evaluation process to get to the approved list of suppliers? I supposed what these companies will look for to meet their requirements is as long as the technical specs meet what is needed to put the product together and the delivery time is satisfied, these suppliers would have met the minimum requirement to make their way into the prestigious suppliers' approved list. Please comment. Thanks a million.

Hi, can anyone tell me, for a company purchasing electronic parts or mechanical parts from various suppliers, do they still need to go through a long evaluation process to get to the approved list of suppliers? I supposed what these companies will look for to meet their requirements is as long as the technical specs meet what is needed to put the product together and the delivery time is satisfied, these suppliers would have met the minimum requirement to make their way into the prestigious suppliers' approved list. Please comment. Thanks a million.


I am not completely clear on your question, but I will try to answer.

If you are the supplier, you will need to do whatever the customer requires, or you may not get the contract.

If you are the customer, it is up to you to decide whatever requirements the suppliers of these parts will ahve to demonstrate. It may be product quality, an ISO certification, good capability, it is up to the customer to decide.

I would say that if you are certified or not, the real difference lies in the efficiency and competence of the management.

Hi, can anyone tell me, for a company purchasing electronic parts or mechanical parts from various suppliers, do they still need to go through a long evaluation process to get to the approved list of suppliers? I supposed what these companies will look for to meet their requirements is as long as the technical specs meet what is needed to put the product together and the delivery time is satisfied, these suppliers would have met the minimum requirement to make their way into the prestigious suppliers' approved list. Please comment. Thanks a million.

to be a good supplier, you must...

0. cost should be NEAR the bottom (not necessary at the bottom)

1. meet the specifications

2 a) deliver the right quanity

2 b) and deliever on time!!!!

3. address all customer's questions/complains promptly

If you can achive all of the above, i see no reason why you should not be the supplier of choice for any customers.

In my experience with a major vehicle manufacturer that will remain nameless but is not one of the Big 3, I found that QS-9000 registered suppliers consistently had much lower first-pass PPAP approval rates than non-registered suppliers. Their registration was a non-factor when it came to product quality, as it was for ISO 9000-registered companies in general.

Working with a few Automotive Suppliers I am always appalled at how much time is spent on the "Bureacracy" of QS/TS systems which robs resources from what we really want to do ... improvement.

I tell my clients that ISO registration is to give your customers confidence in you as a supplier so you can get your leg in the door at win that first contract. After that it is Quality, Price and Service that is important.

The same applies to your suppliers. You might choose one over another because they are certified (all other things being equal) but it is Q,P and S that you should monitor.

You haven't lived until a supplier tells you he has just put a quality system in and he is putting up the price to pay for it.

If the car companies ever realised this they would drop all this QS and TS crap and concentrate on what is important.

Working with a few Automotive Suppliers I am always appalled at how much time is spent on the "Bureacracy" of QS/TS systems which robs resources from what we really want to do ... improvement....

You haven't lived until a supplier tells you he has just put a quality system in and he is putting up the price to pay for it.

If the car companies ever realised this they would drop all this QS and TS crap and concentrate on what is important.


If you believe Phil Crosby, "Quality is Free" if you do it right. I have long argued that if you implement a quality system well, it would not only not add to the cost, it would actally save cost. If you don't harvest savings form it, you should determine why. There are a few good consutants who can help you do that. It isn't supposed to increase the cost.

I have been charged with the task of developin a supplier rating program.

Looking at
PPM defective
On time deliverly
Fill Rates
Use of selectged carriers


Any suggestions?

One of the strategies I have used is to get the receiving inspector to keep a tally sheet.

Just a list of the suppliers with columns for "how many deliveries", "late deliveries", "faulty deliveries".

That way the report writes itself.

The fancy stuff like ppm faulty is all very well but if you have to sit there for hours adding up columns of figures forget it.

Think about, you have nothing at the moment - do something really simple to start with and then gradually refine the measurement.

These days I deal with more AS9100 certified suppliers than ISO 9001 certified suppliers. The AS guys seem to be a tad bit better, but I still have serious problems with many of both types of suppliers. Some of the stuff you couldn't make up, but it would make a good comedy show...

What do you mean by your use of the word "certified" ;ISO registered?, Or surveyed and product tested by your company, or possibly some other method of certification. I have worked in aerospace, military contractors, and automotive companies in quality positions. I have found that "certified" can mean many differing procedures and systems. Some do indeed work!
Bob Schiller